Feminist Politics

On October 16, 1998 Linda Marshall wrote a guest column for the Denton Record-Chronicle, which was titled, “Conservatives, Stop All Pretending.” Her plain purpose is to defend feminists who have continued to support Bill Clinton despite the evidence that has surfaced regarding his personal treatment of women.

First of all she seeks to redefine the term feminist to include “women, men, old, young, Democrat, Republican, you name it” (10A). [Who is the one pretending?] She knows that most people do not share her broad concept of the term; most Americans think of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and various others prominent in the media. Iffeminism is limited to the removal of “restrictions that discriminate against women,” it would exclude hardly anyone in society and therefore be a meaningless term.

She is responding to a newspaper editorial that accused feminist leaders (what definition shall we use for this phrase, one wonders) of “approving sexual exploitation to get what they want” (10A). This statement is correct, and Marshall does not deny it. She defends “feminist leaders” by saying (in essence), “That’s politics.” But that is not enough. Following the lead of the president and his “friends” (James Carville, e.g.), she next seeks to demonize Republicans (presumably some of those same ones that she included in her definition of feminists above). Linda Marshall writes:

The alternative to Clinton is a Republican party hostile to expanding opportunities for women and minorities and committed to a status quo that keeps rich, white men in power. Child care, health care, parental leave, violence against women–to these issues and more, Clinton has brought an informed, energetic, and innovative approach (10A).

One thing never found lacking in feminists, such as Linda Marshall, is arrogance. This last paragraph is little more than an oft-repeated cliche, which dissolves upon even a little consideration of the charges she has brought forth. If the Republican party is so anti-women, why do women vote for them? Don’t Republican men have wives, mothers, and sisters? And why are there female Republicans who hold office? Can Ms. Marshall tell us who appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court? And speaking of Republicans only wanting rich, white guys in power, perhaps Ms. Marshall can recall for us who stood at the forefront opposing non-white Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court? The answer is FEMINISTS. And why was he opposed? Was there any evidence offered to corroborate Anita Hill’s testimony? There was none. The feminists were opposed to Thomas’ conservative ideology.

This article does not seek to defend Republicans (both parties do good things for the country and make errors in judgment), but it does seek to show the disingenuousness of feminists. What people have concluded, and rightly so, is that it is hypocritical to oppose one man on alleged “sexual harassment” charges in the absence of any substantial evidence while supporting and defending another man (the president) who has a history of being a womanizer. Were the feminists interested in the sexual harassment charges brought against the president by Paula Jones? No, there was no outrage; they were more than willing to sacrifice her.

Bill Bennett, former Drug Czar and successful editor of The Book of Virtues, has written a new book, entitled The Death of Outrage. He quotes feminist Susan Estrich as saying: “You believe in principle. I believe in politics” (54). Well, isn’t that what Marshall said, too? Never mind what is right or wrong. Never mind about justice. The only criterion for the feminist is, “Does it help politically?” That admission means that they did not care one iota about Anita Hill and whether or not she was sexually harassed. It was for them nothing more than a political maneuver to oppose Clarence Thomas, a man whose ideology (especially concerning abortion) they despise. No wonder Rush Limbaugh calls them “feminazis”! The end justifies the means, so far as they are concerned. Never mind if a candidate for the Supreme Court is a decent man or a black man (minority). Feminists will destroy anyone who does not THINK the same way they do. Such truly is the Nazi mentality. They will also justify anyone who THINKS the way they do, no matter what crimes he may be guilty of. For reasons such as these feminists are properly regarded as fanatics and radicals by most Americans.

Bennett also quotes Eleanor Smeal: “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women” (54). In other words, one woman (Paula Jones) can be ignored because Clinton publicly upholds the feminist agenda. The following quotation is also from Bennett’s book:

To author Susan Faludi, the women who have accused the president of inappropriate sexual conduct “are not considering the advancement of their sex” and are violating a “defining trait of feminism: sisterhood” (54).

So a man may personally harass, seduce, and otherwise coerce women into sexual compliance so long as he publicly supports the feminist agenda. Is this an unfair assertion? Are feminists really so radical that they can overlook just about anything for the “cause”– for “sisterhood”? Nina Burleigh, who covered the White House forTime magazine, demonstrated her fanaticism this way: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal” (64-65).

To what extent will feminists go to achieve their cause? Betty Friedan’s response to presidential wrongdoing was: “I simply don’t care” (65). What if it were discovered that the president had raped a woman? Would feminists not care about that, either? Their view has been clearly substantiated: They are only interested in sexual misconduct if it is someone who is pro-life or who opposes some of their radical agenda. All the rhetoric about women being abused and harassed is simply that–rhetoric. They care nothing about the individual–only politics (Pr. 17:15).

Marshall fails to see her own hypocrisy as she imagines that the whole furor surrounding the president is nothing more than a political dispute being led by “Clinton’s right-wing opposition.” Any one with any sense would know that this has not been a matter of partisan politics. The impeachment vote was not accomplished by a few radical Republicans. An overwhelming majority of Republicans and five Democrats voted for impeachment. If even one Republican voted for impeachment because the president is a member of the other party, he should be ashamed.

The impeachment vote was not about politics. The only reason that Marshall thinks all these things are of partisan origin is that she knows that is precisely what her fellow feminists would do. They have already demonstrated that they do not care about right or wrong–only whether or not someone THINKS the way they do. Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will not adopt such a dangerous outlook. They should review the evidence in the senate and vote guilty or innocent on the basis of the facts–not party or ideology.

Marshall issues the following wisdom to conservatives (isn’t it touching how much she cares about a right-wing group committed to keeping “rich, white men in power”?):

Stop pretending to champion women’s rights as a cover for your attempted ouster of a duly-elected president whose policies you oppose and whose popularity you cannot understand (10A).

In the first place, the case of the president is not about championing women’s rights; it’s about violating the law, committing perjury, and obstructing justice. Marshall has fallen victim to her own assumptions and presuppositions. Second, what has amazed the public is the fact that feminists, instead of coming to the aid of Paula Jones and the other women preyed upon by the president, have been so apathetic. It is their hypocrisy that has come to light. Third, she has also assumed that, because feminists would either oppose or advocate impeachment for someone on a purely ideological basis, conservatives would do the same thing!

For this reason we have sought to disassociate this matter from politics. Do many people oppose Clinton’s ideology? Absolutely. We oppose, for example, his endorsement of partial birth abortion. Even most of those in favor of abortion oppose partial birth abortion–except feminists. The majority of Democrats and Republicans oppose this heinous, barbaric practice. But that is not what this issue is about. Nor is it about economic policy or taxes. The thought of removing someone from office on the basis of political philosophy is repugnant. Elections are for the purpose of resolving political differences. But if feminists would act in such a way as to prevent Thomas from being on the Supreme Court, they would impeach for the same reason. It is not conservatives that have a problem here; the problem lies with radical, partisan feminists.

Bright Lights and Brain Cells

Has anyone ever done a study of how the bright lights used on stage and for filming movies affect the “stars”? Perhaps psychological testing could be done to measure the decrease in IQ points as a career progresses. How else can the insane statements and warped “logic” of these people be accounted for?

Alec Baldwin, for example, said on the December 11th Late Night With Conan O’Brien show that Henry Hyde and assorted other Republicans would be taken out and stoned to death, if we lived in a third world nation. The crowd cheered wildly. “No, shut up. I’m not finished. We would stone him to death, and then we would go to their homes, and we would kill their wives, kill their children. We would kill their families.” When criticized for his comments, Baldwin said, “I’m not going to apologize for that. It’s a comedy show. If you can’t take a joke, get over it.” Oh! Silly us, it’s a joke. So, the worst Mr. Baldwin can be accused of is telling lousy jokes? Maybe he covets the title of “Conan’s Barbarian.”

We wonder how hard he and his Hollywood cronies would laugh if someone said, “You know, in some countries abortion doctors would be dismembered in retribution for their crimes. And then their nurses and employees would be taken out and shot.” Say, is this stuff uproariously funny? No, there is nothing funny about either of these scenarios. Anyone who thinks the two are not parallel is right. Abortion is a real moral evil; Baldwin is just upset with those who disagree ideologically with him. He ridicules those who are interested in preserving the rule of law. Fortunately, wiser heads than his have prevailed.

Then there is Kate Winslet who finds being voted “Body of the Year” in a woman’s poll “a little bit irritating.” In an October 17th news item in the Denton Record-Chronicle, she is reported as asking, “Why do we keep talking about women’s bodies all the time, particularly actresses?” (17A). Apparently the lights were so bright when Titanic was being filmed that she forgot that part of the picture includes both her nude body and a portrait of it. In fact, due to the success of the movie, she probably has the most famous body in the world. And she is surprised? Don’t anyone tell her about Playboy, Penthouse, and dozens of other magazines devoted to women’s bodies (including actresses). She might really be shocked at such news.

Let’s not overlook the recording industry. According to a news item in the December 4th Denton Record-Chronicle, George Michael was arrested for a lewd act in a park bathroom. He refused to show any contrition for his homosexual act. Apparently he thinks that if you see a cute guy, it’s perfectly acceptable to hit on him (2A). If we’re really lucky, maybe he’ll write a song about this seedy episode, for which he was found guilty.

Columnist Kathleen Parker found herself the object of criticism for her column questioning the value of single motherhood, which was prompted by Jodie Foster’s announcement of her intention to become a single parent in a People magazine article titled: “And Baby Makes Two.” A Colorado obstetrician-gynecologist took Parker to task for being politically incorrect and wanted to know who she was to make such judgments, according to the Denton Record-Chronicle of November 18th.

