The Voice of Assurance

When little Billy was just a boy, he occasionally got in trouble, as little boys often do. But his mother always managed to find a way to keep him from being punished. “Don’t worry, Billy. I know it wasn’t your fault. You didn’t know what you were doing. I’m sure there is a way out of this situation. Just trust me.” His playmates were kept in after school at times because of their misdeeds, but somehow Billy’s mother was able to keep his father or school officials or anyone else from disciplining little Billy.

When Bill was a teenager, he fathered a child, but in those days no one had heard of DNA tests; so he refused to take responsibility for his lasciviousness. He regretted that a baby had resulted from his uncontrolled passions, but that was not his problem, he reasoned. He asked his friends to spread the rumor that his former girlfriend had been promiscuous and that the child could have been anybody’s. They assured him that they would help him out of this jam, which they proceeded to do. The charge was not true, of course, but he discovered that lying was helpful at times.

When Bill tried gambling, he found quickly that it was not one of his strengths. He owed $1,000 and had no one he could ask to borrow such a sum. He and a co-employee hatched a plan to say they were robbed of their evening receipts at their place of employment. They were very clever about it, too. Most of their answers about the phantom robbers matched, but some questions one answered while the other didn’t know, and vice versa. No one caught on; Bill paid his gambling debts and left that form of “entertainment” for good.

Bill got married, but it didn’t last. In two years they both decided it had been a mistake, although both were in their mid-twenties at the time of marriage. They parted as friends (for the most part) and assured one another that it was the best thing to do under the circumstances. Three years later Bill married again. He never mentioned his former marriage and insinuated he had always been single.

When his new “wife” insisted that they begin worshipping somewhere, they selected a church of Christ that met near where they lived. In time they were visited and studied with. She was ready to obey the gospel; Bill was baptized, but only for appearance’s sake. He had lied about so much in his young life that one more deception seemed harmless to him. They had been asked if this was their first marriage, and Bill’s innocent wife assured them it was. Bill remained silent.

After 15 years and three children, someone from his past came to visit the family and asked about Bill’s first wife. Bill answered that his first wife had been unfaithful to him and hurriedly changed the subject. (Of course it was a lie, but by now he knew what the Bible taught, although he did not necessarily believe it. He also knew that according to its teachings, he was not entitled to be married, and he was not about to give up his wife and family just because of some technicality.) The wife was distraught about being deceived and talked to the preacher and his wife. They agreed with her that it was disappointing and painful for her to have been deceived, but as long as he had been free to marry, everything was all right, Biblically speaking (Matt. 19:3-9).

But she was unwilling to let the matter lie. He had deceived her once; had he deceived her twice? She pressed him for details and eventually located Bill’s first wife. She made no assumptions but casually asked why they had divorced. “Well, we were young when we married, didn’t really know one another very well, and just decided that it wouldn’t work out.” “Uh,” Bill’s wife paused, “I don’t know exactly how to ask this without sounding nosy or insensitive, but were either of you involved in an extramarital affair before the divorce?” Her heart sank when the reply came, “Oh, no. It was nothing like that. We were involved before we got married, but while married, there was no outside hanky-panky going on. In fact, that was the best thing about our marriage. No, we separated because we were incompatible in just about every other way.”

When Bill’s wife confronted him with these facts, he admitted the truth. She cried for several days because of his betrayal, because of their current situation, because the lack of a solution, and because of their innocent children. Their youngest was ten; would he understand the situation? She insisted they talk to the preacher and the elders of the congregation they attended, and all of them confirmed her fears–that she and Bill did not have a right to be married. Bill didn’t care what they thought, but she was torn between the Truth and her family situation.

Meanwhile, Bill had been doing some checking around and had discovered that there was another “church of Christ” nearby that had made the public statement, “We will accept anyone as members–regardless of their past marital history.” What a perfect solution! When he shared this news with his wife, he could not understand her lack of enthusiasm. “Their policy doesn’t change the Scriptures,” she said. “Let’s just talk with them,” he prodded. “What can it hurt to get a second opinion? If there’s any way to keep our family together, don’t we owe it to ourselves just to listen?”

Bill’s wife knew that what she was hearing at that meeting was baloney, but desperate people can sometimes be persuaded against their wills. She relented, and they moved their membership to this new “church.” After all, the elders and the preacher had assured them that their marriage was valid since they were not Christians at the time of their “marriage.” In every other respect they were a conservative congregation.

Over the next ten years, however, various other doctrines were introduced. Grace and love were greatly emphasized while sin was scarcely ever mentioned. Obedience to God was equated with legalism, and no one’s self-esteem was bruised, let alone damaged. The worship began to change with quartets leading the singing; handclapping became popular, and instruments of music were being used in meetings outside the assembly. Women were made deaconesses.

Theistic evolution was taught, and hell was never mentioned (if, in fact, anyone still believed in it). The group began to fellowship denominations, and baptism for the remission of sins was rarely mentioned (and not really regarded as essential any longer). Bill’s wife knew all these things were wrong, but she could not speak out because of her own unlawful marriage. She had made excuses to friends, even sometimes parroting the drivel she usually heard about not “judging” others.

Finally, she could stand it no longer. She protested to Bill, but he just told her that hundreds of people could not be wrong and that that small group they once attended was just a bunch of unloving exclusivists. She could tolerate the situation no longer. Her children had all left home; she did, too. She realized she had deceived herself for the sake of the family; she hoped she had not ruined her influence. She returned to the little congregation and repented sincerely for her unscriptural marriage and fellowshipping with an unscriptural church.

Bill was assured by the liberal congregation that he could divorce his wife of 25 years (since she had deserted him) and remarry, which he promptly did. He remained in full fellowship and continued to meet with that group until his death.

On the day of judgment there was no one to reassure Bill that everything would be all right. His mother, who had always fixed things for him, was herself lost; she could not help him now. His friends who rescued him from his responsibilities earlier in life could not get him out of this jam; they too stood condemned.

The shepherds of the large congregation were not there to comfort him; they were charged with dereliction of duty, not feeding the flock good food, and allowing wolves to destroy people’s souls. They could not offer their reassurances to Bill now. The preacher had been condemned by Jesus as a false teacher and was consigned to one of the hotter regions of hell for his purposefully leading people astray and taking Satan’s part.

Bill saw his “wife” of 25 years and the elders who had spoken the truth to him. They were being rewarded with crowns of life. But they could not help Bill now. For once, he had to live with his decisions (or perhaps we should say die with them).

Amidst the fire Bill saw his mother and said, “Look what your love has wrought.” “Be quiet, you ungrateful child,” she screamed in her misery. He saw one of the elders in torment, and said, “Where are your assurances now?” “Go away,” he moaned. “We told you what you wanted to hear. You got what you wanted on earth. Now reap the reward you deserve.” Bill was finally held responsible for his actions with one eternal thought: “Having my own way was not worth it!”

Defining Truth

On Monday, February, 22nd, the Denton Record-Chronicle published the news story, “Lecturer Seeks to Define The Truth.” An introductory paragraph states: “William B. Oden, the bishop of the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church, talked to local United Methodists Sunday night about the nature of truth, and the human tradition of trying to define it” (1A). Among other things, the speaker said:

“Truth is difficult to define–I’ve heard it said that it is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. It’s duller than fiction. It doesn’t make for a good yarn. It’s lumpy. It’s shapeless. It needs editing” (8A).

Most of these “definitions” imply that truth cannot be known or that it changes (or that it’s boring and not worth knowing). How different from the attitude suggested by the writer of Proverbs: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (23:23). This Scriptural statement conveys the idea that truth is valuable, that it can be known, and that it should be prized above inferior material things. If the speaker brought up passages of Scripture, they were not mentioned in this article (though the speech did appear to be rich in human wisdom).

As he neared the end of his lecture, Bishop Oden said that words have always been suspect when it comes to truth “because words have always been inadequate to express the deepest truths we know and live by” (8A).

What? We would be sorely tempted to ask what these deepest truths we know and live by are, but apparently the bishop cannot tell us since to do so requires words.

The Bee Gees sure messed up on this one when they sang, “It’s only words, and words are all I have to take your heart away.” They should have sung, “I can’t speak words because they are inadequate to take your heart away.” If feelings can be communicated by words, why cannot truths be expressed by words? The Bishop may be suspicious of these words, but the Holy Spirit inspired them: Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them through your Word; Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Frankly, we ought to be suspicious of someone who cannot communicate through words. What realm have we entered at this point unless it would be the land of subjective feelings or mysticism? God chose to communicate with us through the medium of words. He did not choose to radiate truths in our direction hoping that we would receive them–or come by them via osmosis.

Truth, the bishop said, is not a “what.” Truth, he said, is a “who.” Truth is relational, something that happens between people–between believers….

“Jesus is not the truth because his words are true. The truth of Jesus is in us and among us, in our community of truth. . .” (8A).

What kind of gobbledegook is this? When Solomon said to “buy the truth,” he was not referring to a “what” but a “who”? When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” He just meant that He was in us, among us, and in our community? One is reminded of a beatnik poetry reading in which people sit around listening to esoteric nonsense and affirm, “That was deep, man,” when they have absolutely no idea what was said.

In a related article appearing on the same date and page, “Bishop Commends Church Caught in Controversy,” we learn a little bit more about the “community of truth” in which Jesus allegedly exists.

