[Editor’s note: Although it will probably not be considered too bright to disagree with an individual whose IQ is upwards of 170, nevertheless it is necessary in light of her February 21st column in Parade Magazine. Following is an open letter to Marilyn Vos Savant.]
Very few notable public figures have taken a stand against homosexuality. The reason is not difficult to comprehend: it is now “socially incorrect” to do so. Still, I did not think you would be intimidated by the recent shift in thinking. Perhaps you have not been affected; you may have always held the view expressed in your recent column.
When a 17-year-old-male asked you whether or not to come out of the closet, your reply fell far short of your usually fine reasoning ability. Following is your reply and my response to it. I wish you would reconsider what you wrote, but my expectations are not very high.
Even if you could successfully keep your homosexuality a secret forever, I definitely think you should come out. For all of us, loving and accepting who we are is the first step on the road to happiness (8).
What is good advice for the homosexual should also apply to the adulterer. Perhaps Bill Clinton should not have tried to hide who he is. He might have had fewer problems (at least with lying) if he had said at his inauguration speech, “I’m going to sport and cavort with women in the Oval Office. I have to accept myself for who I am. Otherwise, I will not be able to be happy, and you wouldn’t want a miserable president.”
Someone might say that adultery is wrong and violates the agreement one has with his mate. True, but people admit to doing it anyway. Should they be true to themselves or hide what they are doing? The same Book condemns both adultery and homosexuality.
But then, say, that I am addicted to alcohol, and that is who I am. Perhaps I am a closet gambler or drug addict. Is the first step on the road to happiness to admit who I am?
Living among those who love and accept us is the second step. If anyone turns against you, it will only be a loss in number. The quality of your family and friends is far more important than the quantity of them! No matter how many people remain–and I predict their number will be larger than you think–they will become even dearer to you as a result.
This is disastrous logic! In effect, you have said, “Only the people who agree with you are worth anything. All the others are useless nonentities” (probably bigoted homophobes). Is this how you operate, Marilyn? Are the only intelligent, loving, caring people the ones who agree with you, and as for the rest, who needs them? Have you never considered that the one who rebukes you may be your best friend and that those who agree may be fawning sycophants or just plain indifferent to moral standards?
You have eliminated from the young lad’s acquaintances anyone who might believe, as the Bible teaches, that homosexuality is a sin–anyone who might encourage him to overcome the problem.
If you decide to come out, I’d suggest going to the family member who you believe loves you the most–usually Mom. Tell her the news with warmth and good spirit, and be sure not to act apologetic. That is, present yourself in the light in which you want others to see you….
Many mothers would respond by assuring this youngster that there is a way to overcome this sin. Love means doing what is best for others, not accepting them the way they think they are. If an adolescent came to you and said, “I’ve been hooked on crack cocaine,” would you try to see how many family members would accept that situation? If a child came to you and said, “I’m addicted to pornography,” would you smile, hug him, and say, “I understand, Ted.” In every other situation imaginable you would want young people to get help. Why is homosexuality different?
As you know, this won’t be easy, but I’m sure you’ll feel much better when you’re in a position to move into honest adulthood, free of the burden of the erroneous expectations and flawed ambitions of others.
Is it such a flawed ambition for a mother to desire that her child be free of immoral actions? Is it an erroneous expectation for her to desire that her child, created in the image of God, grow up to please Him?
But this line of thought brings us to the underlying postulates of your article. Your advice reflects the following attitudes, upon which your answer appears to be constructed. If any of the following points is inaccurate, please disavow them, explaining the reason they do not apply.
1. You believe that homosexuality is not a choice. If it is not, there are only two basic options: 1) One is a homosexual at birth; 2) One is made a homosexual through some kind of external influence. How does the fact that some homosexuals do change affect this tenet?
2. You reject the Bible as the inspired Word of God. This must be the case since the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin as early as Genesis 19:4-5 and as late as Jude 7 (with a number of references in between). The subject is never spoken of favorably in the Scriptures; the practice is always condemned (Rom. 1:18-32). Yet your answer to the young man never mentions these important facts. You told him to be what he is instead of overcoming the sin.
The above argument could be stated in syllogistic form, if need be. It would be greatly appreciated if you would respond to these two points or any of the other comments I made. There is certainly no desire to misrepresent you, but your answer fell far short of your usual brilliance; it was very disappointing.
On Sunday and Monday, May 2-3, NBC broadcast a brand new version of the Biblical story of Noah and the ark (which held the highest rating for the week). At the very outset the viewer is warned (appropriately): “For dramatic effect, we have taken dramatic license with some of the events of the mighty epic of Noah and the Flood.” Dramatic license is far too modest a phrase for what was done in this miniseries. The liberties taken with the Biblical account make Max Lucado look like an unimaginative literalist.
Ordinarily, dramatic license from the entertainment media might mean inventing an old lover who surfaces after Noah’s commission to build the ark and serves as a temptation, which he must overcome. But, no, nothing that simple was contrived. The powers that be decided to make Noah and Lot contemporaries. In fact, it is Noah (instead of Abraham) who warns Lot to leave Sodom. This is not dramatic license; it is historic inaccuracy–and by 300 years! Those who know the Bible could not help laughing outright when Lot tells his wife that the destruction of Sodom is beginning–“just as Noah warned us.”
Apparently, their purpose for taking this “dramatic license” was to have God destroy Sodom first as a warning to the world. When people do not heed the warning, God then decides upon the Flood. Why anyone should have heeded the warning, however, remains a mystery, since there was no preaching whatsoever. Although the New Testament refers to Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), he issues no warnings or pleads for the people to repent.
Those who produced this epic blunder either do not know the Scriptures or did not care. In the Bible the Flood came first, then the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone. That fiery termination serves as an example of “the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). In between those two events is the end of the world, which will also be by fire (2 Peter 3).
Stale Humor
Listed as the writer was Peter Barnes; hopefully, he used an alias. This script was really, really bad. Sometimes, a little humor serves as good counterpoint to a serious production, but in this case it is as though someone found and used an old Henny Youngman joke book.
God broaches the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by telling Noah, “I have some rather shocking news.” Later, when Noah protests that the size of the ark is enormous, God says, “I think big.” Lot tells Noah, when traveling without his wife: “I usually take her with me. That way I don’t have to kiss her good-bye.” Ba-da-bing. Ba-da-boom. Noah tells Lot that he and his wife always were two peeves in a pod.
Lot and his wife were constantly ragging on each other. He tells her: “The trouble with you is somebody once told you to be yourself.” She says: “Man you must have been love at first sight, because if I had taken a second look, I would have turned around and ran.” He responds: “I didn’t know what happiness was until I married you; now it’s too late. That’s the way it is.” She remarks that he came out of obscurity only to go into oblivion.
Perhaps the introduction should have included a warning about the jokes in this movie. It is as though the writer spent a month watching stand-up comedians on television or consulted high school sophomores for gags. None of this material is fresh; it may predate the Flood, and it permeates the entire miniseries. Shem’s fiance asks him if his people believe in free will; he shoots back, “We have to; we’ve got no choice.”
The three priests who attempt to sacrifice Ham’s fiance to the rain god bemoan how difficult it is to find a virgin. When God intervenes to save her life and lightning starts hitting all around, one priest looks up and say, “Ya, ha. You missed me.” The next time lightning strikes his mouth. Another priest is struck blind, and the third one cannot hear. The scene closes with all of them in pain, looking like the three monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
There are even two prolonged death scenes that were intended to get laughs. Lot stabs someone who says he has something he always wanted to tell Lot. “It’s…It’s…It’s–” and then he dies. Even Get Smart was funnier than this. In another death scene, the man who was stabbed makes a speech beginning with words to the effect that life has always been unfair to him.
Noah and his wife, Naamah (in case the reader has always wondered), try to list ten righteous people in Sodom, Noah’s home town. He can’t think of any men except Lot. He asks her for some women’s names. “Sure, there’s, uh, no, not her; well, there’s, uh….” And so it goes. Even God is given cheap one-liners: “I would have liked a second opinion, but who could I ask?”
Inaccuracies
There were so many of these that remarks concerning them must be brief.
1. Sodom is destroyed because of its violence. Not a mention or a condemnation is made of homosexuality (except for Noah’s reference to a man of the city who liked young women and another who liked young men).
2. When Noah wonders if Sodom will actually be destroyed, God asks him if he needs a sign. Lava begins to flow down the mountain, and God asks, “Is that sign enough?”
3. As already stated earlier, Noah and Lot are not contemporaries (except in this production); it was Abraham who bargained with God and the angels who warned Lot to flee the city.
4. When Lot and his wife depart from the city, they do not have two daughters with them; they are alone (with no indication of any left behind).
5. Sodom was destroyed just after sundown instead of early in the morning.
6. Lot’s wife wants to look at the destruction to see her snooty neighbors and their homes burn. When Lot refuses to allow it, she complains, “You never let me have any fun.” When she breaks loose and turns around, she becomes a pillar of salt. Lot thoughtfully removes her wedding ring and then takes a finger for a souvenir.