Parker replied simply but eloquently to all rationale opting for single parenthood: “Yes, a single woman can certainly be a good mother. But a single mother can never be a good father. It takes a man to do that, and children know this even if we don’t” (10A). She also put her finger on a problem that society has: “What I don’t like is our tendency to worship anything a celebrity does, even when the action is not, in fact, a great idea for the teeming masses” (10A). Parker certainly is correct, which gives us reason for concern that Americans may be listening to those whose own bulbs have grown a little dim.

Perhaps one of the dimmest of all is Sharon Stone, who first created a controversy by means of her lewd conduct in the movie Basic Instinct. Below is a portion of an article written in response to her actions and “reasoning” (with other appropriate comments) for the Columbia City Crusader (Indiana) on May 3, 1992.

When people do immoral and ungodly things, they can always justify it to themselves, as Sharon Stone does in the May issue of Vogue. This “star” who plays a bisexual serial killer says “she doesn’t mind being a sex object” because as a child “her brains got all the attention after she scored a genius-level 154 on an IQ test,” reported the May 1st [Fort Wayne, IN] News-Sentinel (2). No doubt she has achieved her goal since the amount of people who would now view her as intelligent (or even care if her IQ transcends 54) has probably dwindled considerably….

The problem with the audience (male or female) viewing someone as a sex object is that it dehumanizes the viewer, also, because the goal of such scenes is to provoke those watching to think only in fleshly, sexual terms. Personhood becomes lost amid suggestive, lascivious thoughts.

The problem with emphasizing the dehumanized person (with only sexual functions) is that it leads to rape, sexual harassment, and the general idea that the sum total of people’s existence is defined by their fleshly attributes. This false notion not only denies the intellectual, the spiritual, and the nobler thinking of mankind; it contributes to many of the current problems we are trying to solve. Society, which way do you want it? Do you want Sharon Stone with a high IQ or as a bimbo? Social ills (of a sexual nature) will not be cured by massive displays of the flesh with their incitement to think of others as sexual objects while at the same time acting shocked and horrified at crimes against women.

This church bulletin also contained a column by Erma Bombeck who refused to appear on a program designed to roast her, which would also include strippers as part of the activities. Those hosting the event agreed to cancel them, but they showed up to speak to her. According to the column published in the Peoria, Illinois Journal Star on April 28, 1992, the women told her, “We’re the strippers! Thanks for nothing. You did us out of a job we needed. We hope you’re happy!” (A7).

Erma responded in the following way:

It is unfair to say, “Men just don’t get it.” Many men actually do get it. Some Neanderthals who feed off their own insecurities will never get it. What is significant here is that some women still don’t get it (A7).

Are you paying attention, Kate Winslet?

Sharon Stone’s 154 IQ may not have improved any in the last six years. According to The Dallas Morning News of December 3rd, she recently appeared before a panel on AIDS and youth. Her advice to parents was: “Put 200 condoms in a box in some place in the house where everybody isn’t all the time so that your kids can take them” (2A).

200!? Either this is a very large family, or they don’t have much else to occupy their time. But in a sense the number is irrelevant. What is dangerous is the concept here of PARENTAL APPROVAL of fornication. Obviously, if birth control devices are so readily available, it would not do much good to also say, “One should not be promiscuous” or “The moral thing to do would be to wait until marriage.” Providing such resources for young people is tantamount to saying, “Sex is the primary thing. These will protect you from pregnancy and all diseases. Enjoy.”

Of course, the truth is that they are not foolproof protection (as many have discovered through experience). Despite their use, many have become pregnant or contracted a disease. But even if they were 100% physically safe, can they also prevent feelings of guilt, shame, and embarrassment? How can psychological damage be protected against?

And should parents also have a box of clean needles in case their children choose to experiment with heroin? And what about some unfrequented place in the house for bourbon, champagne, and kegs of beer? Forget ways of developing and enhancing the mind; let’s party!

But her High IQ-ness is not finished. She presents a “rationale” for her suggestion:

No matter how much we guide our children within our families, within our churches, within our schools, we are not stronger than the power of sexuality–particularly to a teenager (2A).

Teenagers? Some presidents in their early fifties have been known to have a problem! But there it is: schools can’t do anything; families can’t do anything; churches can’t do anything in the face of all-powerful sexuality. Joseph didn’t know that when he refused Potiphar’s wife. Paul didn’t know that when he commanded: “Flee fornication” in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. But then they had not seen any of Sharon Stone’s movies, nor did they possess her great intellect!

Lucado Puts New Face on Churches of Christ

Paul R. Buckley’s November 21st (1998) article spotlighting Max Lucado has occasioned quite a bit of response in the Dallas area. It appeared in the religious section (1G and 3G) and was titled “The Grip of Grace: Lucado Puts New Face on Churches of Christ.” It begins with the joke about the guy being given a tour of heaven, who is told to be quiet as they tiptoe past a certain room; inside are “the Church of Christ folks. They don’t think anybody else is here.”

Undoubtedly, some were offended by the old joke. Two weeks later, several responses to this article were published (December 5th). Randy Reagan, of Wills Point, wrote:

Having been raised in the churches of Christ, I can truthfully say that the only people I have ever heard proclaim that the churches of Christ teach that “no one’s saved but us” are those outside their membership. God is the only one who decides who is saved, not man (5G).

David Tarbet, of the White Rock church in Dallas, commented on using Church-of-Christ as an adjective:

I did not become a member of a “Church of Christ Church” when I was immersed for the “forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). The Lord added me to His divine church at that very moment (Acts 2:47). According to the scriptures, the unbaptized are not yet the children of God by faith (Galatians 3:26-27). This is not a matter of “Church of Christ doctrine”; it’s a matter of what the Bible teaches (5G).

Don Petty, from Farmer’s Branch, also said:

Mr. Buckley’s little joke is decades old and has no real meaning since no member of any faith can pass judgment on any other body of believers (5G).

Buckley writes that Lucado laughs at the joke; “he believes that there really are Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics in those other rooms” (1G). This is not news to most faithful brethren, but some are still shocked to discover that Max fellowships almost anyone despite his well-publicized article, “A Dream Worth Keeping Alive,” and his numerous references to all “believers” (anyone who says God is his Father) being on board a great Fellow-ship. As we have pointed out before, Lucado has given up the Bible (Acts 2:38 et al.) for Baptist Doctrine (see “Baptist Lucado and Loyalty”).

Mr. Lucado, an easygoing man of simple faith, has done what no other Church of Christ minister has done. He has become an immensely popular figure outside the tight circle of his own tradition. His books and his participation in Promise Keepers have put him in a league with evangelicals such as Charles Swindoll and James Dobson (1G).

Actually, his participation in the various events cited has put him in league with the devil, since Satan is the source of false doctrine. Jesus refused to associate with scribes and Pharisees who taught doctrines that were not true. He even cautioned His disciples to “beware of the leaven [teaching] of the Sadducees and the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:11), but such trifles never bother Max. Unlike Jesus, he thinks that grace will cover all those little doctrinal disputes. Noble preacher that he is, he is interested more in unity–apparently more so than is the Lord (Matt. 15:13-14).

Buckley accurately mentions that not everyone in the churches of Christ is thrilled with Lucado, but then adds that more and more members are agreeing with him.

Even if they sing their hymns with organs.

Even if they take Communion quarterly rather than weekly.

Even if they were sprinkled rather than dipped (1G).

Unfortunately, this point is true, as evidenced by a few letters of support that appeared on December 5th. Wes Horn, youth minister of the Allen Church of Christ, wrote: “Brother Lucado is an excellent example of what we in the Churches of Christ need to do if we are to reach the world in 2000” (5G). No, Mr. Horn, if members of the church followed Lucado, there would be no churches of Christ by the year 2000–except in name.

Carolyn Underwood, of Costa Rica (she does not say that she is a member of the church), advises Max to “hang tough”: “Jesus was never ‘in’ with the leaders of His time, either” (5G). Carolyn has obviously missed something here. Max is “in” with the spiritual leaders of today: Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, and the leaders of “Promise Keepers” were mentioned. She inadvertently brought to the readers’ attention just how UNLIKE Jesus Max really is.

But consider the three things quoted above (musical instruments, quarterly communion, and sprinkling in place of immersion). The first two involve acceptable worship to God (John 4:23-24). One needs to read in the Bible only as far as Genesis 4 to understand that God rejects worship that He has not authorized. Yet that makes no difference to Max (more on this is mentioned later). The third one (the Scriptural mode of baptism) involves the means by which one becomes a Christian. Paul said plainly that man cannot tamper with the gospel (which includes how to obey it, Gal. 1:6-9). Baptism by sprinkling was not even thought of in New Testament times, let alone practiced. But such tedious details are apparently too deep or taxing for Max–sprinkling will do just as well (for him).

When it became obvious that Shelly and others wanted to expand the borders of the kingdom (which idea became plain at the Joplin Unity meeting in 1984) beyond the definitions found in the Scriptures and began to suggest that all who were immersed (for any reason) were our brethren, many saw the direction they were headed. We wondered, “How will they find a way to save those who are sprinkled?” They know too well that the New Testament teaches baptism by immersion (Rom. 6:3-11). Max has the solution. Baptism had to be made irrelevant. So he has joined the “grace only, faith only” mantra. If salvation occurs BEFORE baptism, then the correct mode of baptism becomes irrelevant. Truth is gladly sacrificed for the sake of unity.