The bishop was present at the church on “The Day of Listening,” the day when delegates prayed for direction on matters of homosexuality, and he said he has been “very aware” that the Denton church had been the target of sporadic protests because a physician who performs abortions is a member there (81A).

It is appropriate to ask: “Why are people praying for direction on matters of homosexuality? Are they wondering if God still opposes it?” Yes, He still destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah over it (Gen. 19); it is still a vile and unnatural practice (Rom. 1:26); God still expects people to repent of it (1 Cor. 6:9-11); and it still serves as an example of the suffering of eternal fire (Jude 7). Praying for guidance with respect to these facts would be useless; learn from them.

If the group is wondering how to deal with homosexuals, that is not a mystery, either. We should love them enough to communicate the gospel to them–just as we would to adulterers, fornicators, and thieves. They need to be told that their practice is a sin–but that it can be forgiven when they repent and are baptized (Acts 2:38).

They fellowship an abortionist, also; she is one who terminates the lives of babies in the womb. Why do they do so–unless they all believe that abortion is acceptable? Otherwise, they would refuse her membership. Why would anyone remotely connected with the holy name of Jesus fellowship an abortionist? As John wrote, “You know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). [If they do not believe it is murder, let them debate the matter in public.]

This paragraph was followed by Oden’s comment that “it can be unfortunate for any church when groups who proclaim absolute truth lobby congregations” (8A). So, is abortion absolutely right, Bishop? If it is not, how can anyone perform it with a clear conscience? Paul wrote that “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). If someone’s position is that it is absolutely wrong, and she does it, she is a hypocrite. If she is uncertain whether it is right or wrong, she has no business doing it until she knows. And if she believes that it is absolutely right, then she should be able to defend her position.

“A community of truth can be clear that God’s love is absolute truth,” the bishop said in an interview following. . . . “When a group decides there are other absolute truths, those absolute truths can become God” (8A).

So there is only one absolute truth, the love of God? Does the Bishop seriously think that it is absolutely true that God is holy and that He punishes sin? If he has not read Ezekiel lately, perhaps he may recall Ananias and Sapphira falling dead for the lie they told (Acts 5:1-11). God’s love forgives sins that are repented of; it does not overlook and tolerate sins in which people persist.

Jesus said that love was the greatest commandment–not the only one. With the Methodist Church’s failure to listen to what the Bible says on homosexuality and abortion, no wonder they need a definition of deep truths that cannot be communicated by words.

“In a day when all of us are struggling so hard to talk about and to find what is right and what is true, when we come together as a diverse community of truth, we don’t water down truth. We respect one another’s perception of truth. It is imperative that we learn respect. We must keep seeing each other as a subject to be encountered, not an object to be changed” (8A).

This is some of the finest postmodern gibberish one could ever hope to read. The following observations, however, are in order.

1. Who is struggling hard to find out what is right and true? And how are they going about it? Faithful children of God study the Scriptures to learn wisdom and truth, but most of the academic world has simply relegated truth to that which a person feels or thinks about any particular subject. If we are content to relegate everything to a matter of “perception,” then in essence the conclusion is that “Truth doesn’t matter.” If truth is irrelevant, then how can it be accurate to say we are struggling so hard to find it? Instead, people are struggling hard to bury it as an ancient, irrelevant relic.

2. What is “a diverse community of truth”? Does that mean that we all believe what we want, but that we somehow remain united?

3. “We don’t water down truth.” Oh, so truth does exist, after all? Or is this just a phrase to salve the conscience? Most modernists and liberals try to pass themselves off as truth-seeking, truth-believing conservatives. Occasionally they throw in lines like these, but everything else they say belies this view.

4. “We respect one another’s perception of the truth.” We don’t water down truth, but we respect one another’s perception of truth. What does this phrase mean, if not that “you have your truth, and I have my truth; now let’s all agree to disagree”? The only problem with this idea is that Biblical truth says the Bishop’s perception of truth is wrong. Does anyone recall Jesus, the one who died on the cross for our sins, saying, “You shall have a perception of truth, and that perception will set you free”?

5. “It is imperative that we learn respect.” Wait a minute. The Bishop is already on record as having said that “God’s love is absolute truth” and “When a group decides there are other absolute truths, those absolute truths can become God.” Is learning respect an absolute truth that has become God?” In this case, yes. That homosexuality is sin cannot be considered absolute truth; that abortion is murder cannot be considered absolute truth; but respecting beliefs which differ from what the Scriptures teach, that is an absolute truth (according to them).

6. We must not see each other as an object to be changed. [Why must we not? Is this another imperative, another absolute truth?] We can agree with the part that says not to see other people as objects. If we continue in the truths of the Bible, we will realize that all people are made in the image of God, that all have a soul which will live forever, that all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and that all will spend eternity in heaven or hell based on what they believe and practice.

The Bishop may have been studying too many theologians to recall that the gospel is all about change. When Paul went to Mars Hill, for example, did he try to change people from idolaters to Christians? Yes. Did he view the people as objects? No. The Bishop has set up an either-or situation which is not accurate. People are not objects, but they do need to be changed. If, for example, they think that abortion and homosexuality are all right, they need to get back into the Scriptures to learn the truth of the matter.

If they think there are several ways for a person to come to God and be saved, they need to study Paul as he writes that there is one gospel, and if anyone preaches any other gospel, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). If they think that morality can be divorced from serving God, they need to study 1 Corinthians 5 and 6:9-11. If they think that truth is merely a matter of perceptions, they need to reconsider the Word of God, which always presumes that truth exists, that it can be known, and that it can be obeyed.

The problem with many denominational speakers, “Bishops,” etc., is that they are more in touch with the writings of today’s theologians than the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, or John. And whereas they know what Jesus said concerning love in Matthew 22:37-40, they have overlooked what Jesus said concerning the false doctrine of the Sadducees just verses earlier (23-32). Jesus did not tell the Sadducees that He respected their perception of truth; He told them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (29). He also warned His disciples against the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matthew 16:11-12). Apparently, our Lord was not interested in “a diverse community of truth.”

Mankind comes to know God (and truth) through the Holy Scriptures, not the “wisdom of men” (1 Cor. 1:21).

Recommended Reading: Legislating Morality

Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek have written this book with the following subtitle: Is It Wise? Is it Legal? Is It Possible? The book was published last year and is probably available at most religious bookstores. The book focuses on the constitutionality of legislating on moral issues; is it permissible or forbidden?

Many people misunderstand the first amendment (some of them intentionally). The authors observe: “While the first amendment clearly forbids the federal government from establishing a national religion, it does not prohibit government from establishing a national morality” (22). Many think that the former prevents the latter from occurring.

The authors correctly affirm that if there are two sides to a moral issue, someone’s morality will be legislated. Is it immoral, for example, for someone to be a racist? If it is, and we pass laws against “hate” crimes, then we have legislated morality. In other words, we legislate morality all the time; the only question is: WHOSE? (23).

One of the values of this book is its treatment of the one thing that is usually cited to stifle legislating morality: prohibition. Frequently echoed by people who are ill-informed is the mantra: “We tried legislating morality with prohibition, and it didnÕt work.” By it didn’t work they mean that people still manufactured and drank alcoholic beverages. Apparently, it has never crossed their minds that by that criteria we should not legislate against murder. Look at all the laws we have, and people still do it. The same could be said of selling drugs, stealing, or speeding on the expressway.

The authors supply data to show the significant improvements society underwent during this time. After examining documented facts about prohibition (28-32), the authors deal with other arguments against legislating morality: “They’re Going To Do It Anyway,” “You Can’t Make People Be Good,” and “Laws Can’t Change Hearts” (32-38). The final chapter of this section demonstrates that people do believe in absolute moral standards–when they are the victims of injustice and wrongdoing.

Chapter four, “We the People…” demonstrates that ideas matter–and they have consequences. Among other topics treated are evolution with comments on the Scopes 1 and the Scopes 2 trials. The next section deals with the meaning of the first amendment. Most of those who misapply it today have no comprehension of the background or meaning that our founding fathers had in mind. Most are not even aware that the phrase, separation of church and state, is not even a part of the first amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no Law respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there-of; or abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press, or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances (236).

The authors include a copy of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution as appendices (217-46). Neither is very long, and it is worthwhile to read these documents periodically. Also explained is the origin of the phrase, separation of church and state, along with the context in which it was used (83).

Despite the excellent material contained in this book, one must take issue with its major thesis: “There is a universal Moral Law upon which government can pass appropriate legislation and enforce it.” The authors, however, fail to prove a universal morality written on the hearts of men. Appendix C (247-49) strives to establish this point with quotations from various cultures which harmonize with the moral principles taught in the Bible.

But there are many examples that could be cited which contradict this notion. There are societies (besides in Washington) in which cheating and telling lies to advance oneself are considered moral. In one culture stealing is acceptable–unless one gets caught, and then no one considers the act of stealing immoral; it’s the act of getting caught that is wrong. In another culture it is considered hospitality to offer one’s wife to an overnight guest. Cannibalism has been considered acceptable in some parts of the world. Headhunting and scalping have not violated the morality of some. Idolatry was a nearly universal phenomenon in the Old Testament era, and it often involved sexual immorality and offering up one’s offspring as a sacrifice. At Niagara Falls they tell of the practice of sending a virgin maiden over the falls each year as a sacrifice. There is no universally accepted moral law!