7. Ten years later Lot happens upon Noah building the ark. He believes in the power of God but just cannot live righteously.
8. Noah tells God that there is not enough time to finish the ark (the Bible allows for 120 years, Gen. 6:3). He goes to sleep muttering some numbers. The next morning the trees that Noah’s sons had cut have all been sized, planed, stacked, and numbered so that Noah can easily assemble them.
9. The pagans have a rain god, and they accuse Noah of having stopped the rain. The Bible says nothing about the phenomenon of rain on the earth prior to the Flood; there was a mist that went up from the ground (Gen. 2:6).
10. When time ran short again, God finished the ark for Noah and his sons.
11. When the rain begins to fall, it burns people (acid rain?). Noah and his family do not enter the ark until after it has rained nearly 40 days.
12. The three sons are not married to the young women until the voyage is completed (but it’s all right; God forbade procreation on the ark for man and beast). The three fiances are named Miriam, Ruth, and Esther.
13. The men bring the women to the ark in the rain. Ruth wants her mother to come with her (which she seems willing to do), but she is forbidden.
14. The sons close the door of the ark instead of God.
15. Observing the compatibility of the animals with each other, it is observed the fox shall lie down with the lamb. [Psst: It’s a lion, fellas, a lion.]
16. After the ark has been afloat several days, a pedlar comes by on a paddle-boat raft, and they do some trading. At this point one wonders if Delilah will drift alongside the ark with her paddle-boat beauty salon. But then, maybe no one would take this production seriously if such absurdities occurred.
17. LOT RETURNS LEADING A FLEET OF PIRATE SHIPS!! In their first assault on the ark the pirates actually board the ark, but Noah and his family valiantly hold their own, and when some of the animals take an interest in the controversy, the pirates retreat. They launch, however, fireballs which threaten to burn the ship. When Noah calls to the Lord for help, the Lord sends a tornado which creates a tsunami that capsizes the fleet and douses the deck of the ark. As Lot drowns, he is laughing maniacally.
18. Lot is not only living in the wrong century; he is mischaracterized tremendously. At their second meeting, Lot tells Noah: “I’d worship Him too if He wasn’t so strict on rules and regulations. Next time you talk to the Lord, thank Him for saving me, and tell Him I’m sorry I wasn’t worth saving.” His spiritual destruction is inconsistent with one whom the Bible describes as “righteous” (2 Peter 2:7).
19. Noah protests that mankind does not deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth no matter what they have done.
20. There is a rainbow prior to the flood (which nobody notices); afterward they all see one, but the significance of it is not mentioned.
21. Noah performs a marriage ceremony (as ship’s captain) for his three sons after the ark lands but before they exit.
22. The sons discuss mutiny, and one of them fights Noah. All eight of them see a collective mirage. All of them are likewise driven to madness.
23. God decides to destroy the eight survivors, also, but Noah amuses God by whistling; so He changes His mind and lets them live.
24. Today’s “animal rights” philosophy was included when one fiance says, “I wonder if the animals will still be our friends.” Another replies, “Yes, if we treat them as friends.” There is no mention of God putting the fear of man in animals (Gen. 9:2).
25. Noah is presented as having a drinking problem. He comments that it doesn’t affect his work. Later, he buys from the floating pedlar some antediluvian moonshine–for medicinal purposes.
This erroneous epic anticipated criticism of their Biblical faux pas’s. In one scene Noah wishes that someday they might meet a scribe who would chronicle for them the destruction of Sodom. His wife says, “Oh, you can’t trust them. Scribbling scribes have a very bad reputation. By the time they finish the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, they’ll probably say we weren’t even there.” [After the city is destroyed, she does her Cheech and Chong imitation, observing, “Up in smoke.”]
Theology
The reader will probably not be surprised to learn that the theology of those who produced this miniseries was also skewed. Early on, one of Noah’s young sons asks, “But if God created people, why did He create them so they broke his laws?” His mother replies, “Some questions don’t have answers, Ham.” The answer is free will. The alternative is being an automaton.
Noah questions God’s judgment: “Why, when you created us, you made us free to sin, was this some great mistake?” God answers: “I hoped you’d become a nation of prophets.” He then tells Noah that He will disappear for awhile to think things over, which carries anthropomorphism a little far.
Noah asks: “If mankind was so bad, Lord, why didn’t you populate the earth with angels?” God answers: “The trouble with angels is: though they can’t deteriorate, they can’t improve.” So what about mankind after the judgment? Will not the same be true of us?
Lot states a deterministic philosophy: “What a bright world this is, Noah, if we don’t lose our hearts to it, but everyone does.” Not everyone does–permanently.
The final speech reflects upon the omniscience of God and flatly contradicts the Scriptures. In a final moment before Noah leaves the ark, God speaks to him: “Perhaps I went too far. I’m one, eternal, perfect, but I can be wrong. Don’t ask me to explain, Noah. I saw humanity destroyed, and I know that is not the way. I need man as much as man needs Me. We fulfill each other. So there has to be a covenant between us, one with another.” Noah asks if He will refrain from smiting man again. God replies: “I will keep silent and not destroy. Mankind is more than capable of destroying itself, Noah. It doesn’t need any help from me.”
If God can be wrong, what else has He been wrong about: morality, perhaps? There is a difference between God’s choosing NOT to explain something and being UNABLE to do so. God never learned not to destroy mankind, for He will do it again–by fire (2 Peter 3). Although those involved in this miniseries may be unaware of it, God retained water for the Flood from the creation (the windows of heaven). He certainly never drew the conclusion that destruction was not the way. His judgments and punishments are just.
Although man is certainly egotistical enough to think God needs him (for entertainment purposes, such as whistling?), the Scriptures do not so declare. We would not exist without His creation and without His sustaining of us. With better theology, historical accuracy, and a less trite dialogue, Noah’s Ark might have been worth watching. One cannot even term it Biblical fiction, however; it is Biblical fantasy.
[Editor’s note: Following is the final exchange of an e-mail correspondence on the subject of abortion. Such discussions tend to wander all over the place. Usually I begin to number the points for easier reference. Thus the numbers and the comments following them in italics are mine. The respondent, who called himself Sevin, could not answer the arguments; so he decided to terminate the discussion by accusing me of misrepresenting him. Many of his replies are very weak. I am willing for the reader to decide who has the best case. Below we begin with his comments and responses to my previous e-mail, and then follow my final comments to him.]
SEVIN: In any event the continued blatant distortions on your part has made it necessary to discontinue this discussion with you, for it appears you are currently not able to consider any facts presented to you other than those that underscore your own perceptions…. Nonetheless I will extend you the courtesy of replying once again to the points you here seek further clarification on, as it relates to my previously stated convictions.
1. Define personhood. Why is it that you are not specific? When does the child become a person? If your answer is that you do not know, then you have no reason to argue the subject (since you have no case).
SEVIN: Since we agree that personhood is more than the aggregation of human tissue, allow this further addition: Personhood results from the divinity contribution to the conception of human life. It results in the production of the soul and is a product of the Spirit that thereby accomplishes and effects this extraordinary partnership between humankind and God. There is no evidence for concluding that bestowal of the soul begins at the time of human conception, other than the citing of the very extraordinary instance of the conception of the Son of God which Son had a prior [prehuman] origin.
2. We agree that, in your words, personhood and human cells are not the same thing. For that reason a child (person) should not be aborted. The child is not just cells. The child in the womb is a person. Proof? Read Luke 1:41, 44 and Luke 2:12, 16. GOD calls what is in the mother’s womb a person. He designates the child IN the womb by the same term as the child OUT of the womb. Now try to deal directly with this point.
SEVIN: As just stated: The instance of the conception of John by Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah, and the conception of Jehoishua [Jesus] through the action of the Holy Spirit that miraculously transferred His prehuman, preexisting eternal life from heaven into the womb of the woman. This was a special intervention which does not apply in the same manner to all other humans [1 John 1:1-3] who, while being the inheritors of life through their parents’ living egg and sperm, are not specially conceived or protected either during the time spent in the womb or afterward, as is (as you have acknowledged) evidenced in the case of human stillbirths and spontaneous abortions.
3. Medically, a child has its own heartbeat at the age of 12 weeks. The baby’s lungs are also working by that time; this person also has his own teeth, fingernails, toenails, and hair follicles. Bones are already growing. His lips are already sucking a thumb. Most abortions do not occur prior to this time. Why, for you, does this not constitute personhood?
SEVIN: You are reciting progressions of human development prior to birth. The differentiation of cells into varied organs, nervous system, brain etc., while being evidence of the development of the unborn, is not proof of personhood for personhood requires “ensoulment.” Reflexive actions [reflexes] in the womb [responses and movements] are evidences of the developing nervous system and brain but do not evidence personhood which requires personality differentiation resulting from the bestowal of the soul. No medical procedure can establish whether the growing pre-natal form becomes ensouled while in the womb or can determine when such may occur after the birth of the completely formed previously unborn human.