As if to confirm this point, the article states:

One of the strictest [teachings of the churches of Christ, gws] is the belief that baptism–by immersion for the forgiveness of sins–is an act that saves the soul.

As much as he cherishes baptism, Mr. Lucado says, “We are saved by grace” (3G).

It is not entirely accurate to say that baptism is an act that saves the soul. It is the final act in our response to God’s grace which brings salvation (1 Peter 3:21), but it is worthless if it is not preceded by faith and repentance. Max has, however, excluded any response to God’s grace; he has men saved by grace ALONE.

The article devotes some space to criticism of Max, naming specifically the final chapter of F. LaGard Smith’s book, Who Is My Brother? Smith rebukes Lucado by namein the book, though in light of what Smith wrote, one wonders why (since he himself is confused about baptism and fellowship). Smith reportedly offered Lucado the opportunity to write a response to him which would have been included in the book, which Max refused. Buckley comments:

He says he might have thought differently if he and Dr. Smith had corresponded privately and then decided to publish their letters. Otherwise, Mr. Lucado says, “I felt it was too staged” (3G).

Hogwash! Yours truly wrote in response:

Max Lucado’s reason for refusing to answer the charges in F. LaGard Smith’s book is disingenuous at best. Unlike Jesus, Peter, and Paul (who faced their opponents), Mr. Lucado ignores those who criticize his teachings. If he thinks he has found a better way than his former brethren (and he does), courage would suggest that he discuss such matters. He ignores all such opportunities, public or private (5G).

He knows the criticism that brethren have leveled at him. Many have attempted to discuss spiritual truths with him. While he finds it profitable to express his views in his numerous books, he apparently has no desire to defend his beliefs in an honorable public forum.

Asked to comment on his role in changing the churches of Christ, Lucado answered:

“My call in life has never been to reform or represent the Churches of Christ,” he says. “I don’t know how I could represent the Churches of Christ. We’re kind of an ill-defined group” (3G).

Actually, those brethren who follow Max might be defined as an ill group: they are too weak to read and apply the Scriptures and sick of being taught that Jesus requires obedience of those whom He saves (Heb. 5:9). But further, as was observed by this writer in the paper:

We can agree with Mr. Lucado on one point–he does not represent the churches of Christ. We would add that he does not represent the Truth, either (1 Peter 4:11) (5G).

C. Leonard Allen also finds his way into this article (Rubel Shelly declined to comment) and is quoted as accusing the church of following philosopher John Locke more than the New Testament (a refrain he apparently never grows tired of singing). Just because Allen may be more familiar with Locke than with the New Testament does not mean that the rest of us are. If Allen were a little more familiar with the New Testament and the way it authorizes, he might explain exactly what was wrong with Locke and how we misapply Scriptures rather than just resorting to name-calling.

Another point of interest in the original newspaper article is: “Although instruments are used during some weeknight services, Sunday worship is strictly a cappella” (3G). “What would be the rationale for this distinction?” one wonders. If it is all right to use instruments in the building during the week, what is wrong in using them on Sunday? And how long will it be until they are used constantly? Of course, since false doctrine concerning salvation is already taught at Oak Hills in San Antonio, their worship is already vain, anyway (Matt. 15:1-9). There may be 2,100 people engaging enthusiastically in worship, but that fact does not make it any more acceptable than the enthusiastic devotion of Baal’s followers in 1 Kings 18.

Mr. Buckley concludes the article on Lucado by referring to the radio speaker who got through to Max when he was a college student.

God forgave him. Mr. Lucado is sure of it. God graciously, lovingly, freely forgave, and Mr. Lucado is still amazed.

That, he says, is probably what draws people to his books: that sense of being a man forgiven, that wonder at the wideness of God’s mercy (3G).

Forgiveness is a great concept. But that is not what draws people to Lucado’s books; what draws them is that forgiveness is by “grace only.” They need not repent of their sins. No one can be saved by “grace alone” and repentance. If one is baptized because he has been saved, then he repents for the same reason (Acts 2:38).

Which is it, Max? Jesus said, “Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). What sayest thou? And what makes you so sure that God forgave you all those years ago as you and your pickup truck sat at the side of the road: the Scriptures or the radio preacher? Was it a “grace only” message that you heard? As Randy Reagan wrote: “. . .if Noah had not obeyed, not all the grace in the world would have kept him afloat” (5G).

The Atheists Strike Back: Jesus

Dear believer: You ask me to accept Jesus as my personal Savior; yet his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped, not sought. I ask only that you read what follows in the spirit of open-mindedness taught in Prov. 15:10 NIV (“he who hates correction will die”) and Prov. 12:1 NASB (“he who hates reproof is stupid”) because I seek to “Prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21).

So begin the words of Dennis McKinsey’s tract, Jesus Christ Is the Answer? This attack against our Lord is bad enough, but for the author of this tract to pretend to be open-minded (encouraging us to be such, also) is a farce. While Paul did teach Christians to “prove all things,” Mr. McKinsey’s intent is to “destroy all things” holy and true. This introduction is disingenuous, at best.

His very first objection to Jesus reveals that he has no understanding of such matters as sin, grace, or love:

While on the cross Jesus said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Mark 15:34). How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn’t even save himself? Those aren’t the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred other places he would rather be.

McKinsey must enjoy his attempt at blasphemous humor; perhaps when he is in hell, he will think of a hundred other places he would rather be. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus voluntarily allowed Himself to be crucified. He affirmed that no man would take His life from Him; He laid it down of His own accord (John 10:17-18). Had His goal been to save Himself, He could have simply stayed out of Jerusalem. He knew and declared in advance precisely how He would be put to death (John 12:32-33). He taught His disciples who would kill Him (Mark 10:32-34). He also, in this same passage, prophesied of His resurrection.

Mr. McKinsey’s charge that Jesus could not save Himself echoes the remarks of the blasphemers standing at the foot of the cross: “He saved others; Himself he cannot save” (Matt. 27:42). Soldiers are similarly taunted with: “How can you bring peace when you’re going to war to kill people?” It’s a paradox that is nevertheless true, despite whatever irony is attached to it.

Could Jesus have saved Himself? Anyone who could walk on water, disappear through crowds, and summon twelve legions of angels could certainly have prevented the crucifixion: for that reason, they could not take His life unless He cooperated. But if He chose to continue living in the flesh (what could possibly be the attraction of the physical realm He created?), then where would be our perfect sacrifice for sins? How would we be redeemed by the Perfect Lamb of God?

Jesus prayed earnestly to be delivered from the intense agony He experienced on the cross, but He submitted to ungodly men (who had no understanding of what was being accomplished for them) because He desired to do the Father’s will (Matt. 26:42).

“Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27).

Jesus suffered separation from the Father while He was on the cross, just as all impenitent sinners will experience in hell. That is the way in which He bore our sins. Since the penalty for sin has been paid, there is no reason for anyone to spend eternity in hell–unless he just desires to do so.

2. Jesus called people fools after admonishing others not to do so: “Shouldn’t he be in danger of hell fire too?” First, one must consider that the context in which Jesus warned people against saying, “Thou fool,” is one of anger–anger that would lead to murder. Later Paul would write: “Be angry and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Eph. 4:26).

Usually, when we call someone a fool, it is not the result of a thorough investigation, which has led to such a conclusion; the reason is that we are annoyed: “The light turned green, you fool; step on the accelerator.” This past year we have heard a great deal about “road rage,” which involves motorists who allow their anger to govern their behavior. Jesus warns against emotional outbursts that result in verbal or physical violence. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, writes:

This means an expression of abuse, the vilifying of a person. It means this bitterness and hatred in the heart finding its expression in words.When our Lord pronounced those woes, He did so in a judicial manner. He did so as one given authority by God. . . . He had offered the gospel to them; every opportunity had been given to them. But they had rejected it. Not only that, we must remember that He always utters these statements against false religion and hypocrisy (225-26).

In other words, it is the motivation behind calling someone a fool that puts one in danger of hell. When such a charge is made of a fellow human being out of emotional anger, it is wrong; when it is a judicial assessment, it is acceptable, such as the psalmist’s statement: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Ps. 19:1).

3. “Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.” This false charge is frequently made by those who either do not know or who do not want to know the facts. [Notice that all the Christian writers in the second and third centuries are termedbiased. Why is it that atheists are the only ones who are never biased? Perhaps they are, but their arrogance just prevents them from seeing it.]

The fact is that Jesus is mentioned by Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius, none of whom were “biased” Christian writers. They were secular historians; Josephus (a Jew) wrote of Jesus. And then there are the writings of the Talmud. This Jewish work, according to Edward C. Wharton’s Christianity: A Clear Case of History, was “completed about 200 A.D.” He further reports:

This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called the Gemaras. Together the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to “Yeshu’a of Nazareth” in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality (10-11).

In other words, Jews that remained hostile to Jesus actually (and ironically), in their efforts to fight against His influence, ended up substantiating His existence. Will Mr. McKinsey remove this objection to Jesus from His list, as honesty would demand?

4. “Isn’t Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only one and a half days.”

How little research Mr. McKinsey has done to bring up such a frivolous (and easily refutable) question. The ancients did not count time in the precise way that we do. They counted any part of a day as an entire day; we do it by hours. We would not count “on the third day” as equivalent to “after three days,” but they did. This objection involves nothing more than trying to apply twentieth-century customs to the first century.

5. “Jesus’ prophecy in John 13:38 (“The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times”) is false. Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock crowed after the first denial, not the third.”