While this pronouncement would appear to undermine the book’s value, it contains nevertheless tremendous information, suggestions, and refutations of humanist thought. The authors treat three of today’s hot topics: homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia. The first of these chapters is titled: “Homosexuality: Tolerating Ourselves to Death.” The authors show very pointedly what is wrong with this practice. It is not just an alternate lifestyle; it’s a very unhealthy lifestyle–and not just because of the possibility of AIDS. The average lifespan for male and female homosexuals is 42 and 44 respectively (131-32). Arguments are dealt with, such as, “We are consenting adults” and “We were born this way.” The book also points out the agenda that homosexuals have which is harmful to society.

“Abortion: Choosing Ourselves to Death” answers 17 arguments made by humanists, including the following:

1. “Women must have the freedom to choose!”

2. “It’s my body! Abortion is a matter of privacy!”

4. “Abortion is a constitutional right!”

5. “Abortion is appropriate for unwanted babies, those with birth defects, or those being born into poverty.”

7. “Abortion helps avoid child abuse.”

8. “Abortion should remain legal or women will die from back-alley abortions.”

10. “Abortion should not be outlawed because pro-lifers won’t adopt all the babies.”

11. “Abortion is acceptable because the fetus is tiny, undeveloped, and unconscious.”

12. “Okay, the unborn are human but they’re not ‘persons’!” (158-77).

All of these are dealt with in a very logical and thorough manner.

Chapter 11 is: “Euthanasia: Exterminating Ourselves to Death.” The following statements are dealt with: “Euthanasia shows mercy in avoiding needless suffering”; “Euthanasia ensures patient autonomy and respects the wishes of the dying”; “Euthanasia enables people to die with ‘dignity'”; etc. (186-87). Once again, there are very practical comments on all of these points, which brings us to a better solution to all of these problems than the so-called “Moral Law.”

God created us with the ability to think and reason. In this way we are like Him. Why should we not be bound by the conclusions of valid reasoning when insisting on legislation dealing with moral issues?

“But people cannot agree on what is the logical, practical thing to do.” While it is true that there are two sides to every issue, one side has a better case–especially if it’s in harmony with the Word of God. It is doubtful that we are going to convince anyone that they should pass legislation because God has spoken on the subject. There may have been a time when such was sufficient, but seldom does it carry any weight in these days. And while we can appeal to the Scriptures for support, we must also stand ready to show the harm, the danger, and the absurdity of allowing certain things to go unchecked in our society. If Scripture, historical precedent, logic, and practicality are not enough to win general support, we are unlikely to be victorious any time soon. We need to take these issues out of the realm of “I think” and place them firmly into the land of “Here is what the evidence says.”

The Word of God declares what is moral and what is immoral. God did not arbitrarily decide that stealing or murder was wrong. Sin carries with it harmful results. We ought to be able to make a convincing case against the impractical results of sin since we know what, in fact, sin is (through the Scriptures). God did not prohibit things that were good for us, nor does He enjoin us to do evil. “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?” (Deut. 10:12-13). Reason, rather than “Moral Law,” must be the basis of our legislation.

“There’s Something about A-MARY-CA”

The fourth best money-maker at the box office last year was a movie that featured behavior of the grossest kind, titled There’s Something About Mary. Columnist Kathleen Parker said she felt like she needed a bath after seeing it, but apparently a large portion of the movie-going public enjoys being made to feel dirty, which tells us something about A-Mary-ca these days.

Something else that speaks volumes now (and probably encyclopedias later, when the effects will be fully felt) was the recent senate trial of the president. There are several Biblical points that can be applied concerning these recent events.

Some Christians might question the relevance of American law to the issue, but the Scriptures reveal that the laws we have are important and to be obeyed (Rom. 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13-16). We might also consider that to understand the reason for Daniel being thrown into the lion’s den we must know something of Persian law (Daniel 6:12-15). In order to set the stage for what occurred in the impeachment trial (and the principles cited later), we must know something about the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors.

In her book of the same title, Ann Coulter explains that the framers of our Constitution borrowed the phrase from English Parliamentary impeachments (3). Among the cases she cites is one that occurred in 1680, when “Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the court of the King’s Bench, was impeached on account of his ‘frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries’ bringing ‘the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom'” (4).

Many of those who have been impeached and removed from public office have not violated legal, but rather moral precepts. In 1881, for example, “the Minnesota legislature impeached Judge E. St. J. Cox for ‘frequenting bawdy houses and consorting with harlots'”(4). Alexander Hamilton, who wrote 50 of the 85 essays in The Federalist papers, said that impeachment pertains to “the misconduct of public men,” “the violation of some public trust” (6). Americans will not learn such information from Geraldo or probably even from the Harvard professors so visible on cable shows of late. No, not even our news media bothers to report pertinent facts like these.

Was the president guilty of mis-conduct? Nearly everyone knows that he was–and in the oval office itself! Did he violate the public trust? Yes, he did when he lied to the American people and said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” He knew he was lying when he looked into the cameras and said it. Whatever else may be debated, these facts are inarguable.

His conduct falls within the definition of the phrase used by our founding fathers. James Madison, another author of The Federalist papers and fourth President of this nation, said that “the ‘first aim’ of the Constitution was to ensure that men with the ‘most virtue’ would become the nation’s rulers.” Impeachment was for “‘keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust'” (7).

The House of Representatives considered the evidence against the president and found it sufficient to impeach him. But the Senate began almost immediately to duck their responsibilities. They agreed to interview only three witnesses. What other trial could be named that has been conducted by limiting the number of witnesses to appear? They would not appear directly before the Senate but only on videotape. Oh, and do not forget that a timetable was set to conclude the matter by February 12th so that the senate could enjoy the three-day weekend including President’s Day (“Supper is waitin’ at home, and I gotta get to it.”).

Was it the restricted evidence that caused the senators to acquit? No, it was the polls. The American people have been told by the news media that 80% of us believe that the president is guilty but that 80% also want him to remain in office. Although the first number is probably correct, the second one is questionable. Why question the validity of the polls? Consider the following news item from Paul Harvey News, reported on January 28th.

Mrs. Frances Schmidt may have spilled the beans. A woman in Winner, South Dakota telephoned her United States Senator, Tim Johnson, to ask if the political polling that she has been hearing about was ever done in South Dakota. The young lady who answered the phone replied: “No, they do not poll conservative states. There are eleven conservative states that we do not poll.” Mrs. Schmidt, flabbergasted, then telephoned my office. She thought you should know.

If this news item is true, it certainly explains a considerable discrepancy with reality. But even if the 80% figure cited above is correct, senators should disregard it. The average person may not know as much about the Constitution as they do. Many Americans may not understand what high crimes and misdemeanors means. Senators have the task of using their knowledge and skills to make the right decision. Since when do they rely on public opinion to do what is right?

A representative form of government was designed to eliminate “mob mentality.” It was just such thinking that led to the death of Jesus. Pilate saw that the current public opinion poll was against Jesus (it was overwhelmingly in favor of Him just days earlier); so he turned Him over to be crucified. Our senators read a poll that said Americans wanted the president to stay in office, and they acted accordingly (by the latest “mob mentality” figures).

Is this an unfair assessment? The reader may judge for himself. Following are the words of a man who is said to greatly respect the Constitution. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat senator from West Virginia, frequently called the “dean” of the senate, was interviewed by ABC (as reported in the Denton Record-Chronicle):

Byrd, who two weeks ago offered the motion asking senators to dismiss the case against Clinton, says in an interview to be aired Sunday there is “no doubt about it in my mind” that the charges against Clinton rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But he declined to say how he would vote on conviction.

“It will be very difficult to stand and say, ‘not guilty,’ very difficult,” Byrd said. “Who is kidding who here? I have to live with myself. I have to live with my conscience, and I have to live with the Constitution” (February 7th, 11A).

Mr. Byrd’s candor is greatly appreciated. It is too bad, however, that conscience and Constitution lost out to party and popularity. Not reported in this story was his query wondering how one could remove such a popular president? The easiest way to accomplish such a feat would have been to vote guilty.

Senator Byrd should have asked himself, “What kind of trial is it when the outcome is based on the popularity of the defendant?” How many times have we seen people shocked to discover that one of the pillars of the community was a child molester? Does the jury take into consideration that he is a good father, a loving husband, a community leader, or that he supports several charitable causes, and does his job efficiently? These points are irrelevant to the subject of the trial. Several of his friends might testify as character witnesses. Should we take a public opinion poll and acquit him if his popularity rating is high enough?

If the polls are right, there is something about A-Mary-ca that is fundamentally screwy! If people know the president is guilty but want him in office anyway, then the following conclusions must be drawn.

1. We do not care what kind of example our top elected officials set for us and our children. The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors should be stricken from the Constitution by virtue of amendment; it is useless.

2. We want our top leaders to lie to us when it suits their fancy. Americans thought it was shameful when Richard Nixon lied to us 25 years ago, but now there is no shame in lying to all three branches of our government, in committing perjury before the grand jury, or in lying to the entire nation.

3. There must be two systems of justice–one for most of us, but another for the rich, powerful, famous, and popular.

4. Jurors must ask for public opinion polls before deciding innocence or guilt.

5. Obstructing justice is of no consequence. What good is power if it cannot be effectively used to cover up one’s wrongdoing?