Nonetheless I state this with much reservation for to no degree am I–now or at any time prior–sanctioning the routine abortions given at abortion clinics and the abuses of that procedure and of its ready indiscriminate availability.
4. It is your inaccurate understanding regarding personhood that leads you to make statements such as the following from your previous e-mail: Sevin: “If then you believe that western laws are based upon biblical precepts why do you not then accept them, including Roe vs. Wade? Why are you so certain that God did not inspire that work so as to prevent childhood abuse?” You state that perhaps Roe v. Wade might have been inspired by God to prevent child abuse. You ARE saying that abortion prevents child abuse. You really should think about the implications of what you say.
SEVIN: My, my, how you exaggerate and misinterpret, for nowhere do I state that “abortion prevents child abuse.” For although I understand how you would reach such a conclusion as your way of defending your position–a position which I do not altogether disrespect. As I have mentioned before, it has been your labeling of all others who have availed themselves of abortions that has prompted my replies to you.
5. Malice. You continue to miss the distinction between premeditated versus malice and hatred. If the child in the womb is a person (which the Scriptures and medical knowledge confirm), then malice and fear as motivations are irrelevant. The doctor who does the abortion knows he is killing a human life. The mother may or may not know, depending on the information she has. But the child is just as dead, regardless. It IS murder because the child possesses personhood.
I gave you an example of your “no malice, no murder” fallacy. You answered that I would be breaking a law by killing someone with whom I disagreed. True. But let’s say that legislators adopt YOUR philosophy and choose not to call it murder if there is no malice. Since I am just trying to make society better, I kill you because you cannot discern between a toenail and a human being and are an obvious threat to society. It would still be wrong to do so whether or not our laws permitted it–even if I didn’t harbor any malice, because you are made in the image of God. So it is with abortion.
SEVIN: Is there no end to such skewed extrapolations on your part which would attempt to make it appear that I deem an unborn human to have no more value than a toenail, hair follicle, etc.? My original reply related to human cells–not to a fully formed human. Why do you persist in misrepresenting me?
6. You say that aborting a child the day before birth is stretching a point? Nevertheless, it is LEGAL until the time of birth. But answer this: When would it not be stretching the point? Two days earlier? Two months? When?
SEVIN: I agree, It is unfortunate and tragic that legal precedent and law do not make a distinction between the conceptus [recently conceived human cells] and its more fully developed state as is occurring and being completed during the third trimester. This is a matter of legal reticence and likely ineptness and confusion.
7. Miscarriages occur tragically, and this loss often makes a profound impression on the mother. She knows she has lost a child. It was not through anyone’s intent or premeditation that such occurs–any more than a stillborn child is–or a child already born meeting with an accident. This is not parallel to anything we are discussing.
SEVIN: Check again the context in which those tragic possibilities were mentioned. I will post the entire text again in its entirety if you wish.
8. I have not said that my definition was a legal one or a dictionary one. I said it is a Biblical definition. You have yet to show that Biblically it is false. Murder is taking the life of an innocent human being without the authority of God. Which part of the definition is false, and what Scripture proves the case?
SEVIN: In conclusion: Far be it from me to dissuade you from highly regarding any stage of the development and maturation of human life. I have repeatedly set forth my convictions in the matter while continuing to suggest you not play the judge or executioner of those you deem to have violated your interpretation of biblical precepts.
Therefore, Maintain YOUR respect for both the born and the unborn and you should do well and be an example for others less inclined to imitate.
This discussion has been helpful to me in many ways. Thanks for so engaging.
[Sevin 1/30/99 12: 46 AM].
[Below is my last message to Sevin. Since all the comments are mine, they will not appear in italics.]
In every paragraph (nearly), you accuse me of misrepresenting you. If you genuinely believe that to be so, then you should break off the discussion. However, one wonders if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of the same things. Even when I have pointed out your own words to you (documentation), you still accuse me of misrepresentation. This is hardly a proper way to have a discussion. So far as I am concerned, you may break off the discussion at any time, but I would like to point out that you have fallen short on evidence for your position. Calling me judgmental (your references to being judge and executioner, in case you have forgotten already) is nothing more than judgmentalism on your part.
I have not intentionally misrepresented you or any person; there is no need. To show you the implication of your position is not misrepresentation. Certainly, you do not hold some of the positions I have set forth, but what you say results in some of the things I have pointed out. Calling them misrepresentations does not deal with the argument or defend your ideas.
1. When does a child become a person? Although you said a lot, you never specified WHEN. Here is your reply: “Personhood results from the divinity contribution to the conception of human life. It results in the production of the soul and is a product of the Spirit that thereby accomplishes and effects this extraordinary partnership between humankind and God.” Your definition is fine as far as it goes, but it never states WHEN God does His part. You say there is no evidence for it at conception. You could be right (although this seems like the logical time to me). But if you are right, then are you not obligated to specify WHEN the correct time is?
2. It is true that Jesus was preexistent as Deity (John 1:1-3), but John was not, and it is John who is called by the same Greek word IN the womb as Jesus was OUT of the womb. You did not answer this question, either. (Please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting you or your answer. Anyone reading this exchange will know you have not answered sufficiently questions #1 or #2).
3. Personhood requires “ensoulment.” No argument, but again, WHEN does ensoulment occur?
4. To accuse me of exaggeration will not do. You wrote: “Perhaps Roe v. Wade might have been inspired by God to prevent child abuse.” If this statement does not mean that legalized abortion (the upshot of Roe v. Wade) prevents child abuse (the later possibility of being abused once an unwanted child is born), then what did you mean?
5. Your answer to number five was not germane to the point being made.
7. Once again, you did not respond to the point being made. What happens through nature is not comparable to human beings making a conscious decision to terminate an innocent human life.
8. Once again, you did not address or prove wrong the definition. All you need to do is cite one Scripture or one Bible example. You have not done so because you cannot do so. If you can do so, I will gladly rethink the definition I have been using.
[Our communication regarding these issues terminated at this point. It is instructive to observe how Sevin dodges the questions. For example, though I clearly asked him WHEN a child becomes a person, he never answered. He rambled on and on about HOW “ensoulment” occurs, but never came close to specifying WHEN. He was certain that the WHEN was not at conception, but could not name any other time.
His answer regarding Jesus and John as being special interventions still does not answer the question. There still came a point in time when, regardless of God intervening, that Jesus and John were conceived. Were they persons at that point? If so, then why would it be different for any other human being? If not, then WHEN did they attain “personhood”?
Sevin could not deal with the implications of his own statements. He said earlier in the discussion that malice and hatred were necessary for abortion to be murder. This philosophy would allow someone to kill others for the good of society, so long as hatred and malice were absent. He refused to touch the Biblical definition of murder. The reason debates are so valuable is that they allow the discerning person to notice these things.]
On Monday evening, April 19th, ABC aired a social drama, which they titled Swing Vote. Ostensibly, it was a fictional story about a new Supreme Court Justice who would cast the deciding vote in a case involving a highly controversial state abortion law. Arguments on both sides of the issue were fairly presented. In fact, the second hour of the program was highly favorable to the pro-life cause, as demonstrated by three events.
First, a friend of the newly-appointed Justice (who eventually read the court’s decision) reminded him that the unborn child has all of its systems in place and its own heartbeat by the end of the first trimester. The times in which this information has been publicly acknowledged in the news or entertainment media have been few. Usually such details have been omitted so that pregnant women may avoid thinking that they are destroying human beings.
Second, the Justice talks with a woman who had had an abortion and admits that she did so simply because the baby would have been an inconvenience. She fully acknowledged that she could have afforded the child and taken care of it, but she preferred not to have a child by a man whom she did not love. She felt no guilt over her decision, and she pleaded for women to continue to have that freedom. Frankly, she came across as a very selfish person; the viewer was not compelled to be sympathetic toward her or the “pro-choice” cause.
Third, the Justice and his wife several years earlier had adopted their daughter from a woman who was going to have an abortion, but they offered to pay her expenses and adopt the baby if she continued with the pregnancy. Before the Supreme Court’s decision was announced, she came to visit their home, see her daughter, and convince the Justice to vote pro-life. She admitted that her previous favorable attitude toward abortion was wrong and realized it would have grieved her greatly now had she succumbed to the temptation to destroy her daughter in the womb. She made a powerful, eloquent, and emotional case against abortion.
All of these portions of the movie were a pleasant surprise to those who have been opposing abortion for 26 years. To have some of the best arguments presented in such effective fashion was greatly appreciated. No argument based on what the Bible teaches was presented, but that omission was not unexpected.
As much appreciation as we feel for the movie’s strengths, it displayed some severe weaknesses, also. No doubt, the producers thought that the court’s decision was eminently fair, and it did offer a compromise that would be better than what we have now. But the decision was fraught with hopeless contradictions.