This is an excellent example of mishandling the Scriptures (worthy of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and poor exegesis. What Mr. McKinsey hides from his readers is the prophecy recorded in Mark 14:30, the same chapter in which the fulfillment is found. Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” For that reason the cock is reported as crowing after the first denial (66-68) and again after the third denial, at which time Peter recalls what Jesus said about the cock crowing twice (72). As John refers to the incident, he simply refers to the final crowing; Mark gives the specific details of both crowings. There is no contradiction when the reader realizes that Mark gave a full report, supplying precise details.

But how honest is it for someone to give a false impression of an event by mixing two separate accounts of the incident when each is consistent within itself? It certainly shows a lack of real substance in the part of one who had encouraged “open-mindedness.”

6. “How could Jesus be our model of sinless perfection when he denies he is morally perfect in Matt. 19:17 (‘And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God’)?” Mr. McKinsey assumes what the text does not say. Jesus did not say, “Please don’t call me good, for I have sinned.” In fact, He, to the contrary, asked on another occasion, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46). When Jesus asked why the man called Him “good,” He was trying to get the man to see what such a statement implied. It implies, since only One is good, that Jesus is God (which is the truth of the matter).

7. “In 1 Cor. 1:17 (‘For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel’) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19 ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them. . . .’ So how could Jesus be a fountain of wisdom?” One thing is certain: with misrepresentations like these, McKinsey will never be accused of being “a fountain of wisdom.”

Paul himself was baptized (Acts 22:16), and he taught that others are to be baptized, also (Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12; Titus 3:5). To say that “Paul said that Jesus was wrong” certainly puts words in the apostle’s mouth that he never said. The context of 1 Corinthians 1 reveals that brethren had begun to be divided, setting up factions around certain Christian personalities. Therefore, Paul was happy that he had not personally baptized many there, lest they all claim him as their leader. This is the context of Paul’s statement: His mission was to preach; others could do the actual baptizing. Paul in no way contradicts anything that the Lord taught.

8. “How could Jesus, whom the New Testament repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our savior when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 (‘Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help’), and Job 25:6 (‘How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm’)?”

The reader is treated here to more “out of context” misapplications. Neither of the verses is a prophecy of Jesus as “the Son of man.” Rather they are talking about the nature of human beings. Mere men cannot save. But Jesus was no mere man–but God in the flesh (John 1:14). Sometimes He referred to Himself as “the Son of God,” referring to His Divinity; sometimes He referred to Himself as “the son of man,” referring to his humanity. To try to apply the two Scriptures cited to Jesus in particular instead of man in general is just another sampling of either ignorance or dishonesty.

9. “How can Jesus be God when he repeatedly said he was not God’s equal, wasn’t God? Obvious examples are John 14:28 (‘. . .for my Father is greater than I’), John 20:17 (‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God’), and John 7:16 (‘My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me’).”

All of these statements fail to take into account that Jesus “did not count His equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus submitted Himself to the Father and obeyed Him in all things, making the Father greater (in a sense). Nevertheless, when He said God was His Father, He made Himself equal to God (in another sense), and the Jews understood His statement precisely that way (John 5:18). When Jesus took upon Him the limitations of the flesh and put Himself in subjection to the Father, some things were given up, but He remained God in essence, if not in form.

10. “While on the Cross Jesus said, ‘Forgive them Father they know not what they do.’ To whom was he speaking? They say, ‘God.’ But I thought he was God. How can God speak to God if there is only one god? That’s two gods.”

Mr. McKinsey had no problem understanding that Jesus was speaking to the Father in the last question; when did he become confused? The fact is that there is one Godhead. One need only read as far into the Bible as Genesis 1 to read: “Let us make man in our own image” (Gen. 1:26). One of the common words for God in the Old Testament is Elohim, which is the plural form of El, translated “God.” The plural is also translated “God.” In the New Testament, they are referred to as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19, quoted by McKinsey earlier). These three personalities are one in nature, purpose, and character.

11. “Jesus told us to ‘honor thy father and mother’ (Matt. 15:4), but contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 (‘if any man come to me and hate not his father and mother. . .he cannot be my disciple’).”

One wonders how atheists can often times hold advanced degrees and yet fail to understand what most people know without requiring any explanation. Even those who might be temporarily confused could find the answer to this one in the cheapest commentary available. The point of Luke 14 is that Jesus must come first, before all others–even one’s earthly family, which is frequently the place one finds the closest bonds. For that reason Christians are called brothers and sisters; all of us are God’s family.

Does McKinsey really think that Jesus taught that one must literally hate his own family in order to be a Christian? The passage is simply one of contrasts, for emphasis’ sake. Is animosity what generally occurs prior to one’s obeying the gospel? No one could possibly interpret the verse the way the author of this tract has–unless he tried really hard. Is it not interesting that often times those who exhort Christians to be open-minded are themselves anything but? The dishonesty in handling the Scriptures, the deliberate misrepresentations, and the objections that a mere tyro would avoid making lead us to doubt the integrity of this tract.

The Atheists Strike Back: The Bible (Part 2 of 2) by Gary W. Summers

Most of the complaints about the Bible have been answered a long time ago. Its critics have not generally discovered anything that was not brought up AND ANSWEREDin the last century. John W. Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible provides a thorough answer to just about any problem an infidel raises in a tract such as The Bible Is God’s Word? Many of Mr. McKinsey’s attacks are superficial or even silly (as noted last week); occasionally, some of them require some thought and research. Below are the rest of his objections to the Bible’s being the inspired Word of God.

15. “Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. Yet it experienced a war (Rev. 12:7). How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn’t it happen again?” What Scripture says that heaven has always been a perfect place? It has always been a spiritual place, and the angels God created dwelled there. But, just as man has been given free will, so have the angels–they chose to be obedient to their Creator or to rebel against Him. When Satan decided to challenge God, it furnished the opportunity for all the angels to make a decision–to remain with their Creator or desert to follow a creature who maligned God and promised them something better than heaven itself.

At the end of this world, however, God will forever separate good and evil. Those who have chosen God will be delighted with their reward (they will not repudiate their choice); those who exercised their free will to rebel will forever dwell in the darkness which they craved. They will have their own realm and be totally separated from the God they denied and from all of His blessings.

16. “Believers are told in Mark 16:17-18 that they can drink ‘any deadly thing’ and ‘it shall not hurt’ them.” The answer to this “problem” lies in correctly interpreting the passage by observing that this promise was only made to the apostles (for a fuller treatment of the text, see “Bible Bashing (2): Blindness,” published on September 20th). No reports have ever come in that the apostles were poisoned; this promise was kept.

17. “We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18, 36) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments–Matt. 19:16-18 (saving by works)–if he wanted eternal life.” Being obedient unto God has always been part of God’s plan–in any age. Nowhere does John 3:18 or any other verse of Scripture say that people are saved by “faith only.” They speak of being saved by faith, but never “faith only.” Our atheistic author should press this point with Baptists and other Calvinists, since they are the ones who teach the false, “faith only” doctrine.

18. “According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32 (RSV). One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted. The total is 36.” What dedication atheists possess to read a text full of cities and count them to be sure the total is correct. But does the atheist not know that the writer could count what he had written, also? He would have to be really dull not to notice his discrepancy. The fact is that seven of the 36 (RSV) were cities listed later as belonging to Simeon (Joshua 19:1-6). Knowing that fact in advance, the writer listed the cities as they were originally assigned, but gave the number for the final tally.

19. “Surely you don’t believe Eccl. 1:9 RSV (‘What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun’)? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?” Why stop there? Why not mention planes, trains, and automobiles?

The writer is not affirming that there would not be any new discoveries or inventions–that there was nothing new to learn; if anyone knew the potential in these matters, it would be the world’s wisest man. Solomon is referring to the basic fundamental laws of this world. The sun rises and sets each day; the wind patterns follow their usual courses; rivers run into the sea; evaporation occurs, and the cycle repeats itself. That does not mean there cannot be interruptions, such as volcanoes, tornadoes, etc., but everything that God set in motion continues to function.

But nothing in the fleshly world can really satisfy the needs of mankind; observing this world only can lead one to draw the cynical conclusions that Solomon does–that all is vanity under the sun. No matter what knowledge we gain–even putting a man on the moon–how does such help make us better people or satisfy the spiritual needs we have? True value lies in Solomon’s conclusion: “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecc. 12:13).

20. “If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as. . .” are found in the King James Version of 2 Kings 18:27? “Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?” The first question the reader should ask is, “Why did Mr. McKinsey suddenly switch to the King James, after consistently citing the RSV?” The reason is that the word the King James translators used for “urine” is one that is now considered vulgar. What he is obligated to show is that the word was considered vulgar at the time of the King James translation. Even then he would only have an indictment against the translators, not the Holy Spirit who used a Hebrew word to convey the concept.

Frequently, the Bible is charged with being pornographic because of its use of words that describe bodily functions or such things as its references to rape, incest, adultery, and fornication. However, the mention of such things does not fit any usual definition of the writings or pictures termed “pornographic.” There are no lurid descriptions of any immoralities mentioned in the Bible. Accounts of sin are matter-of-fact, plain, and brief. The purpose for their being in the Book is not to arouse people or urge them to imitate the things that are clearly condemned. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, pornography is that which is “intended to excite lascivious feelings” (1021), which meaning most already know. The pornography charge against the Bible is absurd.

21. “If God created everything. . .then he did create the world’s evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38). Thus, he is responsible.” God is only responsible in the sense that He gave created beings free will. The evil being spoken of in the two verses cited above refers to judgment brought upon evil people. Note that McKinsey did not use the RSV for this passage, either. Various translations use “woe” or “calamity.” Thus, he is dishonest once again, giving the reader the impression that God introduced and is responsible for evil.