6. Dodging, evasion, and stonewalling are talents which should be admired, not condemned. Masters of re-defining common words and the art of “spin” should be applauded–as they have been by “objective” analysts in the news media. The following excerpt is from The Electronic Gospel Herald, dated February 15th. Darrell Broking, who can be reached via egh@beaufortco.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 1999, news anchor Dan Rather unsheathed the sword of anti-truth and wielded it with the skill and accuracy of an Ivy League Balaamite. Mr. Rather was commenting on the morning’s Presidential Impeachments hearings. After stating that the House Managers presented a good case, Rather pointed out that the White House Defense team would take excerpts from the same video-taped testimony that the House Managers used and paint a completely different portrait. To shore up his statement Rather said, “After all, truth is never absolute.”

How profound! How convenient! Mr. Rather evidently admires the ability to “put darkness for light” (Isa. 5:20). He would probably marvel at how false teachers in the first century (and now) “twist the Scriptures”–even if it is to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Biblical principles were promised at the outset. The remainder of this article will apply such precepts based on the information provided above.

For the Senate: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15). The United States Senate, according to the Scriptures, is an abomination to God. To those senators who voted for acquittal based on party rather than evidence: “It is not good to show partiality in judgment. He who says to the wicked, ‘You are righteous,’ him will the people curse: nations will abhor him” (Pr. 24:23b-24). To those who knew the president was guilty but could not bring themselves to remove him from office: “If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small” (Pr. 24:10).

For the President: “It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness” (Pr. 16:12). “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 9) and give you the reward you deserve (Rev. 21:8).

To the Harvard professors and other “Constitutional” scholars: “The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness” (Pr. 15:2). “The lips of the wise disperse knowledge, but the heart of the fool does not do so” (Pr. 15:7).

For the news media: “Whoever falsely boasts of giving is like clouds and wind without rain” (Pr. 25:14). You do not boast of giving money–but rather of giving information. Yet you withhold pertinent facts from the public and choose not to investigate. Why did you wait until after the presidential election of 1992 to inform people that it was not really the worst economy of the last fifty years? Where was your story about what happened to Vince Foster’s computer? (No, we are not implying a conspiracy theory, nor ruling one out, but why were you not even curious about the facts of the matter?) You might have refreshed voters with data on many occasions, but you refused to give them the facts.

For Norman Lear and his group, People for the A-Mary-can Way, who have vowed to spend $5,000,000 to defeat the House Managers in their next election: “The bloodthirsty hate the blameless” (Pr. 29:10). (The same goes for James Carville, who stated on national television that he wanted to “bury the hatchet” in Ken Starr rather than with Ken Starr.)

For the A-Mary-can people: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Pr. 14:34). For those who knew the president’s guilt but wanted him acquitted: “But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). For those who are motivated to maintain the status quo (leave a proven liar in office) because of our prosperity: “Better is a little with righteousness than vast revenues without justice” (Pr. 16:8).

To the House Managers, whose case was doomed to failure before they began, and to Americans who were disappointed that “the right thing” was not done: “The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment” (Pr. 12:19). Also, there is a higher court and an impartial judge, whom all will face: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10).

For Christians: “When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increases; but the righteous will see their fall” (Pr. 29:16). This miscarriage of law and justice is unfortunate but characteristic of today’s world. According to the Denton Record-Chronicle of February 14th:

A 74 percent majority said the Republicans should not make an issue of the way Clinton and the Democrats conducted themselves during the scandal. And 76 percent of those polled said Democrats should not make an issue of the way Republicans pursued impeachment (15A).

In other words, “People don’t care.” That same apathy is often directed toward salvation and to Truth itself. “There’s Something About A-Mary-ca” that needs to be changed, and only the gospel of Christ can do it.

Homosexuality, Shakespeare, Gluttony, and Tolerance

Recently, a man wrote to “Dear Abby” to counsel his fellow homosexuals NOT to get married as a cover for their sexual preference (published on January 26th). He and his wife have been through a painful divorce, and he wishes he had been honest with himself and her from the outset. His advice is: “Give yourselves time to come to terms with your sexuality.” This counsel is based on his own farcical effort to become a heterosexual. He recommends a supportive therapist to help a person work through his/her homosexuality.

Abby, as certainly as the sky is blue, agrees. She also was reminded of a quote from Shakespeare:

“This above all: To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not be false to any man.”

Before getting to the quote, it should be admitted that the homosexual writer does have one valid point concerning marriage. No one should enter into marriage who is insincere (whether due to problems with homosexuality, infidelity, or a lack of love).

As for the “supportive therapist,” however, why not visit one that might help one work through the problem? The writer assumes that no one can change because he did not change. Where is the recognition of those who have given up the practice of homosexuality? Does one person’s experience bind everyone else to the conclusion that he drew? And when has “Dear Abby” or her sister published a letter from someone who claims to have been a homosexual who has emerged from that kind of behavior?

But also consider the homosexual writer’s summary of profound wisdom and see how it works if applied to child molesters or rapists: “Give yourselves time to come to terms with your sexuality.” “. . .find a supportive therapist. . . .” Some will recoil with horror at the suggestion and shout that the situations are not parallel. They are different in that homosexuality is by willing consent and the other two are not.

And that is a huge difference, but the three are alike in that all three of them are sexual aberrations. All three, for instance, are condemned in the Scriptures. The fact that homosexuality is consensual makes it no more acceptable than fornication or adultery. All three of those sins can be repented of (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Consensuality does not sanitize sin.

The idea presented of coming to terms with one’s sexuality and finding supportive therapy is based upon the premise that homosexuality is legitimate, but it is not–which is the reason the above comparison to rapists and child molesters is valid. Since it is wrong (by Biblical definition), then coming to terms with it should mean seeking a way to leave that condition. Finding a supportive therapist would be inappropriate because that individual would be encouraging wrong behavior. One might as well seek a therapist who will support casual, promiscuous heterosexual liaisons.

God did not leave us without any system of morality. He has made it clear under every covenant that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are wrong. Presumably, a guilty person can find a therapist who will be supportive of all those actions, but they remain sins.

“Give thy thoughts no tongue” (l. 59).

“Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar” (l. 61).

“Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice” (l. 68).

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be: For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry” (ll. 75-77).

Then follows the quote Abby cited. Polonius is at best repeating the “socially correct” sayings of his day. These are not the result of deep thought or originality on his part, and Shakespeare is not presenting these as the clever sayings of a wise man; instead they are the trite repetitions of a rambling fool.

Consider how Polonius’ advice would have affected the main characters. If King Claudius (who killed Hamlet’s father and married his mother) were true to himself, he would declare his foul deeds, thus causing his removal as king (and probably his death, also). Those who practice evil in secret must always hide their true character in public.

Hamlet suspected Claudius of murder, but he had no proof. Should he blurt out: “Claudius, I think you killed my father; how about it: Will you admit it?” The grieving son would probably have been taken to an asylum, thus eliminating the need for Acts 2, 3, 4, and 5. Hamlet had to pretend to be something he was not in order to discover the truth.

Abby’s advice is that, if a homosexual readily admits what he is to himself, then he won’t deceive anyone else. They too will know who and what he is. But is that wise? In fact, is it even called for? Adulterers do not usually call attention to their deeds. They deem it wise to conceal their actions–especially from their wives and children. A clever thief is intentionally false to every man.

But someone will say, “Yes, but those things are morally wrong; being a homosexual is not wrong–it’s just an alternate life-style.” Homosexuality can only be regarded as not being wrong if one ignores the Scriptures. If homosexuality is right, the Bible is wrong. The practice is a perversion of the way God created us and a violation of his will.

But even if this sexual deviancy were not a sin, what would require its participants to flaunt before everyone what they know is objectionable? Is there a law that requires that we tell everything we know? Even godly people have avoided public regurgitation of their beliefs. When persecuted in the first century for their religious belief, they freely acknowledged at their “trials” that Jesus was Lord and Caesar was not. But they did not organize a parade down the Appian Way and carry banners proclaiming their faith. “To thine own self be true,” as applied by Abby, is bad advice.

He writes his column as though he is discussing homosexuality. He talks about the right to do what one wills with his body, a campaign for public acceptance, “flaunting their perversion,” the excuse that “God made me this way,” and the fact that this life-style is unhealthy. Then, in a stunning revelation, he points out that he has been discussing gluttony, and a “sin is a sin. Right?” (The Dallas Morning News 21A, 2-3-99).

Yes, gluttony is a sin, but he did not take the time or trouble to define it or to check a commentary to learn what precisely the Scriptures are condemning. Gluttony usually involves eating for the sake of eating. Sometimes those who indulged in this sin would cause themselves to throw up–just so they could eat more. There is a difference between gluttony and consuming more than we need to survive. Who would like to draw that line? Probably we would need a metabolism meter to help define what is right for each individual since there are some people who remain thin even while inhaling large quantities of food.

Obesity is a health risk, but it is not necessarily synonymous with gluttony. While overeating results in a portly appearance (for most people), not everyone who is “large” got that way from eating six square meals a day (plus a half gallon of ice cream). It may have been due to a poor diet, low metabolism rate, the inability to exercise, or a combination of these factors. While the Bible condemns gluttony, it does not condemn being overweight.