The Justice began by saying that there were two fundamental rights that clashed with each other. He said correctly that the fetus was a human being and that there could be no doubt whatsoever of that fact. But he also argued that women must have the right to control their own bodies. The fact is, they do have that right. They become pregnant (except in rare instances of rape), when they do not control their own bodies. Getting an abortion is the unfortunate attempt to undo the consequences of the mother’s lack of self-control.
The Supreme Court contrived this fundamental “right” in Roe v. Wade. It never existed before in the Constitution–nor in the minds of those who framed it. Neither was there any precedent upon which such an outrageous notion could be based. If the fetus is a human life, then that child’s life must take precedence over the capricious whims of a woman without natural affection. Yet such was not the decision of the court.
Having determined that the fetus is a human life, the Justices then paradoxically decided to allow abortion to occur up through 20 weeks of development. They further added that no state could pass a law enabling the mother to be charged with murder. How curious! Here is an innocent human life, but if the mother kills it, it is not murder. Who can believe it? In essence, this decision says: “There are some human lives that are not valuable enough to protect.”
Might not such reasoning lead, say, high school boys, to likewise decide that, even though their fellow students are human beings, their lives can be taken from them because they were annoying and a source of consternation to them? If the sanctity of human life does not take precedence over all else, and if those who take innocent human lives are not punished (and swiftly), then society can only expect violence and murder to continue.
Another contradiction lies in the fact that some states have laws to protect expectant mothers; it may even be a felony for someone else to initiate any action that would result in the mother losing the child. How ironic! A total stranger could be convicted of murder when, if the mother did the same thing, it would not be a crime at all.
What the Feminists Will Howl About
In the midst of this confusion, however, there was some encouragement for the pro-life cause. This fictional court ruled that all women seeking abortion would have to wait 72 hours and undergo counseling about the facts concerning their “fetuses.” If such were actually law, the number of abortions would greatly diminish. It is no secret that many abortion clinics deny that information to young women; it would be bad for business. The fewer abortions, the less money for the providers of this “service.” They are not in the business because they are kindhearted people. They will not permit this economic loss.
One final issue involves all of the “unwanted children” that nobody cares about. In this story they kept referring to all of the unloved children in the world that there already are and how irresponsible it would be to bring more of them into the world to be abused and shuffled into foster care. They did not present this issue correctly.
Couples must currently wait one or two years to adopt a baby. For proof, one need only ask anyone who has gone through the process. There are waiting lists.
“Then why are there so many children’s homes?” some thoughtful person might ask. For a number of years now, most of the homes which churches of Christ support have not been receiving infants. In most cases, the children are not even orphans; they have been abandoned by parents who could have aborted them (since it is legal) but did not. Many of these youngsters are the product of a divorce or abuse.
Theoretically, abortion is supposed to eliminate the problem of child abuse since all of the unwanted (and therefore unloved) children will have been dispatched, but in reality child abuse has only increased during the 26 years of legalized abortion. Whoever wrote the script for Swing Vote neglected to do adequate research on this issue. Perhaps the brutality of abortion has contributed to child abuse instead of alleviating it.
Besides, what kind of logic is it to say, “This person may not have much of a chance in life; let’s kill him now so he won’t have to suffer later”? Are we not playing God when we decide who may live or die?” It would make more sense for courts to remove children from abusive situations, but they frequently do not act in the best interests of the child.
Last August’s Reader’s Digest told of the woman who suffocated all of her children and attributed their deaths to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome; in fact, she became the poster girl. Her fifth child was carefully monitored, but eventually the mother insisted on taking him home. An astute nurse told her supervisor that the child would be dead by morning. She did not prove to be a false prophet (204). Yet still nothing was done.
On a rerun of Law and Order a foster daughter was missing for 30 hours before the woman in charge of her realized it. Later, testimony was given in which it was stated that this unsupervised girl had received better care than most foster children, which is frightening.
There are mothers living out of wedlock with their boyfriends, doing drugs, and neglecting the care of their children yet nobody does anything about it–least of all the courts, who apply racketeering laws to pro-life demonstrators. “What’s wrong with this picture?”
Swing Vote ended with seven of the Justices in final agreement. Only the staunch pro-life and the adamant pro-choice Justices failed to agree with the decision. The movie closed with a fade-out of the pro-life Justice droning on and on with the minority opinion (as if what he had to say was unimportant and irrelevant). The program was interesting, but scarcely decisive. It is unlikely that either side will accept the compromise.
Think of your mind as a neat and tidy room. Thoughts are stored on the appropriate shelves. One section consists of the good deeds you have developed the habit of performing. It includes sending a card or note to someone who needs encouragement, perhaps fixing a few things that have broken down in an elderly neighbor’s house, or visiting someone who is unable to leave home very often.
Other thoughts include fond remembrances of those who have set good examples for you and inspired you to be better and to do more than you might otherwise have done. Even though they were busy taking care of their own concerns, they were never too busy to take time for you.
Then there are the spiritual thoughts and information that take up quite a bit of space. Perhaps they began when you realized that God did not create us and bestow upon us the gift of life without giving us any responsibilities in return. Asking what He expects of us prompted a lifelong search of the Scriptures to learn as fully as possible the truths that everyone needs to know.
The family shelf in one’s mind takes up a lot of room–from childhood to adulthood and beyond. Who can forget so many memorable occurrences? There is also a shelf involving work-related experiences–everything from training to apprenticeship to being a full-fledged member and a vital part of the work force. Education also requires a large portion of space; you spent years learning to master the secular knowledge that you now possess.
So here is the neat and tidy room “with a place for everything and everything in its place.” Think of sin as that which destroys the neatness. When sinful thoughts are allowed to come in and take up residence, they violate the orderliness of the mind. Safe thoughts are pulled out and strewn all over the floor, and fond memories become buried under corrupt ideas.
An attractive woman engages in some light flirtation. Of course you resist, but then Satan whispers, “Sure, you’re married, but….”
Through a strange twist of events you discover that you could “appropriate” some vulnerable money. Temporarily, it is unprotected–there just for the taking. Satan suggests, “Sure, you are wealthy enough, but….”
Your gifts and abilities are well-known; you are secure in your reputation, but an opportunity throws itself at you which would enhance your fame. Unfortunately, it involves taking credit for something you did not do. Satan argues, “Sure, everybody knows how good you are, but….”
These are the kinds of thoughts that, if they are allowed to stay in your mind, will clutter it with garbage. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are not of the Father but are of the world (1 John 2:16). In order to partake of these things, the Christian must suppress his knowledge of God and spiritual matters. He must be willing to sacrifice his honor, his integrity, his dignity–perhaps his very salvation, depending on how dominated by evil thoughts he allows his mind to become.
What To Do About Evil Thoughts
1. Recognize them for what they are. If they lead to something that is immoral or violates the Scriptures, then they spring from Satan and not from God. If your conscience throws up any kind of red flag whatsoever, pay attention. Evil thoughts do not come from God. Unfortunately, some have attributed their wicked schemes to God. When they unscripturally divorce and remarry, they say, “I think God wants me to be happy.” If they were honest, they would admit that they do not really care what God thinks–any more than the children of Israel did when they insisted upon having a king. Their mind was made up; Samuel’s attempt to reason with them proved futile (1 Samuel 8).
Others mistakenly think that they should do evil that good may come. If the town bully were killed, the quality of life would improve for everyone. When he mysteriously dies, no one seriously investigates the crime. Or perhaps someone thinks that if an abortion doctor were killed, the lives of many babies would be saved (as if someone else would be unwilling to step in and kill the lives of innocent human beings for money.
2. Realize the outcome of getting what you think you want. How will you feel a few hours after stealing another man’s wife? Have you imagined the guilt you might feel? Have you considered the shame? Remember the pathetic sight of the televangelists we have seen on television, weeping publicly about their sins (whether genuine or feigned)? Have you considered how to explain your actions to your wife and your children, to your parents, to your brothers and sisters–or to Jesus, who shed His blood to redeem you from such wickedness? Amnon kept imagining what it would be like to have Tamar his sister, but afterward he hated her. Perhaps it was self-loathing that directed itself at her, or maybe the reality could not match the fantasy. In either case, he was not prepared for his response to his evil deed.
Did Judas envision the possible consequences of his betrayal of Jesus? Some have suggested that he did not think they would really crucify Jesus or that Jesus would refuse to use His powers to stop them. For whatever reason Judas was remorseful (Matt. 27:3-4), but it was too late. He could not undo the chain of events he helped set in motion. Suddenly the thirty pieces of silver held no value to him; he threw them down in the temple and departed (Matt. 27:5). Isn’t it amazing how, sometimes too late, we realize the truth of 1 John 2:15-17–that fleshly things have no real value in the face of spiritual realities, such as standing before the throne of God on the day of judgment?