Actually, it was mankind that let evil into this world by means of disobedience. The sins and miseries of this world are our fault, not God’s. If this were not bad enough, man became more and more enthralled with sin, which led to the flood and even worse catastrophes for us. Tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, floods, tsunamis, and other destructive forces resulted from the flood; they ought to be called “acts of man” instead of “acts of God,” because our thorough saturation of sin led to their creation (Gen. 7:11).

22. “In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would he need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is already here? And how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:12; 2:7)?”

The Bible often uses accommodative, anthropomorphic language. God is Spirit, but is described as having eyes, ears, hands, etc. These things are not intended to be understood literally; neither is Genesis 11:5. God is pictured as being in the heavens–above the earth, above mankind. He does not literally dwell above the physical earth in the outer atmosphere somewhere. Such confuses the physical creation with a spiritual Being. The idea conveyed is that of position; God is above us in every respect (Isa. 55:8-9).

The description regarding Satan also involves the use of this accommodative language. We do not understand the spiritual realm, since we are physical creatures with numerous limitations. Although Satan could not remove himself entirely from the presence of God, there was a sense in which he could depart God’s immediate presence. In eternity, Satan will be completely removed from the presence of God.

24. The last item on McKinsey’s list involves Acts 20:35. He wants to know how Paul could attribute “It is more blessed to give than to receive” to Jesus when no verse records Jesus as having made such a statement. This one is not too difficult to answer. The fact is that we do not have everything recorded that Jesus ever said. His ministry appears to have lasted three years, but only about 40 days of his entire life are recorded. We know He did many more miracles than are recorded (John 21:25). Are some of His crucial teachings lost then? No, God has preserved what is essential to our salvation.

23. For space purposes this one was saved for last. “For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell’s punishment is infinitely greater.” Only an atheist could make this argument. One who trusts in God, who believes in His justice, who knows of His great love, could not make such a charge. Only one who does not believe what the Scriptures teach would have the audacity to tell the God he does not believe in that He is unjust because he does not conform to human standards. What this essentially amounts to is, “I don’t think God should be this way; so he is not this way.”

Tell us, Mr. Atheist, how bad is sin, if you know? You only believe in the material world; so how are you going to define a spiritual concept? Furthermore, how will you arrive at the correct punishment for sin? You are trying to draw comparisons from this physical world and apply them to a realm you know nothing about (and do not even believe exists). Has it occurred to you that the two may not be parallel?

Besides, why are you complaining? You have no desire to have any connection with God. You despise the very idea. Your life is spent avoiding every semblance of Deity. You must shrink from singing or even listening to spiritual songs which praise God. Certainly, you never engage in Bible study–unless it would be to find flaws in God’s holy Word. And the microscope you examine it under is defective, since it never lets you see the proofs of its inspiration–only alleged discrepancies. You probably don’t want to be around Christians–unless they are willing to remain quiet about their faith. You have no interest in prayer.

In short, you are spending your life disassociating yourself from God; so why should you complain about hell? You will simply be granted your wish. God will not be there. No one will sing His praises there. Isn’t hell the Paradise you always wanted–the complete absence of God or anything to do with him? Yes, and the duration is not just a few paltry years. You won’t EVER have to be worried about being bothered again! True, the fire and the torment sound a trifle unpleasant, but the essence of hell is that God won’t be there (2 Thess. 1:8).

Why don’t we let someone who knows something about punishment inform us? “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Hell is the appropriate punishment for those who choose to reject God. Jesus knew that the penalty for sin was so great that He was willing to pay the price (separation from the Father on the cross) to keep us from paying it throughout eternity. That demonstration of Divine love convinces us that 1) hell exists (or Jesus would not have agreed to take our punishment), 2) that it is a just punishment, 3) that people who choose it will be granted their yearning of God’s absence, and 4) if we were smart, we would take advantage of the blood Jesus shed for the forgiveness of our sins.

In other words, man’s understanding of spiritual matters is limited by Divine revelation, since such concepts cannot be naturally discerned. We cannot say that God is unjust in punishing the ungrateful and rebellious in hell because we have no expertise in or familiarity with such matters. God is just, and all will agree on the day of judgment that the punishment fits. Now is the time to choose life.

None of the alleged problems in the Bible presented by Mr. McKinsey are sufficient to make us question its inspiration. He, however, has rejected it. Those who keep its lofty precepts make fine husbands and wives, good citizens, helpful neighbors, and inspiring examples for others to follow. Those who follow the morals and ethics taught in the Word of God cause no problems to others, but rather bring joy to them. What does the atheist have to offer people that is in any way superior to these benefits to humanity?

The Atheists Strike Back: The Bible (Part 1 of 2) by Gary W. Summers

Recently, two tracts came to the office which were designed by either an atheist or an agnostic. Although no name was attached to either tract, the author of them is Dennis McKinsey, who publishes Biblical Errancy (estimated circulation about 350). His address is 2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, Ohio 43026.

The first one is called “The Bible is God’s Word?” and it begins this way:

Dear Believer: I can’t accept the Bible as God’s Word because it contains hundreds of problems and contradictions that can’t be solved, only rationalized. I ask only that you read what follows in line with James’ teaching that Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV) and Isaiah’s belief that we should “reason together” (Isa. 1:18) to see just a few of the Book’s shortcomings.

The careful reader will notice that the author of the tract, in just his opening paragraph, has already destroyed his credibility as an objective person. First, no one will deny that the Bible contains various passages that are difficult to comprehend or pose a particular problem; the Scriptures themselves acknowledge that fact (2 Peter 3:16). But the author of the tract makes it clear that, despite numerous resources available to all, he knows the difficulties cannot be “solved, only rationalized.” One must wonder if he ever held any desire to resolve alleged contradictions. His treatment of the Scriptures indicates that he has not.

Second, why would someone who has rejected the Bible as the inspired Word of God capitalize Book?

But most importantly, the reader sees immediately the mishandling of the Scriptures. James 3:17 does not teach that Christians should be “open to reason”; it says the wisdom from above is “open to reason” (RSV). And Isaiah 1:18 does not teach that we should reason with atheists; God is the speaker. That point is not too difficult to see;says the Lord is a great tip-off:

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

The verse is a challenge on the part of God for His people to reason with Him, something an atheist could scarcely do. He can only reason about God, not with Him. McKinsey has taken both Scriptures out of context in an effort to get us to read his tract. We therefore do not have a much greater hope that he will deal with the Scriptures any better in his future handling of them. Although we have been provided no Scriptural reason for examining the tract by Mr. McKinsey, nevertheless an inspired apostle said we are to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope that is in you. . .” (1 Peter 3:15); therefore, we do not hesitate to analyze this tract.

The first objection to the Bible cited involves babies: “If you must accept Jesus as your Savior in order to be saved (John 14:6), what about the billions that die as fetuses, infants, and mentally deficient, etc.?” This question illustrates a fundamental flaw in those who attack the Scriptures; they frequently ignore the immediate context, as well as the overall context of the Bible.

John 14:6 records Jesus saying, “No man comes to the Father except through Me.” Notice that the word man is used–not infant or mentally deficient soul. God never holds someone responsible for failing to choose salvation if the individual lacks the capacity to understand such concepts. Furthermore, infants and even children are not lost in the first place. David said of his child who died: “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). Jesus said concerning children: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3).

Calvin taught that children are lost, but he did not get that doctrine from the Bible. If Mr. McKinsey would like to refute Calvinism, we wish him well. Many have been doing exactly that for the past 200 years.

2. “Why are we being punished for Adam’s sin? After all, he ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t. It’s his problem, not ours.” He then cites Deuteronomy 24:16 to uphold his position; he could also have cited Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Once again, the problem is with Calvinism, not the Bible. We are lost because of our own sins, not Adam’s, but we do share in the consequences of Adam’s sins. Innocent people may die or suffer from another person’s sinful actions (drunk driving, for example).

3. “God created Adam, so he must have been perfect. How, then, could he have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin, he wasn’t perfect.” We trust that Mr. McKinsey does not teach a philosophy class. By definition, free will includes the ability to choose to do good or evil. One’s state at any one time is irrelevant. One may be without sin at one moment and choose to sin the next. Likewise, one may have been guilty of great evil, yet choose to do good. If one were programmed to do only good or only evil, there would be no free will.

4. “How can Num. 23:19, which says God doesn’t repent, be reconciled with Ex. 32:14, which clearly says he does?” The nature of God does not change. He can make statements, however, which are altered by various factors. Jeremiah 18:7-10 explains why Jonah preached the overthrow of Nineveh in 40 days, but that event did not occur. The people changed their behavior and expressed their sorrow. Therefore, God repented of the judgment appointed to them at that time. Later, they rejected His message and were destroyed. Repentance can affect what God has determined to do.

So can prayer. In Exodus 32:9-10, God told Moses he would destroy Israel and make of Moses a great nation. Moses pleaded with God not to do so, citing excellent reasons; God agreed and relented of His original intention. Israel, however, was still punished for her sins; God’s justice was still executed.

5. “How can 2 Kings 8:26, which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, be reconciled with 2 Chron. 22:2, which says he was 42?” They cannot be “reconciled,” but the discrepancy can be explained. Somewhere along the line a copyist made an error. No one claims that we today have a perfect Hebrew or Greek text–we have only affirmed that the Bible as originally written was flawless. The problem of varying texts, however, is scarcely insurmountable; we have enough evidence to know when a variation has occurred. We also know that God would not allow His Word, having been revealed, to become obscured regarding salvation.