Blow thinks he is being funny when he says that he is compelled to speak out against gluttony–“in love, of course.” (He fails to distinguish the differences between gluttony, overeating, and obesity.) Actually, it is love that encourages someone to give up smoking or to lose weight–just as it is love to encourage the homosexual to overcome his or her problem.

But there are some things not quite parallel between being a homosexual and being overweight. First of all, there is no “FAT PRIDE” parade conducted in various cities of this nation each year, which are to publicize the legitimacy of being overweight. There has been no book introduced into the first grade in New York Public Schools, titled Heather has the Equivalent of Two Mommies.

Blow’s column is just the latest version of the “Unless-you’re-absolutely-perfect-don’t-judge-me” game, which is calculated to help neither overweight people nor homosexuals. If he reflected upon the Scriptures a little longer, he might recall that Paul told an imperfect group of Christians to withdraw fellowship from a man living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5). He did not advise inaction because these brethren were themselves flawed; while all were guilty of sin, fornication was regarded as serious enough to warrant dealing with it in a public way.

From The Guide, a homosexual magazine, came this statement in the May, 1998 issue: “True gay liberation is not about gay people conforming, but rather about the whole world transforming” (this statement was reported in the June 12, 1998 Internet News Service). What a perverted twist of Romans 12:2! The social Gestapo has made it clear that homosexuality is here to stay, and citizens had better like it.

Are those words an exaggeration? Consider the following excerpt from The New Tolerance, a 1998 book written by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostettler:

Dr. Jim Aist, professor of plant pathology at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was “accused of sexual harassment, discrimination, and abuse of power. Students staged a six-hour sit-in protest against him. His own chairman and dean pursued charges against him. He was made to answer charges without being allowed to know what they were. He endured the scrutiny of ten investigations in two years. He had to stand by as the press paraded accusations against him.”

What was Dr. Aist’s crime? He had posted flyers on campus offering “Help to Homosexuals.” The flyers offered–free to students and faculty–carefully researched scientific information about the cause of homosexuality and guidance for homosexuals who wished to leave the homosexual life-style (73-74).

Perhaps Mr. Blow could tell us if anyone would receive the same treatment for posting flyers about a weight-watchers class. The authors point out that no one “investigating” this incident ever bothered to look at Dr. Aist’s material. When a person violates the agenda or code of today’s thought-police, they will be subject to harassment. Before a person can even defend himself, the brown shirts begin chanting, “Bigot, homophobe.”

McDowell and Hostettler explain that the “new tolerance” insists upon no absolutes, such as Truth. All values are created equal, no matter how silly. The only unpardonable sin is intolerance. A person who objects to immoral behavior in the name of God, decency, or common sense will be targeted as fair game for the media and the intellectual elite.

Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek wrote a book that was published last year: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible? They list several goals which they demanded at the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Equal Rights and Liberation:

• The implementation of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
• The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
• The legalization of homosexual marriages.
• Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
• The redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
• The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
• Affirmative action for homosexuals.
• The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan (137).

Clearly, homosexuals have an agenda. The eight listed above are only a few of the 62 platform demands they make, which they have published in booklet form (261). The homosexual agenda has not been diminished by the cancellation of Ellen; the DeGeneresy continues, propped up by “churches” that have forsaken Biblical morality and columnists sympathetic to their cause. Those who yet adhere to Biblical morality either have or are close to becoming the minority–especially when young people are being taught to accept homosexuality from the time of kindergarten onward. And since minorities are often oppressed, who knows what may happen?

We are swimming in treacherous waters here. How long until free speech rights may be denied to some? How long until someone is convicted of a “hate crime” based on his affirmation of Biblical teaching? When those insisting on tolerance in others begin condemning those whose views differ from theirs, we have entered perilous times. We have not arrived at that destination yet, but some are already in the neighborhood. Only one thing is certain: Overweight people would not be as heavy-handed as their accusers. They usually have a sense of humor.

Twisting the Truth

“Twisting the Truth” was the title of a well-written editorial by Suzanne Floyd of Aubrey. (Her letter appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle on January 17, 1999.) During the recent holidays “four teenage girls were killed as a result of a wreck where a driver swerved into their lane and hit them head-on” (18A).

The only survivor, the driver who caused the accident, smelled of alcohol and had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. His lawyer, however, said that he was not drunk and that the test would have to be investigated (whose defense tactics does this evasiveness sound like?).

The writer then observes (correctly):

We now live in a society where lawyers can question the word “is,” and can show us that there is a one in a quarter-million chance someone other than O.J. murdered two innocent people. Is this how we want to live? Where truth becomes relative? A hair-splitting game that lawyers play? Where winning is defined as saving one’s own neck, and avoiding responsibility for one’s own actions? Even if it means lying outright, or twisting the facts, and innocent victims and the simple truth matter not at all? There will continue to be consequences in our society if we allow this madness to go on. Four of them were buried in Parker County (18A).

Suzanne Floyd has pinpointed precisely what is wrong in our society. People do not want to be responsible for their actions. Never mind the four dead victims, whose lives have been tragically terminated. Let’s show compassion on the living. Undoubtedly, “the driver has suffered enough already.” “Punishing him won’t bring those girls back.” [Add other cliches here.] Let him do community service and get on with his life.

Truth does not matter to most people any more; they are much too busy either getting in shape by involvement in sports or losing their shape by renting videos and snacking their way to poor health. Americans are mostly prosperous with lots of time to kill and money to spend; so why bother about little things such as injustice? Such occurred during the time of Amos. Zion was condemned for their laziness and their total devotion to pleasure (Amos 6:1-7). No one cared that the rights of others were trampled upon. “But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24).

Justice in this nation has suffered great losses in the closing period of the twentieth century with many bad precedents being set for the next generation. Instead of trying in court the perpetrator, it has now become fashionable to accuse the prosecutor, the police, or the objective evidence. Defense attorneys specialize in obscuring the facts in an effort to plant un-“reasonable doubt” in the minds of jurors.

The legal system has become a game. Convicted killers can frequently run through three sets of appeals and tie up the court system from 10 to 17 years before finally being put to death for heinous crimes. Innocence or guilt often fall by the wayside. A judge must decide which evidence to suppress, which seems like a defeatist attitude. (If it’s evidence, why would anyone want to suppress it?)

“Oh, but he confessed to sodomizing, torturing, and murdering a young boy before he was Mirandized.” Do such technicalities make someone less guilty? What an outstanding idea! Let’s let the murderer go free because of a mix-up in procedure. If we’re lucky, maybe the next time he tortures to death someone’s seven-year-old boy, we’ll be fortunate enough not to stub our toes on what’s written in the fine print. Such is ludicrous. If we know beyond any doubt that an individual is guilty of a crime, it makes no sense to release such a person into society. Justice must be more than a game lawyers, judges, and Congressman play.

According to a news story in the January 10th Denton Record-Chronicle, an eight-year-old boy was the state’s key witness in a murder case. The defendant’s lawyer insisted on having certain information about the child. The state objected, but the judge turned over the boy’s address to the defendant’s attorney. Shortly thereafter the boy and his mother were found shot to death!

Now why did the defense attorney need that information? Was he required to have it according to the law? Or did the judge just hand it over to him because he thought the defendant might want to send him a birthday card? It won’t be of any help to the second-grader who was slain, but we can hope that the judge has a problem sleeping at night. Unless the murders of the mother and child are just an incredible coincidence, the judge knows he is responsible for their deaths (regardless of what the law says).

The defense attorney said he never gave that information to his client and that his client is monitored with a security bracelet. He did not say why he needed the information that the judge gave him or if his client had any friends who are also thugs (9A). If this attorney is not investigated meticulously, there is something rotten in Bridgeport.

While lawyers and judges play their games, they often seem oblivious to the pain and loss to the families of the victims. Truth matters to them. Justice matters to them. They do not understand all the nifty little legal ploys that the system offers. If the evidence is overwhelming, they do not fathom why it must be suppressed in order to let a guilty person go free; they just want and expect a conviction. A good dose of common sense might help our justice system.

We will pray that justice prevails in the case Suzanne Floyd brought to the public’s attention, but there are no guarantees. The families of victims often suffer twice–once when the original crime is committed, and again when the criminal goes unpunished. It would help if society could once again care about truth.

And wouldn’t it be wonderful if people would once more care about religious truth? The Bible teaches that the Word of God is Truth (John 17:17) and that if we study it and continue in it, we can know it (John 8:31-32). But most people are so intimidated by cries of “Judgmentalism!” that they have been reduced to saying, “Whatever.”

“What’s that? You had a vision last night that Jesus called you to be an apostle? That’s nice. Whatever.” “You say that you just discovered that Jesus was not a human being but was really made out of wood because He said, ‘I am the door’? Whatever.” Silly? True. But the first one has already happened, and the second one is no sillier than saying that the fruit of the vine really is Jesus’ blood because He said, “This is my blood.”

And how much stranger are these doctrines than the one that says the world came to an end in A.D. 70 or that nothing of what Jesus taught is part of the New Testament? Without any New Testament authorization whatsoever, there are those who teach that the Sabbath day must be kept. Some are claiming that there is “another testament of Jesus Christ.” And in the midst of all this mass of confusion and contradiction, most people, instead of investigating these matters to discern Truth, are just saying, “Whatever. Believe whatever you want. It doesn’t matter what you believe, so long as you are sincere.” The implications of all these comments are: 1) Doctrine doesn’t matter, 2) Religion doesn’t matter, and 3) Truth doesn’t matter.