3. Restrain them. Treat them as little children that need to be disciplined. Eli made the mistake of not keeping his children in line. God told Samuel concerning him: “For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them” (1 Sam. 3:13). How sad it would be to have it said of us: “Satan made his thoughts vile, and he did not restrain them.”
Ungodly thoughts of lust and pride must be cast out. Nebuchadnezzar should have restrained those thoughts that made him puffed up in his own eyes: “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?” He could have saved himself seven years of a vegetarian diet if he had only repressed those thoughts by realizing that God was the one Who had blessed him. Jesus warned everyone about the evil thoughts that come out of the heart (Matt. 15:18-20). They must be eliminated. Paul mentioned “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
4. Replace evil thoughts with those that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy. Demas did not develop a love of this present world while listening to Paul preach. There had to be a point in time when he began to covet material things. Ahab could not get the lush vineyard of Naboth (along with its convenient location) out of his mind (did he try?).
Amnon should have immediately dismissed the thoughts regarding his sister as inappropriate; David should have done the same concerning Bathsheba. This otherwise godly king could have replaced thoughts of her by spending the evening with one of his other wives. There is always a way to find deliverance from temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), but the inclination to avoid it is a prerequisite.
Someone might protest, “But thoughts are much more difficult to control than actions.” No one would argue with such an observation; in fact, for that reason it is in the mind that these battles need to be fought and won. Jesus went beyond the action of adultery to the problem of lusting in the heart (Matt. 5:27-28). Similarly, he went beyond murder to its origin–hatred (Matt. 5:21-22). Jesus both practiced and required of His followers mental discipline.
Remember that little room we started out with? What kind of shape is it in? Are lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and pride cluttering it up? Is it getting hard to walk through it without tripping over something? It’s probably time to recognize what the problem areas are, realize the tragic results of not keeping the room clean, restrain the evil thoughts that creep in uninvited, and replace them with those that will keep us pleasing to our God, our Maker, our Savior, and our Judge.
The word prude needs to be redefined; the standard definition has apparently been changed. When The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1970, prude meant: “A person, especially a woman, who is over-concerned with being or seeming to be proper, modest, or righteous” (1054). The English word comes from a French word, meaning “virtuous woman,” which implies that at one time during the history of France there must have been one.
But now prude has come to mean anyone that will stop somewhere short of nudity. This fact may be deduced from Dear Abby’s April 4th column which appeared on Easter Sunday. Members of the Lord’s church (at least, those who respect the authority of the Scriptures) do not treat this Lord’s day differently from any other first day of the week. But the “religious” world does; so why did she run a column promoting nudity on a day when most people are thinking about the resurrection of Christ? Perhaps she just wanted to balance loftiness with seediness. But after accusing the Bible and the Holy Spirit, as well as Christians who trust in them, of belonging to the Dark Ages for not agreeing with her that homosexuality is by birth rather than by choice, what can be expected?
A woman writes to Abby expressing doubts about going to a nude beach in France (where else?) when she and her husband are on vacation. Her concern, however, does not involve nudity. She writes: “I have been on nude beaches before, and I’m certainly no prude, but I’m very uncomfortable about being seen in public with my ‘deformity’.” (She has had a mastectomy.)
The implication is obvious: a prude is someone who thinks a person ought to wear some clothes in public. A person who thinks that wearing some clothes is necessary (no matter how skimpy, how little is left to the imagination, or how “see-through” they might be) is a prude. The only way one cannot be called names is to be willing to appear naked on French beaches.
If such is the new definition, Christians should feel good about being called prudes; perhaps we should fire this slogan back at critics: BETTER PRUDE THAN CRUDE. [Crude means “an unrefined or natural state; raw” (318); so this word would be correctly applied.]
One might wonder how Abby would respond to such a bizarre question. Would she say something sensible, such as, “You shouldn’t go to a nude beach, but it has nothing to do with your appearance; it has to do with common decency”? No, that would be too narrow-minded for someone of Abby’s worldly intellect.
Instead, she responded:
As you know, you see everything on the nude beaches in Europe–old, young, fat, thin, and everything in between. This includes people who have various surgeries, scars and all, so please don’t be concerned about being viewed as a curiosity.
How broad-minded (no pun intended)! How utterly non-prudish. The world of non-judgmentalism affords so much freedom and sophistication. “After we look at bridal gowns, ma belle amie, why don’t we go over to the nude beach? We’ll just leave our morality behind.”
The Conscience and Shame
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). There was a reason the first couple was not afraid to be seen in public naked. So far as we know, there was no public. They also had not yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, they were innocent people in a pure world. After they ate of the tree, however, things changed. They were still married, and there was still no public (unless some of their children had been born, although they are not mentioned until later).
“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Gen. 3:7). Apparently, none of that fruit thrives today near the Riviera. Now if there were not as yet any children, for what purpose did they cover themselves? There was no shame in seeing one another, and God sees and knows everything (were they at this point deficient in that knowledge?). Or does possessing a knowledge of good and evil simply cause one to become instinctively modest?
Babies newly arrived into this world love the freedom that nakedness provides. They are not lewd; they just dislike clothes. This lack of modesty continues for several years (much to the chagrin of many parents). But as little ones begin to mature, there comes a point when they would be absolutely horrified for anyone to see their private areas. They have developed a sense of shame.
Of course, if they are taught that it is all right to remove most of their clothing in order to go “swimming,” they will probably not be embarrassed because this form of disrobing in public is “acceptable.” European children, who might otherwise be embarrassed at nude beaches, may have few problems since the nudity is confined to the beach and everyone is doing it. The conscience will respond to the way it is trained.
Most Americans have been taught that nudity is wrong, but the conscience can become seared, as with a hot iron. We have become desensitized over the years with immodest dress and swimsuits that have shrunk in size (and not due to the water either, since some of them seldom get wet).
Movies and television have led the way, sporting heroes barely clad and heroines in alluring outfits. Slowly but surely, people’s sense of shame has crumbled. What would have shocked audiences thirty years ago is now considered pretty tame stuff. Naturally, many desire to imitate the fashion ideas on the screen and display themselves publicly. Decency has continued to prevail, but for how much longer? We already have nudist camps; will there soon be special nudity zones?
Shakespeare in Love
Last year’s Academy Award went to Titanic. The distressing thing about that movie was the nudity of the heroine. The actress who portrayed her allowed the camera to be quite friendly to her naked breasts. This year’s “best picture,” Shakespeare in Love, contains even more nudity than last year’s winner. According to the review that one can read on the Internet at , under the sex/nudity category, the following actions occur:
Will and Viola slowly undress each other (he slowly unwraps the material that was flattering her breasts). Then they kiss and we see her bare breasts (while her nurse fans herself outside the door in embarrassment).
Viola’s “attributes” are seen several more times, and the movie does not spare strong implications of continued activity on the part of the two lovers. At the rate things are going, one wonders how long it will be until X and Triple-X movies are nominated for prestigious awards. Perhaps there should even be a new category for “Most Tastefully-Done Seduction Scene.”
That these movies are made is indicative of what Hollywood producers think people want to see; even more disturbing is that they are right–society has become so jaded that it will tolerate maximum profanity and abundant nudity on the screen. The review of 8MM would take an entire page of this bulletin and is too sordid to print. It carries only an R-rating.
No one needs to be re-created in these ways. Recreation means “refreshment of one’s mind and body after labor through diverting activity” (1090). The verb form means “to impart fresh life to; refresh mentally or physically” (1090). When one is made to feel dirty and sullied, such is not refreshing. Christians would do better to play harmless card or board games, enjoy various word puzzles, or re-introduce themselves to the joys of reading. If all else fails, the lost art of conversation could be restored. Certainly, we do not need to be “entertained” in such dismal fashion.
To be modest means “having a regard for decencies of behavior and dress” (843). Nude beaches and R-rated movies violate this concept. Furthermore, they are a corrupting influence on all of society. When such things are no longer a matter of concern and outrage, we have become too sophisticated. The very least Christians can do is to abstain from these fleshly lusts because they war against our souls (1 Peter 2:11). If Christians are called prudes, it can only be because the word has been redefined. We do not wear overly-modest clothing, as women are required to do in some Muslim countries. But we ought to adhere to modesty in our personal apparel (which cannot include excessive skimpiness or outright nudity) and in our entertainment.
No mortal preacher could possibly know what each individual person in the congregation (as well as anyone visiting) needs to hear on any given week. Even if he did, it would be difficult to cover every subject adequately in one sermon. In practical terms, this problem suggests that some may have a positive reaction to one particular sermon or class, while others will be unimpressed by the material presented on any certain day.
In addition to content, there is the overall tenor of the message. Some may have needed to be rebuked because of a certain sin committed out of ignorance, forgetfulness, or weakness. Others may have been worn down by the world and in need of being uplifted and encouraged. Of course, congregations that offer entertainment in place of the Scriptures help no one. For serious problems there is no instruction or spiritual meat. For those needing encouragement, they receive nothing more than temporary comic relief, which they could have obtained from any entertainment medium.