6. “How can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God’s face and live, be squared with Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God’s face and his life was preserved?” The verse in Genesis was spoken by Jacob after he wrestled with the Angel of Jehovah, who was God in the form of man. This man was neither headless or faceless; therefore, Jacob saw His countenance. What Moses saw was God in some form other than the flesh. Once again, the context enables the reader to determine the distinction between the two comments.

7. “Rom. 3:23 says ‘all have sinned.'” All means all. Yet, Gen. 6:9 says Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.” First of all, all does not always mean “all.” In certain contexts all has limitations. We read, for example, that all Judea went out to hear John and be baptized by him (Matt. 3:5-6). Obviously, however, all did not include the chief priests and the elders of the people, who rejected John’s teaching (Matt. 21:23-25). How presumptuous for an atheist to examine God’s book and try to impose his own definitions on God’s words, which are defined by 1) the immediate context and 2) the general, overall context of the Bible!

The word translated “perfect” does not mean “without sin.” Otherwise God would be commanding the impossible (Matt. 5:48). Perfection refers to spiritual maturity. Only one person was without sin (1 Peter 2:22). But all may grow to perfection (Heb 6:1).

8. “How could Moses have written” about “his own death and burial”? How could any prophet write about the future? God revealed it to him ahead of time.

9. “Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (2 Chron. 9:25)?” This is the same type of question as #5; the answer is also the same (# 11 will be skipped for this same reason).

10. “Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Yet, why would it be of any consequence since. . .many others rose before Jesus?” First, all others were raised by men of God; Jesus was raised by God Himself (Acts 3:15). Second, Jesus prophesied His own resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34); no other individual did. Third, the fulfillment of this prophecy validates all of the claims of Jesus.

12. “How could we follow the 6th Commandment, even if we wanted to, when the authors of the various versions of the Bible can’t agree on whether the key word is ‘kill’ or ‘murder’? Surely they recognize the difference?” If I were an atheist, I would try to make serious arguments instead of those that are silly and frivolous.

First of all, the police in Hilliard, Ohio, might do well to keep Mr. McKinsey under surveillance since we are not sure whether or not he is inclined to avoid killing or murdering (he says, “even if we wanted to”).

The King James says, “Thou shalt not kill,” and most other translations say, “You shall not murder.” There is no raging debate over the matter; murder is the more precise word. Obviously, God did not intend that no killing be done whatsoever since the very next chapter lists offenses for which a man was to be put to death.

13. “We are told the Bible has no scientific errors, yet it says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13, 19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs.” Once again, the author of the tract seeks to impose modern definitions upon the Bible text. God always uses language that accommodates human beings at the time. Bats and birds both fly; God did not deem it necessary to use terminology that would not be in vogue for over 3,000 years. Why is the atheist so absorbed in such meaningless criticism instead of being impressed by the health tips God gave long before mankind knew the reason for them? Concerning hares chewing the cud, Wayne Jackson, in Essays in Apologetics, Volume 5, quotes from an article by Leonard Brand:

Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of “ruminate” is simply “to chew again that which has been swallowed” (Webster). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomach, which is characteristic of most ruminants, it does chew its food a second time (104).

14. “Matt. 27:9-10 quotes a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. Yet, no Bible believer has ever been able to show me where it lies in the Book of Jeremiah.” If Mr. McKinsey had only been present for our Annual Denton Lectures on the book of Matthew, he would have known the answer to this question.

In Studies in Matthew, Robert R. Taylor quoted Jim Laws as writing: “Everyone understands that some prophecies were spoken and not written down while some were written and not spoken, while others were both spoken and written” (539). Thus, such “an alleged difficulty is removed when one realizes that Matthew did not say Jeremiah WROTE (emph. GWS) such a prophecy but that he said Jeremiah spoke this prophecy concerning the thirty pieces of silver and the purchased field” (539).

Angel Visitations by Gary W. Summers

Angelosophy has become a popular topic in the past few years. People have been talking about, thinking about, and wondering about angels. A small percentage of people claim to have had an experience with angels. No doubt, the popular television show, Touched By An Angel, has raised the consciousness of some, but even prior to that colorful fiction, there were a number of books that had been written on the subject, many of which have sold hundreds of thousands of copies (Billy Graham’s book has sold over 2 and 1/2 million).

Some of these books do not just take every reported sighting at face value; the authors advise against gullibility because many alleged incidents have been seen by only one person, which tends to make them very subjective and not verifiable. After all, people might be convincing themselves that a hallucination was real, or the mind could be playing psychological tricks, in which imagination becomes reality.

One writer (who believes in angel encounters) summed up accurately the substance of many of the stories. According to H. C. Moolenburgh, in A Handbook of Angels, many angel experiences begin with an “extremely dangerous situation.” Then there is “the sudden rescue,” usually by “a normally-dressed young man” whose countenance is often “noticeably beautiful.” Finally, there is “the sudden complete disappearance of the rescuer” (48).

Although this author introduces some ideas that are bizarre even for a book of this type, he has stated correctly this pattern which many angel stories follow.

But of interest to many of us would be the purpose of such rescues, the rationale behind the selection process, and the results of these episodes.

In the opening chapter he suggests criteria for discerning the difference between genuine angel encounters and false ones, which, as urban legends do, become often repeated. His first meeting with an angel involves a toddler who climbed down a terrace and was heading for a busy street. Suddenly, “a lovely, sweet little blond girl about four years old, walked up,” spread out her arms, and prevented the adventuresome youngster from entering the highway. When the mother, having caught up to her daughter, turned to thank the little girl, she had disappeared (6).

Was the toddler saved by a guardian angel appearing as a four-year-old child? Since both parents could testify to what happened, the book’s author believes this to be a genuine angelic intervention. Moolenburgh believes the child might have panicked if a tall, male angel had made an appearance, but other accounts find angels at people’s elbows (17), whisking them up and away from danger; so why not here? Angelic saviors must be allowed artistic license, apparently.

Moolenburgh advances a theory on the reason for angels saving lives in this way:

The meeting with angels is not meant only to help someone out of their difficulties; this experience serves a greater purpose, and is particularly intended to help man in his metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly.If a meeting with an angel does not contribute to the inner rebirth of the person involved, it has no meaning (15).

Yet despite these protestations, no evidence of spiritual rebirth is ever presented. The author gives no illustrations of anyone, after an angel experience, turning to the Scriptures to be born again. Some claimed to have their faith strengthened, but “people with a Protestant background often described a deeper relationship to the Bible, while people with a Catholic background sometimes referred to a more intimate relationship with Mary” (194). In neither case is there anything said about the desire to simply want to learn the Scriptures in order to obey God properly. In fact, one girl (six at the time of her “rescue”) claimed it was not until adulthood that she realized the significance of the event: “She became a preacher” (110). She was saved so that she could grow up to do that which directly violates the Word of God (1 Tim. 2:11-14)?

Finally, the author notes that “none of my correspondents refers to a closer relationship with the Church,” which he terms a “human organization” (195). If angels were genuinely saving unfortunate individuals for the purposes of spiritual rebirth, there could hardly be this casual attitude that the church is a superfluous entity–when the truth is that Christ shed His blood for her (Acts 20:28).

Who would like to explain, for example why James, the brother of John was put to death with the edge of the sword while Peter was delivered from prison (Acts 12)? John and his family may have wondered the same thing. God is Sovereign; He is neither required to explain everything to us nor give account of His actions and decisions, as Job learned. Many Christians have been tortured and put to death while we in America have a pretty cushy deal. Who can explain that one?

1. “My soul is healed.”

2. “I have become deeper,” or “I feel enlightened.”

3. “I am more separate from the world” (196).

Others said their capacity for real love increased, they were “able to help those around them,” they experienced a sense of “oneness” (16). Some even claimed to receive spiritual gifts (197), such as the gift of discernment (198).

Many said that their life now “had a sense of direction” (200). For some, their spiritual capacities were surprisingly enhanced–as if contact with an angel suddenly produced the fruit of the spirit; love, joy, and peace became part of their lives (Gal. 5:22-23). For others, they developed a greater capacity to help their fellow man. As with “near-death” experiences, most do not fear death any more.

We do not claim to be able to explain many of the stories that have been reported, and since there are seldom any eyewitnesses, these occurrences are difficult to either prove or disprove. Actually, Christians have only one credible source upon which to rely–the inspired Word of God, and it does not particularly substantiate the 101 “meetings with angels” recorded in this or any other book.

So, while we cannot explain such experiences, we can understand the discrepancies between them and what the Bible reveals. We can also see that the effects of these so-called visitations do not match any goal or plan of God’s. If the experience drew people to the Truth, there might be a case; otherwise, in the absence of tangible evidence, we must remain skeptical.

Billy Graham’s Dishonesty by Gary W. Summers

Probably no name is more revered among Protestants than that of Billy Graham. He is widely respected and perhaps better known than anyone else (after the pope). His nearly universal ability to draw admiration, as a magnet draws nails, stems from his many years of preaching. He calls for his audiences to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their own personal Savior, and soon the aisles are flooded with people coming forward. How could anyone find fault with such an influential man?

He, as the rest of us, must have his message tested by the Word of God. Before anyone e-mails a vigorous complaint about this article, he (or she) ought to realize that no one’s doctrine is above question–not even the apostle Paul’s. The Bereans who heard him speak were called noble because they “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether” the doctrine Paul was teaching was, in fact, the Truth (Acts 17:11). If Paul did not mind having his gospel scrutinized, neither should Billy Graham or those who admire him.