Years ago religious debates accomplished great good. Many of the listeners judged between the arguments which both sides advanced, and numbers of people were frequently converted. Now, however, debates are relatively few, and then they are sparsely attended. Material prosperity may have dulled our spiritual senses just as it has our judicial senses.

Unfortunately, it usually takes hardship or a judgment of God to get people back on track. Because the Israelites would not listen to the prophets inspired of God, He raised up a nation to destroy them and lead them into captivity. It was a hard and bitter lesson to learn, but material things blind us to reality. Sometimes, the only way to see straight again is to have the distractions removed.

It seems unlikely that our comfort could be seriously disrupted. Probably, that is exactly what most nations thought before God brought about their downfall. There is a solution, however. CARE! Americans must realize that some things are more important than determining which wine goes with which meat and whether or not one can wear a Gucci (or is it Sushi?) original. What one believes (Truth or error) has eternal consequences.

Having already stressed the importance of society’s need for truth, one would think the following announcement would generate enthusiasm.

The individual topics related to the theme are greatly needed in today’s world. They are: “The Case for Truth,” “The Case for Christ,” “The Case for Scripture,” “The Case for Evangelism,” and “The Case for Theology.” This could be an effective program and have a great impact–except for one tiny flaw. The Center for Christian Education is sponsoring it, and they are tied to the ACLU (Abilene Christian Liberal University).

In fact, “The Case for Scripture” will be presented by Dr. John Mark Hicks, the Harding Graduate Professor of Doctrine who a few years ago defended Rubel Shelly in the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman University.

Dr. Philip Slate, the ACLU’s Missions Department Chairman, will be handling the topic of evangelism. For Abilene to be involved in an effort to defend the Truth is outrageous and an insult to all faithful soldiers of the cross. It is somewhat akin to asking the big bad wolf to conduct a seminar on “Ways to Arrive at Grandma’s House Safely” and charging $30 for it, to boot.

Several professors from the ACLU are on written record as being opposed to the Truth. Carroll Osburn, for example, has informed us that we should fellowship those who worship falsely by adding instruments of music. He also says we should fellowship those who teach and believe premillennial doctrine. And if various denominations are not organized Scripturally, that too should not be a barrier to fellowship. Finally, the purpose for a person’s baptism should not be a deterrent to fellowshipping others. If they believe they are already saved and that baptism is just a ceremony, or “an outward sign of inward grace,” why, that’s no problem.

In other words, Truth does not matter as it relates to salvation, acceptable worship, correct doctrine, or church structure. Pray tell, when would Truth matter? The Scriptures are forceful with respect to “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8-9). They are compelling with respect to worship (John 4:23-24). There are one or two condemnations of false doctrine (2 Tim. 4:1-5). The corruption of church hierarchy was the chief contributing factor to the church’s entrance into apostasy. Yet these Scriptural issues do not matter to Abilene “Christian.”

It is an absolute travesty to have this institution’s involvement in anything to dealing with Truth or the integrity of the Scriptures. At this rate, perhaps next year the “Center” will host a seminar on fulfilled prophecies and assign Andre Resner Isaiah 7:14.

God’s Reputation

Israel’s disobedience with the golden calf had occurred just a few months earlier (Ex. 32-34). More recently, the people had complained at Taberah (Num. 11:1-3), but in Numbers 14 the whole nation had decided to stone Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb in their refusal to conquer the land (v. 10). God intervened and launched His own complaint against the Israelites.

And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they” (Num. 14:11-12).

Not many of us would have blamed Moses if he had sighed, shrugged his shoulders in weariness and frustration, and said, “Okay.” But Moses pleads on behalf of the people; interestingly, his main argument is based on God’s reputation.

And Moses said to the Lord: “Then the Egyptians will hear it, for by your might you brought these people up from among them, and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, the Lord, are among these people; that You, Lord, are seen face to face and that Your cloud stands above them; and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if you kill these people as one man, then the nations which have heard of Your fame will speak, saying, ‘Because the Lord was not able to bring this people to the land which he swore to them, therefore He killed them in the wilderness'” (Num. 14:13-16).

In essence, Moses is saying, “Think of your reputation!”

Moses has a well-reasoned argument here (a generous and gracious one, too, considering he had just escaped from being stoned to death). How would other nations view the Israelites’ destruction? It would reflect upon the Lord’s power. Notice that God resolved this problem in an interesting way. He did destroy that generation in the wilderness, but He allowed their offspring to take their place. Had He begun anew with Moses, it would have taken generations to achieve a nation of the same size.

If Moses could caution the Creator of heaven and earth about maintaining a good reputation, how much more should we be careful to guard ours! “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, loving favor rather than silver and gold” (Pr. 22:1).

The villain of Shakespeare’s Othello speaks the truth when he speaks on this subject:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which enriches not him And makes me poor indeed (Act 3, Scene 3, lines 159-165).

Iago knows whereof he speaks; he then proceeds to assassinate the characters of two innocent people, resulting in the death of one. True to his insight, he was not himself enriched by his slanderous speech.

Not only should we be concerned about our own reputation; we also should be concerned about God’s good name, as reflected by us. If God was concerned about His reputation to the extent that He did not immediately destroy the Israelites (as per Moses’ request), then we should be careful to represent Him properly.

When 40 years later, with the new generation grown, the Israelites were ready to take the land God had promised to their fathers, the people of the land had heard about them. When the two spies went into Jericho, Rahab told them:

“I know that the Lord has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. And as soon as we heard these things, our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Joshua 2:9-11).

The first event, involving the Red Sea, had occurred 40 years earlier; the defeat of Sihon and Og were recent: the Canaanites were aware of both. The reason that Israel had been in the wilderness so long was not a matter of concern to these people; the power of God was. God’s reputation had remained intact.

Jesus’ reputation was important to Him; He denied being a Samaritan, being demon-possessed, and working His miracles by the power of Beelzebub. ( Occasionally, it is necessary for a person to defend His name.) He also expressed concern for the way His followers would represent Him. Therefore, He prayed for unity among them.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21).

What a charge! Of course, with so many claiming to be followers of Jesus who are not, unity has no possible chance of occurring. Anyone can look at the different denominations and see division. Among genuine disciples, however, the prayer must be taken seriously. We have a reputation to keep–Jesus’, as seen in us. If we “bite and devour one another” (Gal. 5:15), then we have harmed a good reputation. We should be willing to sacrifice our pride and to forego the spreading of views with which others are not required to agree in order to go to heaven. How much better to hold certain opinions privately rather than to insist on public proclamation of them when such will most certainly end in division and sully the reputation of Jesus.

But there are other ways we might do damage to the Lord’s reputation.

1. We should avoid breaking the laws of the land. “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters” (1 Peter 4:15). How embarrassing to be guilty of violating a law when everyone knows you profess to be a Christian!

2. We must be engaged in the works that God has given us (Titus 2:11-14). We were not saved just to enjoy our own fellowship while ignoring the spiritual needs of others. Imagine a neighbor asking about religion. After explaining about the one church, the one plan of salvation, and acceptable worship, the question is asked, “What areas of work are YOU personally involved in?” What does it say about Jesus if the answer is, “Er, well, I attend worship on Sunday mornings.” “Well, sure,” the denominational neighbor says, “We all do that. But what programs of work are you involved in? I do maintenance, and my wife teaches a Bible class. Together we do a lot of visiting. What do you do?”

3. How is the church in the community handling the reputation of the Lord, whose name she wears? Are we known for our love, our enthusiastic worship, our collective good deeds, our benevolence? Have we withdrawn fellowship from those who have departed from the faith? Have we made certain that everyone who visits us feels welcome? Or do we just figure that someone else is taking care of these things?

God cares about His reputation; Jesus prayed about the actions of His followers. And most of us are concerned about our own image. We stay out of debt and pay our bills so that no one will look at us as deadbeats. Are we as concerned about being spiritual deadbeats? Are we more anxious about our personal reputations than the reputations we have as Christians? Are we faithful representations of Jesus? Do we honor Him in the works we do?

At a very young age, children will imitate their parents. In fact, their actions can be downright frightening. A child may walk or sit the way His father does. He may use the same expressions he heard his mother say–either good or bad. Children frequently do not discern between good and bad actions or speech; lacking analytical skills, they just imitate.

The Word of God describes our heavenly Father. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John show us the way Jesus behaved in a variety of circumstances. The pattern is there for us to follow. Children imitate their parents out of love and admiration for them. Should Christians do less? We are not our own; we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). We have God’s reputation to think of.

False Christianity

As predicted (see the article from May 31, 1998), homosexual marriages will be receiving more and more attention in the near future. According to an Associated Press article, titled “Group of Clergy Bless Same-Sex Unions,” in The Dallas Morning News on January 17th, next year California will vote to decide whether or not they are legal (8A). The initiative found its way to the ballot courtesy of a Republican senator, who will hopefully be defeated at the earliest opportunity. Who knows how California, which hosts Hollywood, will vote?

This article highlights two problems: homosexual “marriages” and “ministers” who support it.