So while one particular sermon may not be exactly what a person wanted on a given day, on the whole each member’s needs should be met–if the whole counsel of God is preached (Acts 20:27). In the course of His ministry Jesus covered such topics as acceptable worship (Mat. 15:1-9; John 4:21-24), faith (Mat. 6:19-34), genuine happiness (Mat. 5:3-10), Christian influence (Mat. 5:13-16), true piety (Mat. 6:1-18), morality (Mat. 5:21-32), the worth of the individual (Luke 19:1-10; 7:36-48), a warning about false teachers (Mat. 7:15-20), the narrow way (Mat. 7:13-14), the “golden rule” (Mat. 7:12), and obedience (Mat. 7:21-27).
So while one individual cannot hope to cover in one worship assembly what everyone present specifically needs, God knew what all people need, and He put all the relevant information in His holy Scriptures. For that reason two things are necessary. First, all members should avail themselves of every opportunity for worship and study. Many preachers have related the experience of having just preached on a certain subject only to have a member (who was absent) request information that had already been given. Many preachers spread out the wide range of material to cover Sunday mornings, Sunday nights, and Wednesday nights. But some are going to miss certain crucial elements of the whole counsel of God because they came on Sunday morning only or very sporadically.
A few weeks ago a family visited here, and they were called upon on a Tuesday evening. In a brief conversation at the door, they were encouraged to come the following evening to Bible study. The reply was, “We don’t do Wednesday evenings.” Apparently, the arrogance of such a remark escaped the person who said it. Such a remark is the equivalent of saying the following:
“I only need to learn so much; I can get by on a little and do without the rest.”
“My spiritual appetite is limited; my worldly appetite is large. My time must be spent on worldly concerns.”
“A modicum of Bible study is all I need” (due either to a limited capacity, super spirituality, or great indifference).
“Too much exposure to the Bible might prove harmful; I wouldn’t want to become a fanatic.”
Such an attitude certainly does not reflect the following Scriptures:
“I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12).
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).
“As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2).
“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12).
“And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Mat. 5:6).
“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
“But grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. . .” (2 Peter 3:18).
“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. . .” (Hosea 4:6).
“Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps. 119:11).
“But his delight is in the law of the Lord; in his law he meditates day and night” (Ps. 1:2).
These and many other verses emphasize the importance of learning the Scriptures. Having a passing acquaintance with them will not suffice on the day of judgment (John 12:48)–if we have neglected the opportunity to know more, do more, and be better Christians than what we are now.
The second thing that is necessary (besides attending worship opportunities with the local congregation) is one’s own personal study and meditation. One cannot grow when all spiritual thoughts are dismissed for the remainder of the week at noon on the first day. No one can grow to be spiritually strong while fasting religiously six and one-half days out of the week.
Having a personal vault filled with knowledge of the Scriptures has great value. It will cause a person to listen carefully and make applications to his life–whether or not a particular subject is covered. Frequently, when one is reading the Scriptures privately, ideas come forth related to daily problems or even major decisions. The same thing can happen when someone is preaching. The subject of that hour may be unrelated to a need that someone has, but to the Bible-based Christian, a thought that is relevant to another subject suddenly springs to mind. In other words, the better the store of internal knowledge, the easier it is to find principles that relate to other matters.
In this way many brethren are helped by sermons that are only obliquely related to a concern or need they have at that moment. The more maturity a Christian develops, the more applications he can make from a lesson being delivered. This benefit, of course, does not negate the need for a preacher to be well-balanced, setting forth the whole counsel of God, or speaking as the oracles of God, but it will aid the hearer until such time as his topic of concern is addressed directly.
Visitors who are unfamiliar with the Bible may have more difficulty making appropriate applications. There are two things they can do to help themselves. First, they should not restrict themselves to one sermon a week as their total amount of instruction. If they have sensed a need to improve their relationship with God, they should commit themselves to attending classes and both worship assemblies on Sunday. With much more exposure to the Word of God, there is a greater likelihood that they will find answers–especially if they begin reading on their own at the same time.
A second option is to request a study on a particular topic. It may become the subject of next Sunday’s message, be worked into a class discussion, or find its way into a bulletin article. Failing those avenues, there is always the opportunity for a private discussion with a member of the congregation who can answer questions through a study of the Scriptures.
God’s great wisdom shines through the holy Book; in the nearly score of centuries that have elapsed since the Bible was completed, there has not arisen any issue to which the Bible does not speak–whether moral or doctrinal. Every false doctrine that has burst forth from Satan’s imagination has been immediately opposed by and exposed from the Scriptures themselves. Moral dilemmas have occurred that no man could possibly have envisioned 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 2,000 years back. Yet Biblical principles can always be brought to bear as each new issue presents itself.
The fact is that there is every advantage in studying and knowing the contents of the precious and Divine Word of God; there is every disadvantage in the alternative.
“Jasper Killer Becoming Extremists’ Hero,” reads a March 7th title of an article on page 45A of The Dallas Morning News. “Surely, these words must be a misprint,” one thinks, but the subtitle continues the journey into the “Twilight Zone”: “Adulation Includes Racist Threat to DA, Growing Online Praise.” Is this a joke? If it is, it is in poor taste. But the article confirms that “the Jasper man condemned for dragging a black man to death is a new racial hero” and that there is a daily stream of letters and phone calls “lauding the 24-year-old laborer’s racism and his brutal crime” (45A). Can people be so full of hatred that they have lost all sense of right, wrong, and justice?
Even the District Attorney, Guy James Gray, who prosecuted the case has received several death threats from racists. The idea that the murderer “has become a hero to a lot of people that think like he does” (51A) is very disturbing. The word hero is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as: “2. Any man noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose; especially one who has risked or sacrificed his life… 3. A person prominent in some event, field, period, or cause by reason of his special achievements or contributions” (618). The convicted murderer, John William King, does not fit that category.
For three men to gang up on any other human being and drag him to his death is not heroic; the word that best describes such actions is cowardice. What feat of courage is displayed when the odds are three to one? What risk did the three killers take? What special, noble achievements did they accomplish? They killed a man.
This nation must have a desperate lack of positive role models when lawless and destructive bigots are erroneously awarded “hero” status.
Prosecutors argued during Mr. King’s trial that he led the two other men in attacking Mr. Byrd because he was starting his own hate group in Jasper and needed a high profile “message” crime to gain attention.
In the eight-day trial, prosecutors introduced more than a dozen documents in which Mr. King portrayed himself as a radical warrior leader. He wrote that his new group, the Confederate Knights of America Texas Rebel Soldiers’ Division, was a secretive band of racist fighters committed to a coming racial war with blacks and Jews.
His writings voiced reverence for Naziism and Adolf Hitler and a desire to emulate some of the nation’s most violent extremists, including members of the Order (51A).
All of this seems impossible. What warrants such hatred? What did the black race or Jews ever do to Mr. King? What did the victim ever do to him? Suppose a black person beats up a white person. Is that a reason to hate the whole race? Have whites never beaten up other whites? Should a mistreated white hate the whole white race because of the actions of one mean person? It would be as logical as hating the black race after being assaulted by a mean black person. Meanness and hatred know no color. Indian tribes brutalized one another for centuries before white men entered into the mix. Orientals fought one another (and still do) long before race entered the picture.
Those caught up in racial hatred just need an object to hate. If this country consisted of only white people, they would not be happy for a moment. Perhaps then they would hate women, or the rich, or French-speaking Canadians. In other words, they would hate on some other basis than race: gender, economic standard, religious preference, or nationality. “Yeah, they’re white, but they don’t speak the right language.”
But before lashing out at those with these other various differences, there would first need to be a purge among whites. This mentality was suggested in the song, “Your Friendly, Liberal Neighborhood Ku Klux Klan,” recorded by the Mitchell Trio back in the 60s. In order to improve their image (in the song) the klan hired a lawyer and a public relations man. They eventually hung them, however, because “they did have quite a tan.” One wonders how white is white enough to meet the standards of these hate-mongers!
Hatred does not accomplish anything noble or productive. How is the world a better place because of racism? One can be proud of his race, his country, or his language without being required to hate anyone not identical. America is a blend of peoples from all over the world, and the mixing of various cultures enriches everyone. Why do some deem it necessary to find a category of people to hate?
What if Mr. King had killed Michael Jordan instead of an unknown man in a small town? Would he still be regarded as a hero by the racists? Every individual has value and is created in the image of God. “And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of all the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their habitations” (Acts 17:26). All races exist with God’s approval and blessing. Racists, in reality, are unhappy with God and the way He has done things.
If we must hate, let us at least hate something worthwhile. Let us hate sin (such as the killing of an innocent man) and the misery that it causes in people’s lives. Why not fight against alcohol which leads to the deaths of innocent travelers on the nation’s streets and highways? Why not hate pornography, which has spawned rape and violence against women, which can destroy families and homes? Are there not enough genuine evils in the world that people are compelled to manufacture reasons for hatred?