But before we examine his teaching regarding salvation, let’s consider another situation. Suppose a man called Abimelech sees a beautiful woman that he might want to marry. Abraham says, “She is my sister”; so Abimelech takes her with sexual purposes in mind, but God intervenes by telling him she is Abraham’s wife. Abimelech protests that what he did (and would have done) was based on Abraham’s false declaration (Gen. 20:5). God acknowledges that Abimelech acted in the integrity of his heart and then commands him to restore Sarah to Abraham, which he does (Gen. 20:7). Abimelech is angry with Abraham and questions him:

“What have you done to us? How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done deeds to me that ought not to be done” (Gen. 20:9).

Now the text does not say that Abimelech asked, “Who is that beautiful woman traveling with you?” But if he had, we know Abraham’s answer: “She is my sister.” Although she was his half-sister, Abraham’s statement is calculated to deceive and mislead. We would all be upset with anyone who treated us that way.

Billy Graham does not tell the whole truth regarding salvation; people ought to be outraged at his dishonesty! Probably he has misled those desiring salvation through a number of oral and printed media. The one we are looking at comes from his book, Angels: God’s Secret Messengers. This book has sold over 2 and 1/2 million copies.

Near the conclusion of it (186), he affirms that angels are interested in the salvation of people; he then devotes two pages to explaining how men are saved:

A rich young ruler came running to kneel before Christ one day, and asked, “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). When Peter had preached his great sermon at Pentecost, Luke says the people were “pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, . . .what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). The African nobleman riding in the chariot across the desert talked with Philip the evangelist. Suddenly the nobleman stopped his chariot and said, “What doth hinder me?” (Acts 8:36). At midnight the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30).

After Graham affirms that modern man is asking this same question and setting forth the simplicity of the gospel, Graham then answers all four questions that he had cited by giving Paul’s answer to the jailer in Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

Now someone not familiar with the Scriptures would assume that the answer that Graham cites is the same answer given to all four questions in the Scriptures. After all, he did write: “Modern man forever asks this same question. It is old, but always new. It is just as relevant today as it was in the past” (186). This comment certainly leaves the impression that there is one answer to all four questions. But let’s go to the Scriptures to see whether these things are so.

When the rich young ruler asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, here is what Jesus answered (after making some comments on the word good: “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother'” (Mark 10:19). Jesus did not say simply to believe on Him; he told the man to keep the commandments. In Luke’s account Jesus told the man if he would keep those commandments, He would live. Graham said nothing about keeping God’s commandments.

Furthermore, this entire event occurred before the cross and Jesus’s death for our sins. This conversation took place under the old covenant; we ought to look for teaching about salvation after Jesus was raised from the dead.

The second Scripture Graham cited was Acts 2:37, but he failed to tell the reader Peter’s answer in the next verse: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Never in any of his “crusades” does Graham ever give this answer. He wants nothing to do with either repentance or baptism; he will detour around them every time.

The reader will have to ask himself how honest this approach to the Scriptures is. Graham borrows the question from verse 37 but omits the answer from 38. Can anyone affirm that this is an example of integrity?

Worse yet (for Graham) is the fact that this question was asked on the day of Pentecost, which was the first public sermon preached after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is the first answer given to people telling them what to do about their salvation: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized.” Graham “passed over” it, obviously in some hurry to get to Acts 16:31, an event occurring years later. These people on Pentecost believed and were ready to make the appropriate response to their sins. Why does Graham not give the same answer Peter did?

The third question Graham misquoted from Acts 8:36. The nobleman did not say: “What doth hinder me?” (notice there is no . . . given for words omitted). The nobleman asked: “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Is the reader beginning to feel like Abimelech when he found out the details that Abraham omitted?

Graham has, apparently, such an aversion to baptism that he could not even include it as the part of the question that it is. Philip had “preached Jesus” to this man, and he wanted to know if there was anything standing in the way of his being baptized. Graham would stand in his way. He would tell him he just needed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

But then if Billy Graham had been “preaching” Jesus to the nobleman, he would not have asked the question, would he? Graham never mentions baptism; so the nobleman would not have known to ask about it. The reason is that Graham does not preach Jesus correctly. If he did, people would ask him when they could be baptized. But nobody asks him because he ignores what the Scriptures teach on this subject.

If Jesus is truthfully preached, then people know that Jesus died for their sins on the cross, that He was buried, and that He was resurrected the third day, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4). They will also know that they need to die to their sins and be buried with Jesus in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5) so that they can be forgiven, having obeyed a form of the gospel (doctrine, Rom. 6:17-18).

“But didn’t Graham quote Acts 16:31 correctly? And if he did, how does this verse square with all the other passages?” It should be remembered that the others come first, which means that the ideas taught early in the book should be in the reader’s mind by the time he gets to later chapters.

While Graham did quote the gist of Acts 16:31, he omitted Acts 16:32, which sheds a great deal of light on the situation: “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” When Graham “preaches,” he winds things up by telling people to believe. Such is the conclusion of his message. When Paul told the jailer to believe, it was the beginning of his message.

We do not know if the jailer had ever heard the name Jesus or what it meant. Paul explained who He was as he proclaimed the word of the Lord to him. Graham also admitted verse 33: “And he took them the same hour of the night (see v. 25, gws) and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” Obviously, baptism was preached to the jailer–just as it had been to the nobleman and those on the day of Pentecost. Graham did not see fit to mention the results of Paul’s preaching on this occasion.

It is clear to see that Graham’s handling of the subject of baptism is about as forthright as Abraham’s handling of his wife Sarah. But worse than his denial of baptism, the final act of obedience (called God’s operation, Col. 2:12), in which the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sins (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16), is his repudiation of repentance.

There can be no successful denial that repentance is essential to salvation. Jesus said: “. . .but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Such a statement is scarcely ambiguous. Neither is this one: “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Repentance was part of the message Peter gave to the people on Pentecost, also (Acts 2:38). But Graham denies its necessity:

The one and only way you can be converted is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal Lord and Savior. You don’t have to straighten out your life first. You don’t have to try to give up some habit that is keeping you from God. You have tried all that and failed many times. You can come “just as you are” (187).

This is absolutely the most damning thing anyone could be told–that they do not need to repent. John did not preach this message; he said: “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance. . .” (Luke 3:8). So they asked him what they should do, and he told them (Luke 3:9-14). Jesus did not omit repentance (Luke 13:3); neither did Paul. He declared “to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting of repentance” (Acts 26:20).

Repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins are part of God’s plan of salvation. The Scriptures teach these things, but Billy Graham removed them from his message. Paul says that anyone who preaches any other gospel than what he preached (which included these two actions) is accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). People may admire Graham now, but how will they view him in the judgment when they are lost because they listened to him rather than God’s holy word?

How thunderously does this analysis demonstrate the importance of each individual’s reading and studying the Scriptures for himself! We should be able to profit from the mistake of the man of God, who disobeyed the clear Word of God when someone claiming to speak for Him spoke a contradictory message (1 Kings 13), and follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Any man can lift a verse from various Bible texts and build a false teaching upon it–even a false plan of salvation. Eternity is too long to trust any human being with one’s soul. Many intelligent and sincere people will be lost; they cannot be our standard. “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man” (Ps. 118:8). Graham knows he lifted verses out of their context. More importantly, however, we must know it, too.

Signs by Gary W. Summers

Message boards outside of a church building or place of business can be quite interesting or very dull. It has grown exceedingly tiresome to drive by a Dairy Queen, for example, on a day when it is 105 degrees in the shade, eagerly looking for an announcement about a sale on some cool treat, only to see the monotous and ever-present words, “NOW HIRING” (one can only wonder why they always need help). Would it be too much trouble to give customers a twenty cent break on their favorite soothing refreshment?

Churches have often been recognized for their brief, pointed sayings. One of the best ones in past years was the one that asked the question, “If you’re not as close to God as you once were, guess who moved?” And appropriate for Texas is the one that resurfaces periodically: “So, you think this is hot?”

But in a small town just a few miles outside of Denton, there was quite a contrast in messages just a few weeks ago. One church sign read: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Another one (a short distance away) said: “Deion Sanders makes a play then thanks and praises God.” The Scripture quotation was in front of a Baptist Church building; the other one was on one of “ours.”

In all fairness, the one with the name Church of Christ upon it does sometimes fare a little better. But sometimes they are worse, too, such as the time they sported this one: “Easter Is Not Colored Eggs; Easter Is Jesus Christ.” A letter of protest to these brethren served only to amuse the elders, who laughed off the criticism.

They had no appreciation or concern for the embarrassment that such words cause to members of the church who are trying to be New Testament Christians rather than like the denominations. They cared nothing about their erroneous promotion of an unauthorized, pagan-inspired “holiday.” One can only imagine the twisted “logic” that would lead to such a statement.

So the “Deion Sanders” quip was hardly a surprise–but what is wrong with it? Probably the intention was good on the part of whoever came up with this idea, but that individual obviously did not think it through very carefully. First of all, it presumes that God cares as much about football as we do. Second, it assumes that the Cowboys are not only America’s team, but Heaven’s team as well. Hmm. If God were a football fan, what team would He root for? After all, sporting events are not a matter of right versus wrong, good triumphing over evil, or holiness fighting against corruption.