With tears and a kiss, two women exchanged promises in a “holy union” ceremony blessed by more than 90 United Methodist ministers in a dramatic mass defiance of a church law against same-sex marriages (all information is located on page 8A).

However the United Methodist Church may define a “holy union” ceremony, it is anything but that in the sight of God. They may have practiced such folderol in Sodom, also, but God did not bless it. Any homosexual union is unholy. Can anyone not on hallucinogenic drugs imagine two men or two women coming to Moses and asking for a “holy union” ceremony? If so, his reply would undoubtedly have been, “Sure, why don’t you stand near the ‘unity’ candle and we’ll see how God blesses this ‘union.'” In the New Testament era, Paul, in a demonstration of what it means to be “sanctified” and “called to be saints” points out that current church members had repented of the practices of homosexuality and sodomy (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:9-11).

Neither Jesus nor the apostles authorized such ungodly, unholy behavior. To pretend that persons of the same sex can enter into marriage, which God designed for a man and a woman, is sacrilege. All the participants are just as obnoxious (if not more so) as those who defied God at Babel (Gen. 11). That soon-to-be-confused crowd was guilty only of rebellion; this mangy multitude in Sacramento was not only united in abject disobedience (of the most perverse kind) to God–they had the effrontery to ask His blessing! Participating in such a ceremony is equivalent to raising their fists in angry protest against the very holiness of God.

Behind them on the stage, the ministers lined up on the risers and chanted a blessing that could cost them their jobs: “O God, our maker, we gladly proclaim to the world that Jeanne and Ellie are loving partners for life together.”

“Hey, fellas,” someone should have said, “Don’t expect any Divine thanks for your actions.” God has a Divine proclamation for these wolves in gay robing: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41).

One of the “wedded” women said, “I hope you can see there’s a lot of love for us. The closet is dark and damp and unhealthy. I hope those of you who are in the closet can find a way to come out.” There is, however, another dark place that is far worse than a closet. And although it is not damp, it is really unhealthy. It is too bad that some have no fear of God and His wrath. Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth “as an example” of the “vengeance of eternal fire” (v. 7).

The focus of this newspaper article is that these United Methodists ministers are violating “a church law.” Although such is the least of their problems (since God, rather than church law, is the real judge), consider what this statement means.

1. Who gave these men the right to pass a church law? Does this very fact not tell us that the Bible is not the authority for United Methodists? If it is, why are men passing laws? Were not the ones God put in the Scriptures considered sufficient?

2. Who is the head of the United Methodist Church? The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23), but who is the head of theirs, and how did he get to be that way?

3. Come to think of it: Why is there a United Methodist Church at all? Did Christ authorize it?

No, the problem is that they departed from the Scriptures a long time ago when they recognized as authoritative something other than the Word of God. When men depart from the Bible in the area of organization, can we really not expect that there will soon emerge a body of men to govern, pass laws, and determine what their doctrine will be?

The thousand people in attendance are hoping that charges will be filed against them so that they can challenge the church law. In the church of the New Testament, they would simply have fellowship withdrawn from them for their heresy, and that would be that. But denominations are different from the Lord’s church. They have an unauthorized hierarchy that collects and disburses funds. The governing body also holds various other powers (not granted in the Scriptures), such as sending a man to a congregation or withdrawing him from it and sending a replacement.

Another departure from the Word is seen in this statement:

“In our church, unfortunately, I’m allowed to come into their home and bless their house, bless their car, bless their tractor and even bless their dog, but I am not allowed to bless them.”

Is he serious? Can anyone envision Paul blessing a tent or Peter blessing a mule? Do members of the United Methodist Church really invite their “pastors” over to bless their dogs? Do they get paid for such “services”? One can certainly see the need for church laws to regulate just this one area of their “work.” What do they do if they have termites or mice–come over and curse them? And what do they do if someone has a troublesome neighbor? Do they pray that he will move, get cancer, or convert to Methodism?

In 1996, the church’s legislature, the General Conference, took a stand against clergy around the country who had been quietly performing same-sex couple blessings. It added these words to the Methodists’ Book of Discipline: “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

Once again, we do not read in the Scriptures about General Conferences with legislative powers. What does the phrase, in our churches, mean? Do they not mean their church buildings? They sound as though the physical properties are their churches. This too is a concept foreign to the New Testament. The church consists of individuals, who are living stones in the temple of God (1 Peter 2:5). People should not be confused with literal bricks and mortar.

The minister who performed the same-sex ceremony in Sacramento said that he did it as an “act of ecclesiastical disobedience.” Sure, that sounds bad, but what does it mean? Since the phrase is not Biblical, we can only guess that what he meant was that he was defying the chain of ecclesiastical authority within the United Methodist Church. He could really amaze them by deciding to be governed by just the New Testament! Of course, the drawback would be that he could not abide by the Word of God and do “holy union” ceremonies for special people. Many religious groups are so entangled in their non-Biblical baggage they have difficulty seeing their way out.

Ironically, at the close of the article, one “reverend” Methodist minister commented: “This is not about sexuality. This is about the authority of the Scripture.” Actually, it is about both. The Scripture teaches about sexuality. It defines what is right behavior; it sets the bounds of acceptable behavior to God (Heb. 13:4). It specifies what behavior transgresses God’s holy laws.

But since the man brought up the authority of the Scripture, perhaps he can tell us by what authority he calls himself a Methodist. The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). When did the name Methodist originate? Were any in the New Testament called Methodists? By what authority is there a Methodists’ Book of Discipline? Is not the New Testament sufficient? Peter said that God had given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), and Jude confirms that the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). Why do we need something additional? If their Book agrees with The Book, it is not needed; if it disagrees, it is wrong and should be disregarded; if it is additional material, who is the source of it: God or man?

And speaking of authority, where is the authority to honor one’s self with the title of “Reverend”? Jesus specifically taught against this type of self-exaltation in Matthew 23:1-12.

The worst part of this whole sordid mess is that these people are engaging in this unauthorized, immoral behavior in the name of religion–shamefully, in the name of Christ. Undoubtedly, they think their actions will be a great drawing card to those not as yet professing Christianity. They probably see themselves as the epitome of love and tolerance. But it is a grievous mistake to think that genuine love accepts sin and that tolerance means fellowshipping even Satan (the author of false doctrine and immorality).

Brethren in Corinth were willing to fellowship the man living with his father’s wife–until Paul told them to withdraw fellowship from the man due to his sexual immorality. He rebuked them: “Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6). Since we are called to be “holy ones,” we can neither practice moral corruption nor fellowship members of the body of Christ who do so.

Yet when those who are lost look around at various religious groups who profess to be Christian, what do they see? They see groups like the United Methodists, who fellowship abortionists (as the United Methodist Church in Denton does), homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, gamblers, and those who imbibe alcoholic beverages. So exactly how are they any different from those who are in the world? Sinners do those same things; so what motivation is there to “play church”? They have no light or holiness to offer. They claim to be “Christian,” but they remain in darkness, doing the things of darkness–and falsely using the name of Jesus in connection with their corruption.

How awful and lamentable it is to think that those trying to leave darkness may only find religious groups who have never themselves found their way to the light. They will talk to them about grace and faith and becoming Methodists, but they must remain silent about sin and repentance. If Christians can have abortions and be homosexuals, what can sinners have to repent of?

With religions like these, people are likely to think that Christianity is just a fraud. One can engage in any kind of sinful behavior but remain a member in “good standing” in some religious groups. Such is not the holiness of Christianity; it is the deception of sin. Such doctrine was never inspired of God; it is the teaching of wolves.

“If I’ve Said It Once….”

The 26th anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade legislation will occur in just 5 days. Legislation is an appropriate term because there was nothing in the Constitution about the subject of abortion; so, behaving the way most false teachers do, abortion advocates took a phrase (right to privacy) and redefined it to mean something our founding fathers would never have imagined. The Constitution ordinarily protects human rights vigorously, but somehow the Supreme Court considered the life of the human being in the womb as unimportant. Their error in judgment has resulted in the vicious murder of over 40,000,000 children.

Murder is the appropriate term IF the child is living (and it is), if it is human (and it is), if it is innocent (and it is), and if God has not authorized it to be killed (and He has not done so). The Senate trial of the president will probably be garnering most of the headlines on the coming anniversary date, but publicity has been waning in recent years anyway. It has by now become an old subject; most people on both sides of the issue are tired of it. Apathy permeates American society. Some think that those who voted for impeachment, for example, will lose their next election. Some think those who voted against impeachment will lose. More than likely, however, most Congressmen will be re-elected no matter how they voted. Why? The majority of people don’t care.

Most people fail to see how matters such as abortion, the rule of law, or homosexual marriages relate to their daily lives. How can such issues compare to such weighty matters as: Who is going to win the Super Bowl? or What new movie is being released this weekend?

As Paul Simon wrote and sang over thirty years ago: “The dangling conversation and the superficial sighs are the borders of our lives.” We live in an even more dumbed-down society today than we did back then. Practically everything is geared toward superficiality. People do not generally debate issues: they repeat shallow and trite sayings, which may or may not make a valid point. Or they engage in a shouting contest: Whoever can repeat his side’s slogan louder and longer than his opponent wins.