With all the time and energy directed at hating those of other races, think of the manpower that could be exercised in catching criminals. Civilians could patrol streets and areas of the city and watch for thieves and drug dealers, or they could watch for anything suspicious and notify the police. There must be hundreds of things to do that would promote the public, as well as the private, welfare. Someone could be a real hero.
Condemning Racism
Christians have no problem understanding that racism is wrong. Jesus died for all men–not just one race. Peter realized this fact when he was sent to the Gentiles to preach the gospel. He said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). Jesus invited all to come to Him. “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Notice that He did not say, “Come to Me if you’re white or a close approximation thereof.” Again, He commanded His apostles: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).
In addition to the fact that the gospel is universal is the important emphasis upon love in the New Testament. All who aspire to be Christians recognize that they must “love the Lord” their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their mind (Matt. 22:37-38). But there is a second commandment similar to it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). No one should try to quibble by asking: “And who is my neighbor?” The lawyer who asked Jesus that question did not fare too well (Luke 10:29-37).
Not only is loving one’s neighbor commanded, but of equal vehemence is its opposite: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). Those filled with hatred for their fellow human beings need to get over it in a hurry; experiencing the perfect and Divine wrath of God (which is what all will face who do not have eternal life abiding in them) will not have been worth their rejection of God’s teaching on love.
Christians, however, are not the only ones who condemn racism–so frequently do humanists and atheists, which presents a problem. Though they know that racism is wrong, they have no ground upon which to condemn it. Antony Flew struggled with this point in his 1976 debate with brother Thomas B. Warren here in Denton. Atheists reject the concept of absolutes, which means there is no objective right and wrong. Since they at times attempt to justify adultery, fornication, stealing, and even murder (especially concerning abortion and euthanasia), that must mean that even racism can be justified (at times). If not, why not?
Morals are just values, according to humanists, that human beings place on things at certain times in certain cultures. Sure, right now the vast majority of people think that racism is wrong. But thirty years ago, the vast majority thought that abortion was wrong. So how do we know that our culture will not one day accept racism as normal? Germany once accepted it.
Actually, we are already seeing the beginning of a crisis regarding this matter (besides the fact that racists are “screaming from their electronic rooftops about their new white hero,” 51A). People are already becoming loathe to “judge” racists because, if there is anything more politically incorrect than being a racist, it would be judging that someone else’s actions (even a racist’s) are wrong.
In the book, The New Tolerance, by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, they quote from an article written by John Leo, which appeared in The Washington Times and was also quoted in the February, 1998 Reader’s Digest:
In 30 years of college teaching, Prof. Robert Simon has never met a student who denied the Holocaust happened. What he sees increasingly, though, is worse: students who acknowledge the fact of the Holocaust but can’t bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong.
Simon, who teaches philosophy at Hamilton College, says that 10 to 20 percent of his students are reluctant to make moral judgments–in some cases, even about the Holocaust. While these students may deplore what the Nazis did, their disapproval is expressed as a matter of taste or personal preference, not moral judgment. “Of course I dislike the Nazis,” one student told him, “but who is to say they are morally wrong?” (25, RD 75).
Such is the inevitable result of rejecting the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God and denying the existence of objective truth. Being “judgmental” is worse than prejudice or any other moral evil. Tolerance is the one absolute that is permitted. Apparently, no one has yet observed that such broad-mindedness is closely akin to apathy! Those who refuse to make moral judgments will not fight to save mankind, as did Churchill. He knew the Nazis were wrong. So did Antony Flew. Perhaps T. S. Eliot was correct when he wrote in the conclusion of his famous poem The Hollow Men:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
So, on the one hand, we have racists who are erroneously convinced that hatred is their absolute right; on the other hand, we have the “non-judgmentalists” who think bigotry is wrong but are too spineless to be sure about it. What a mess false doctrines and erroneous philosophies generate! (The same is true in the church of those who are “non-judgmental” against false teaching and its consequences.)
We can only wish that when “they” come for the college professors and philosophers who for decades have taught moral relativism (and they will after they have polished off easier targets), that they will remain true to their teaching and not be too judgmental about those who wish to deprive them of their fundamental rights.
One of the most popular, current religious errors is that which holds to the idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts have continued to this day. In the first half of the twentieth century these ideas were held by those who called themselves Pentecostals. In the sixties the ideology turned into “the charismatic movement” via the vehicle of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International. Now we are in the midst of what is referred to as “the third wave.”
Miracles and speaking in tongues lie at the heart of all of these ideologies, although there are differences, disagreements, and variations in each. To provide a history of these matters, an examination of the various doctrines, and a correct interpretation of the Scriptures is the goal of this 1999 Houston College of the Bible lectureship book, edited by David Brown. The material provided will be of great help in understanding, discussing, or refuting the Pentecostal movement.
One of the values of the book is that it contains reviews of significant debates involving our brethren. Among those reviewed are The Wallace-Vaughan Debate (28-44), The Woods-Hicks Debate (257-74), The Woods-Franklin Debate (471-93), The Jackson-Bayer Debate (494-500), and The Highers-Bishop Debate (501-508). The first of these involves the erroneous concept that there is only one person in the Godhead, which is the chief tenet of the United Pentecostal Church, which is also discussed in another chapter (144-58). The debate brother Guy N. Woods conducted with Marvin Hicks occurred in 1975, one year after his debate with Ben Franklin. Hicks was also a “oneness” Pentecostal.
Franklin, however, had at one time been a member of the Lord’s church. They debated whether or not Holy Ghost baptism and miracles are in the church today. He and other former members of the Lord’s church are noticed in a review of the book, The Acts of the Holy Spirit in the Churches of Christ Today (446-62).
The last two debates focused on, in addition to miracles, whether or not baptism was valid unless the name of Jesus was specifically used at the time. The United Pentecostal Church will not accept baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Also included in the book are chapters by Thomas B. Warren on “The Philosophical Background of Pentecostalism” and Gus Nichols on “Jesus as a Miracle Worker,” both of which had previously appeared in issues of the Spiritual Sword. Brother Nichols’ article contains a catalog of Jesus’ Miracles (469-70).
One might think that Pentecostals are all in agreement on essential matters of faith, but they clash loudly. In “Contradictions in the Various Doctrines of Pentecostals,” attention is paid to the disagreement about tongues themselves. The first Pentecostals of this century believed that they were actually speaking in foreign languages; modern advocates have given up that idea and say that their “tongues” are a special prayer language (396-402). A second discrepancy involves a supposed “second work of grace,” which renders one incapable of sin (allegedly). A third problem involves the nature of miracles. And as already suggested, they cannot agree if there are one or three in the Godhead.
“Where is the Evidence For Miracles Today?” takes a look at the foundation of the Pentecostal claims. Surprisingly, some brethren are now defending Pentecostal ideas. In fact, the first chapter of this book is devoted to “Rick Atchley’s Keynote Speech at Jubilee ’98.” Atchley is as much of an embarrassment to brethren in Fort Worth as the Jubilee is to faithful brethren in Nashville. When one reads his closing prayer at the “Jubilee,” which includes such expressions as “let God right now put something on your heart,” one wonders what difference there is between him and a denominational preacher. “Give us, Father,” he prays, “give us, Father, a, a vision of your plans for us” (2). One can hardly wait to hear about the visions that already-looney brethren will be reporting in the months ahead.
“Pentecostalism Undermines the Authority of the Bible” is a crucial study; we all need the solid footing of the authority of the Scriptures if we are serious about pleasing the Father and living for Jesus. An excellent exposition of the Scriptures is set forth in various chapters: “What Do 1 Corinthians 13:9-13, Ephesians 4:8-14, and Romans 12:6-8 Have in Common?”; “What Is the Meaning of ‘That Which Is Perfect’?”; and “What Does 1 Corinthians 1:6-8 Teach?” Various portions of certain manuscripts also consider the passages mentioned above as well as Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14.
Another false plank of this theology is “Pentecostalism–The Doctrine of Direct Divine Illumination.” A smattering of quotations is listed below (without the authors’ comments) as food for thought:
Wesley linked enlightenment (illumination) of the Spirit with inspiration.
Luther also claimed there was a direct operation (illumination) of the Holy Spirit to aid the believer to interpret the Scriptures.
Accordingly, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Word can do nothing. From this, also, it is clear that faith is much higher than human understanding. And it will not be enough for the mind to be illumined by the Spirit of God unless the heart is also strengthened and supported by his power (200).
Surely, the dangers of such theology are apparent. Believing oneself to be inspired, or thinking one has a special understanding of the Scriptures (due to his private illumination), or feeling that he possesses some measure of additional strength that others lack are nothing more than apostasy looking for a place to happen. This chapter contains a wealth of information that the child of God will find useful.
Not unnoticed is the element that emotionalism plays in the various forms of Pentecostalism. Two chapters deal specifically with the priority given to feelings over the objective Word (84-97, 98-109).