Even in worship many people have no stomach for the meat of the word. “Come, preacher, tell us something short and pithy–cute, too, if possible.” Is this what the people were like who “were destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6)? One can almost envision a congregation in Hosea’s or Amos’ day chanting in the Pink Floyd-style of an ominous, menacing-sounding chant: “We don’t need no ed-ju-ky-shun.” Many are willing to put forth minimal effort (at best) .

Americans ought to be asking themselves, “What are the things that truly matter?” Unfortunately, most will not enjoy the answer. The thing that matters most is godliness. A strong national defense means nothing to a nation God has appointed for destruction. Economic prosperity cannot save a nation in spiritual and moral poverty (Amos 6). The ACLU, in its fanatical pursuit to remove prayer and the Bible from public schools (as well as from the public view in general, will not be able to save anyone from sin or the Judgment. We ought to concentrate on moral issues and on helping to draw people closer to God. What can we do?

Having observed the tactics of political liberals, several suggestions come to mind. The first one is repetition. All too often we may assume that once a position has been stated, that is all that needs to be said. Actually, we have had that problem in the Lord’s church, as well as in society. We have had debates on a number of topics over the years, which allowed the truth to be clearly seen. And that settled the matter. Or did it? A new generation comes along, and they are ignorant of the past battles that have been fought on such topics as the purpose of baptism, the work of the Holy Spirit today, and instrumental music. A dozen years have already passed since the Highers-Blakely Debate. And though it remains in print, how many people take the time to study the matter?

Many “preachers” are too busy falling all over themselves preparing their next positive, “feel-good” sermon for a Scripture-starved church to deal with such fundamental issues. If repetition (“grace only,” “As long as one is sincere,” et al.) will help convince people of various errors, just imagine what it could do for the truth. The fact that we have made the arguments against abortion one hundred times does not mean we should now quit. “But we know all that information,” someone might say. Yes, but other people need to know it, and we need to keep saying it. Has anyone noticed that Satan and his followers have become quiet because they have conquered the vast majority?

One would think that feminists would have tired by now of mouthing the words, “A woman ought to have a right to control her own body.” It does not matter to them that it is an old and very tired refrain (not to mention illogical); Gloria Steinem could say it on Oprah tomorrow, and the audience would break forth into applause, as though it were some new and profound truth never before thought of or uttered.

We ought to let people know that there are facts and arguments about abortion that have never been answered.

1. God calls a baby a “baby” whether it is in or out of the womb (Luke 1:41, 14 and 2:12, 16).

2. The information we have about the development of a child from conception onward demonstrates clearly that the child is alive and very well developed by the age of three months.

3. The “fetus” is an innocent, living, human being; taking its life is murder.

The pro-abortion feminists have not answered those three points in 26 years. Because of the support of the “unbiased” news media, they have relied upon repetition in place of logical argumentation.

Those who oppose Biblical morality never quit and find something else to occupy their time. They are first and foremost committed to the agenda. And if they do allow for a diversion, they spring back to life the moment they are needed. If nothing is going on publicly, then they are behind the scenes creating opportunities to repeat their message. Satan never quits. He and his followers seem to have an inexhaustible supply of energy. If we are going to succeed, we too will need to create opportunities to be heard.

And we cannot give up. We cannot assume that by convincing one person everyone now knows the truth. Approach the next person as if he or she knew nothing about the issue. Try to get people to care about the subject. Since so many people are apathetic, every person who genuinely cares about the issue becomes important. We never know how vocal and articulate someone might be. Someone we challenge on this issue may tomorrow prove to be a champion at leading others to the truth.

In order to be effective we must be knowledgable of the subject matter and oppose error (whether in the church or in society). Too often the opponents of righteousness get away with chanting the same old mantras (and the news media let them). It is up to us to challenge the errors in their positions and counter with a few “slogans” of our own.

1. Abortion has cheapened respect for life in general. (Has anyone thought that the high school girl who killed her newborn baby might have reasoned thus: “Well, if I had had an abortion, the child would be dead: killing him now is no different; the result is the same”?)

2. Abortion should not be a method of birth control; people must take responsibility for their own actions.

3. Why are feminists so eager to terminate the life of the baby? They know it would be adopted.

One other thing would help. Many decisions are made in Congress, the Senate, and on the Supreme Court. A few more pro-life votes, for example, would have overridden the president’s veto on the gruesome partial birth abortions. Vote pro-life. Do not vote for a pro-abortion candidate in either party. Remember (and this would make a good slogan): “Anyone who does not respect the life of an innocent, unborn child ultimately does not respect your life, either.” The United States of America has a great deal of bloodshed to answer for already. There may yet be time for repentance.

Women for Conviction by Jennifer Schaertl

[The following response was written in reply to another one of Janet McDaniel’s columns, in which she tried to explain why women are not upset over the President’s immoral behavior. Jennifer personally delivered this editorial to the Denton Record-Chronicle on December 22nd. To date they have not published it.]

Dear Ms. McDaniel:

I would like to address your article, “Wake Up, Ya’ll,” from December 18. One of the first things you are told in a statistics class is that you can make a poll say anything. I live in the middle of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the whole country and work with hundreds of people in my job. Of course, all anyone can talk about is what is going on in Washington, and you’re right about one thing. The general consensus is that “a dark cloud is hovering over the holidays” because of one man’s foolishness. But I have only spoken to one woman who doesn’t think the President should be convicted. The vast majority of women that think he should be removed from office cite some of the following reasons.

The most obvious objection to the President is his violation of the rules of management and business. This argument is complete and accurate without any moral implications. If the manager of McDonald’s was caught having an “inappropriate relationship” with one of his employees in his office, he’d be the next in line at the unemployment office-whether he was married or not. Either way, what he did would be punishable by termination. We’re not discussing the President’s private life! He took this woman into the Oval Office! What Clinton did was a gross misuse of his title and a tremendous breach of his responsibilities to the American people. Everyone seems to be worried that with all this going on, Mr. Clinton won’t be able to function effectively as the President–as if this job ever had his full and undivided attention! If it had, he would not have had the time to involve himself with Ms. Lewinsky. If a member of America’s armed forces is caught “fraternizing” (which doesn’t even imply a sexual relationship; it can be as innocent as dating) with a lower ranking member of the armed forces, that officer could be court-martialed and possibly imprisoned. Mr. Clinton is supposed to be the Commander-in-Chief of America’s armed forces. Do you mean to tell us (women) that he does not have to live up to the same code of morality and honor that the men whom he commands must uphold?

Second of all, women have discussed the moral issue. We are appalled at the idea that anyone would try and justify what the president did by saying so many women “either stood in Mrs. Clinton’s shoes or know someone whose marriage was jeopardized or destroyed by an affair.” If there is a pattern developing, then for the sake of wives and children everywhere, maybe it’s time these men started getting what they deserve from us. Every businessman or politician that has an affair should indeed pay the piper. When a child misbehaves, punishment deters him/her from doing it again. If a playmate is punished for an offense, it makes an impact. When adults or children get away with wrong behavior time and again, then what we will have is an epidemic. Men and women alike, who have affairs, generally do not do so as a spur-of-the-moment thing. In Job 24:15 we read that “the eye of the adulterer waits for the twilight, saying, ‘No eye shall see me’: and he disguises his face.” Something of this nature is thought about and developed as an idea before it is finally put into a plan and then implemented. There is quite a bit of premeditation. Mr. Clinton did not “mess up,” feel terrible about it, confess to his wife, and repent. No! He saw this woman for an extended length of time, and the relationship escalated to the point where they were even giving each other expensive gifts. Not only that, but he has been accused of multiple affairs; Ms. Lewinsky was simply the only one that kept evidence!

The third reason women and men want him out of office is the fact that he blatantly lied to all of us on national television several times before he was finally forced to confess. Even then he was not sorry for what he had done, but directed his anger at us and Kenneth Starr for disrupting his “personal” life! Let us not forget his pathetic bickering over the definition of “sexual relations.” In Matthew 5:28, Jesus said that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Trying to beat around the bush in order to get away with it and fool the American people is not the act of a repentant soul. He has no excuse for his perverted and irresponsible behavior–not to mention the despicable example he is setting for the youth of America. A woman on TV defending Clinton made the argument that we no longer live like Ozzie and Harriet did in the 50s, and we need to get over it. The thought of that woman having children truly keeps me up at night. And as a woman about to enter into marriage in two weeks, you have given me a rather dismal outlook (“all men do it”).

You suggested that politicians should worry about the state of “our teenagers” who are dying of drug overdoses. Don’t you realize that this problem has escalated under the Clinton presidency? And why not? He himself on MTV has admitted to smoking marijuana! The other problems you cite are neither new nor original; this is a mere smokescreen on your part.

The final argument that I have heard from American women is, “How can I support this hypocrite?” Every single speech or comment that this man has ever made about women’s rights, women being equal, the importance of the family unit, or anything along those lines has been completely bogus. “You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (Romans 2:22). How many times will we let him lie to us? How many bad precedents should we allow him to set for future leaders? We need to realize that all the things he has done and is trying to get away with are not small things. And most women realize that convicting this man is the beginning of a solution.

Sincerely yours, Jennifer Stratman (now Schaertl), UNT student, Denton, Texas

[Editor’s note on Jennifer’s article: When Janet McDaniel wrote her “home” article telling our elected officials in Washington why women didn’t care about the President’s misconduct, I thought it might be best if a woman answered her. Jennifer did an excellent job; the material is hers, and the edits were few.]