“Experiences Are Not Authoritative” takes a Scriptural look at one of the root falsehoods of Pentecostalism. In this, as well as other chapters, there is an appropriate emphasis on the Word of God.
“Atheists and Pagans Can Speak Gibberish” does not sound too flattering as a title, but there is a review and an analysis of tongues-speaking claims as found in John Sherrill’s popular book, They Speak With Other Tongues. No one tries to put words into their mouths (pardon the pun); those who practice the “gift” are allowed to make their own case for themselves. It is affirmed in this chapter that what is called “tongues-speaking” today is a psychological phenomenon rather than a spiritual one. Historical facts and current research are cited.
Another important emphasis of the book is seen in the titles of the following chapters: “Miracles in the Old Testament,” “The Design and End of Miracles,” “The Miracles of the Apostles,” and “Nine Miraculous Gifts.” Understanding what the Scriptures teach on the subject is crucial in understanding the claims of the various Pentecostal groups today. Several definitions are provided, along with fundamental Biblical principles regarding this subject.
“You Can’t Have the Tongues Without the Snakes” points out another division among Pentecostals: most do not think they are obligated to handle snakes, but some do. In this case, however, tragic physical consequences frequently follow this practice. All Pentecostal doctrine results in tragic spiritual consequences.
Following are a few quotes from the book:
There are two baptisms spoken of here, not one! The baptism of the Holy Spirit applied to one class of people while the baptism of fire applied to another class (185).
Brother Lucado was highly praised and endorsed by the FGBMFI speaker and by those who were hosting the book display (224).
Is it not amazing how many of today’s “change agents” have also advocated the discarding of doctrine? The only difference between them and the charismatics is that instead of offering us in its place this “subjective Holy Spirit experience,” they grant us in exchange their marvelous human wisdom (362).
It would be unfair to accuse every charismatic convert of insincerity, but it is just as difficult to accept that all who embrace emotional extremism believe everything they say and do (454).
The reader will profit from this book tremendously; he or she will be much better equipped to discuss these matters with family members, friends, or fellow workers. The cost of the book is $16.00 (525 pages); it may be ordered from Valid Publications, Houston College of the Bible, and other brotherhood book dealers.
Nothing gets by the American Civil Liberties Union. If there is any anti-Christian cause to champion, they are eager to charge in, like a junkyard dog sensing trespassers. Their latest client is an incensed high school student with apparently too much free time on her hands. Crystal Siefferly says her religious freedoms are being trampled into the dust because she cannot openly wear a pentagram necklace, which the school has barred, along with symbols of white supremacy groups, gangs, and various Satanic images (Denton Record-Chronicle, 2-10-99, p. 6A).
One of the reasons public education continues to decline is that frivolous lawsuits like these have forced parents into putting their children into private learning institutions or joining the legions of home schoolers. Many have grown weary with school policies being set by radical groups like the ACLU; they wish to return to some semblance of sanity.
“Christian students can wear crosses, and Jewish students can wear stars of David, but Wiccans can’t wear the pentagram,” whined the ACLU spokesman, as if the founding fathers had such nonsense in mind when this nation was founded. If Crystal were living under the law of Moses, she would legally be put to death. She has the liberty to be a witch and remain alive, but that’s not good enough. No, like the homosexuals, she wants to flaunt it in everyone’s face. She wants public approval for something that the Bible condemns in the New Testament, as well as in the Old. Sorcery is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21); sorcerers shall have their place in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).
“To be forced to conceal one’s religious symbol under one’s shirt is a feeling of shame,” Crystal opines. She is apparently unaware that displaying it in public would bring shame, too, if she had any sense of propriety. Anything Satanic stands opposed to goodness, God, and decency. Oh, sure, she would probably argue that there is good witchcraft and bad witchcraft and that she is one of the good kind. The Scriptures do not agree with this kind of hocus-pocus.
What good have any witches ever done? Whose life has been enriched and made better because of this ancient superstition? Since the Bible condemns the practice, they are not going to be friendly toward it or follow its teachings. They do not contribute to the betterment of society, and they harbor the potential of doing much harm. They certainly left MacBeth in the lurch.
People do not particularly appreciate seeing symbols of horror and death. If schools can outlaw the wearing of swastikas, they certainly have a right to ban Satanic symbols. If they want to eliminate stars of David and crosses, that would be fine, also, though these symbolize the rich spiritual heritage upon which this nation rests. Christians could best honor their Lord–not by wearing a symbol–but by being pure in heart (1 John 3:3), speaking things which edify instead of being guilty of corrupt communication (Eph. 4:29), dressing modestly, instead of the way the world does (Rom. 12:1-2), and participating only in wholesome activities. No one will bar a good example or a shining light. Now how will the witch manifest herself without a symbol?
The Bible Is Barred
While the ACLU is busy helping their witch friends, a rapist’s “51-year prison sentence has been overturned on appeal because the judge turned to the Bible while deciding punishment” (Denton Record-Chronicle, 2-19-99, p. 8B). How horrible–to quote the Bible! In determining the rapist’s sentence, the judge read from Matthew 18:6: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” The reason the judge quoted this verse was that the defendant had molested his fiance’s 8-year-old daughter.
The appeals court ruled that the convicted rapist can seek a lesser sentence since that verse was cited. Let all judges take note. You can probably use a Ouija board to determine a sentence–or the daily lottery number, or a dart board (“Sorry, the dart just missed the 3; you get 17 years”). Probably a judge could even consult the high school wiccan queen for a recommendation, and nobody would complain (least of all, the ACLU), but the Bible? We are too civilized to be influenced by anything God might have to say on a subject.
Our already failing justice system keeps finding ways to take steps backwards. The rights of law-abiding citizens continue to lose ground in the wake of laws that overly protect the guilty, who oftentimes run roughshod over the innocent. December’s Reader’s Digest contains an article about the way witnesses are intimidated because of the law that says the names and addresses of witnesses who will testify must be given to the defense attorney (86-91). Recently a boy and his mother were shot to death in Massachusetts once that information was given out by a judge, but in Florida it is a state law. Small wonder that people refuse to testify.
So a judge cannot ponder the Scriptures before sentencing someone. How long will it be until someone realizes the Bible condemns stealing and murder? Should we overturn all of our laws against those crimes because they are in the Book? Or should criminals only be set free or resentenced because an attorney mentions a Biblical reference? Would the same attitude prevail if someone cited Shakespeare, Locke, or Gandhi?
When law becomes so perverse as to champion the devil and rebuke God, it is no wonder that people lose confidence in the system and balk at serving on juries (“May I be excused due to this hangnail?”). Which of our founding fathers would have ever dreamed that a child molester could appeal for a reduced sentence because the judge quoted from the Bible? In the Old Testament a rapist would have been put to death. Although we are not under the Old Testament, that penalty still seems appropriate–especially for the gutless wonder who would attack an 8-year-old.
Abby: God Belongs in the Dark Ages
Another attack upon God and the Bible came from “Dear Abby” in her February 3rd column. Here are her exact words:
Being gay (or straight) is not a matter of choice. People who do not know this belong in the dark ages (Denton Record-Chronicle, p. 17A).
Apparently, Abby is not aware that all homosexuals do not agree with her; many proudly pronounce that they are homosexuals by choice. Furthermore, if homosexuals were such by birth, is the same true of bisexuals? And what about those who practice bestiality? Are they that way by birth? Or just consider plain, old-fashioned adulterers: are they that way from birth, too? And what about the child molester previously mentioned? Perhaps it is by birth, not choice, that he is attracted to 8-year-olds.
There has never been any concrete evidence that anyone is homosexual by birth rather than choice. Abby is a victim of the new “dark ages” dominated by political correctness. And if her assertion were true, it would prove that God is incorrect. When He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, did He fall victim to Dark Age thinking? It seems unlikely since the Dark Ages were 3,000 years yet in the future.
When He commanded homosexuals to be put to death (Lev. 20:13) as part of the Law of Moses, was God wrong? Did he not possess Abby’s “wisdom” and modern enlightenment?
When Paul called the practice vile and against nature (Rom. 1:26), was he inspired of God? Or was the Dark Age mentality already creeping in? When Paul observed that some in Corinth had repented of homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11), was he unaware that people (allegedly) cannot change what they are by birth?
Abby has clearly overstepped her bounds in this latest pronouncement. If she is going to be arrogant enough to disagree with God, she ought give a little more evidence (it will make good practice for her for the day of judgment). In her column she frequently talks about such noble concepts as love, respect, and responsibility, which are all important and valid precepts. But the same God who commands love condemns homosexuality. No one has the right to select the things with which they agree concerning God and denounce those things with which they personally disagree.
It would be nice if Abby received a lot of mail from her readers protesting her insulting remarks against God and the Bible. She has perfect liberty to defend the perversion of homosexuality, but when she attacks God and His word, her “wisdom” has exceeded her grasp. An apology is in order.