And since He is omniscient, He cannot sit back for three hours, watching intently, wondering who will win. When Jacksonville played at Buffalo two weeks ago, the game was a genuine nail-biter. Down 16-10, Buffalo (led by recent CFL quarterback, Doug Flutie) marches slowly down the field on their last drive of the game. With 39 seconds left, Flutie throws a pass; the receiver catches it, eludes one tackle, stumbles, and stretches his arm out so that the football falls into the end zone. TOUCHDOWN, signals the referree. Fans are celebrating. But wait. Another referee overrules him, and the ball is placed on the 1 yard line. Three downs later the ball has not been advanced. How will the game end?

Only one down remains (and a few seconds) to get that last yard. The entire game hinges on this play. If Buffalo gets the yard and scores, they will win; if this fourth attempt fails, they lose. The play begins; it looks like a handoff to the running back straight up the middle. No. Flutie kept the ball: he rolls out to the left and dances into the end zone. The extra point is good; Buffalo wins. “What a finish!” we mortals shout. But in heaven God could have declared accurately what would happen before the game began. So how can He take sides between teams or be enthusiastic about any game? Such do not usually have eternal consequences, and souls seldom hang in the balance.

Third, therefore, although Sanders may be showing some humility in thanking and praising God, what are we to think if his opponent then makes a brilliant play for the opposing team and praises God for his ability? Is God playing for both sides, or what? Some basketball players have been known to “cross themselves” before shooting free throws. Which Catholic players on which teams should God listen to?

In the movie, Texas Across the River, the hero needs money; so he enters a shooting contest. Falling a little shy of the entry fee, he asks the owner to deduct the fee from his winnings. The owner stops him from shooting, however, by pointing out that if he fails to win, he will lose the cost of the entry fee. The hero stiffens and proudly says, “I am a Balthasar,” meaning that because of his Spanish heritage, he will not miss. But the owner responds with, “I’m a Baptist myself, but it ain’t never improved my aim none.”

Likewise, athletes may pray, cross themselves, or offer thanks after a great play, but such does not imply God’s involvement or approval. One young man assured this writer that he went to “mass” every day for a week before a big high school football game, and his team won! It probably did not occur to him that if that formula was valid, they should have won the state tournament. [Of course, it is never wrong to thank God for our abilities or use them in His service (although football is questionable “service”).]

Fourth, the worst flaw with the Deion Sanders message, however, lies in the misconception that somehow Deion is getting his strength from God, and this relationship is causing the Cowboys to win. So what happened when they played the Chicago Bears two weeks ago? But further, let’s suppose the Cowboys play Miami. Deion makes a play and praises God. Then Karim Abdul-Jabbar makes a play and praises Allah. Can we expect to see a sign outside a Muslim temple that says: “Karim makes a play then thanks and praises Allah”? Now what are people supposed to think? Will football games become contests between Jehovah and Allah: between Christ and Muhammed? We surely don’t want questions of religion decided by professional athletes. Let’s stick with Bible verses on message boards.

The question has been asked, “Why don’t people care?” This writer’s humble opinion is that the relative silence has occurred because a great number of citizens are selfish. Let’s say that Dick lies to Jane about his working late. Somehow she learns that he has been seeing another woman who has an apartment near his office building. Does she say, “Oh, well, I have plenty of food, clothing, and videotapes to watch”? Hah!

Her pride is hurt that he would commit adultery and lie to her. She probably will not say, “Well, nobody’s perfect; I forgive you.” More likely, she will file for divorce. She will be outraged, not silent. Why? It’s a personal matter; it happened to her! If it happened to her neighbor, she might just yawn and think, “It was her own fault.”

If a man’s business partner lies to him or embezzles money from the firm, he will take such shabby treatment personally. He will not just quietly forget about it. Parents do not remain silent if their children lie to them: they will ask them, “How do you expect us to trust you in the future based on this kind of behavior?”

But when the President does so, people just shrug their shoulders because they do not think it affects them personally. Only extreme selfishness can produce silence rather than outrage. But those who reason in such false fashion will discover that the President’s immoral and unethical conduct will affect them–eventually. Many will be influenced by what was done–and the lack of righteous indignation expressed by citizens. They will only be shocked when someone lies to them and then wonders why they are upset. When an individual in the public trust violates his position, every citizen, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, should take it PERSONALLY!!

By the way, this “outraged by silence” message was not outside a church building; it was displayed by a printing company. Most denominational churches have forgotten how to stand for decency and honor; they are too busy fellowshipping abortionists and homosexuals. Many leaders of those groups are too busy attending prayer breakfasts in Washington and trying to forgive a man who has not repented of anything–a man who uses them like he does everyone else. Lead on, printing establishment; the churches have lost their soul.

Singing Versus Singing Plus…. by Gary W. Summers

One hundred years ago churches of Christ were in the midst of a crisis; instrumental music had been imposed upon the worship. For decades brethren had enjoyed praising God together without the addition of various types of musical accompaniment. In fact, many had left all of that behind when they departed from the denominations they had grown up with in order to obey the gospel of Christ (Acts 2:38, 8:35-39; Rom. 6).

Today, God’s people find themselves in a much worse situation than that of the last century: Not only have “change agents” found even more ways to pervert worship, but they are clearly leading many back to denominationalism. “Professors,” such as Carroll Osburn (The Peaceable Kingdom 91-92) are downplaying church organization (why be organized the way the Bible teaches?), doctrine (is premillennialism so bad?), worship (why can’t we just do what we want, like Cain?), and even salvation itself (we exclude too many fine folk). What else is left to pervert, after minimizing God’s plan of salvation, appropriate worship, New Testament doctrine, and church organization? Why does not Osburn just say, “The Bible doesn’t mean anything it says”?

While false teachers are attempting to dynamite the bases of the pillars of the church, it may seem frivolous to patch a crack in the wall of the temple, but we must recognize the way that Satan works. It is not enough for him to launch torpedoes at a ship; he also wants to create a mutiny on board at the same time (a principle demonstrated in the movie Crimson Tide). So, while radicals are being resisted by faithful members, the devil is busy tempting Christians with other errors.

Most brethren reject the use of instrumental music, but in the past fifteen years they have begun to accept other additions to singing. Before these are considered, however, it might be prudent to state what our opposition to instrumental music is and has always been.

Instrumental music is not authorized as an acceptable form of worship in the New Testament. From a study of Colossians 3:17 we know that everything we practice or teach must be authorized: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through God the Father through Him.” What we do in word pertains to doctrine; what we do in deed pertains to practice. To do these things in the name of the Lord Jesus means to do them by His authority. This principle is not difficult to grasp.

How do these precepts apply to worship? Do we have authority to sing? Yes. The New Testament tells us in the preceding verse: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spirituals songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). There are other verses which also mention singing. BUT there is NOT ONE that authorizes the use of musical instruments to accompany the singing. NOT ONE!!

For precisely this reason, many (such as Adam Clarke and John Wesley, who were quoted in last week’s bulletin) through the ages have opposed the imposing of instruments of music upon the worship. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever commanded, used, or implied that such should ever be used to accompany singing.

Does it matter to them that they have introduced something that wounds the consciences of their fellow Christians, for whom Christ died? Are they disturbed at the loss of those with whom they have worshipped for years? Are they ashamed of having erected a barrier to fellowship? No, they have the instrument, and musical sounds designed to please the ear mean more to them than people made in the image of God and washed by the blood of Jesus

Impose is the precise word to refer to the introduction of anything into the worship that God did not put there. If a person holds a strange doctrine and keeps it to himself, it does not affect other members of the body; if he insists, however, on adding (or binding) anything to the corporate worship (not authorized in the Scriptures), that innovation will affect everyone.

Of course, all of these are made with the voice, but they do not consist of actual words with definitions. They are vocal sounds, but they do not communicate an edifying message to the church. These sounds are usually performed by secular artists for the entertainment of their audiences (yes, there are a capella vocal bands that perform the songs of the Beatles and other groups by imitating musical instruments with their voices). Likewise, religious groups who style their songs in this fashion are entertaining brethren.

Ephesians 5:19 does NOT read, “Making sounds to one another.” Speaking is the word selected by the Holy Spirit: “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Everything about this word involves the use of words, not vocal noises.

Notice also that the object of this form of worship is twofold: 1) to teach, admonish, and speak to one another (with intelligible words), and 2) to honor God. We all sing (it is “to one another”), and in doing so we “make melody” in our hearts “to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). We also sing “with grace” in our hearts “to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). When a small group sings to entertain brethren, the Lord is left out. The alternative is to ask the Lord to accept our “dum-dum-de-dums” as meaningful worship.

The problem is that they too are additions to the singing which God has authorized. Most people have a favorite type of secular music, and many of us like a hard-driving beat, but in worship we are to give God the fruit of our lips. How ludicrous to mix the spiritual with the profane: “On a hill far away (clap, clap, clap) stood an old rugged cross (clap, clap, clap). . . .”

This amalgamation of the two has been accomplished with great success in the “gospel music” field. Some may not care for heavy metal “Christian” music, but once people begin blending the two concepts, there is no stopping place. Why bother trying to put religious words with a secular beat? Why not just book ELO (“Don’t Bring Me Down”) if they have a reunion tour or ask Bob Seger to come in and sing “Old Time Rock N Roll”–or better yet “Give Me That Old Time Religious Rock N Roll”?

Those who defend hand-clapping inconsistently use the same argument that they have rejected from those who impose the instrument: “Where does the Bible say you can’t do it?” That is not an appropriate question to ask about any innovation; the correct question must always be, “Where does the Bible authorize it?”

Many started the practice of handclapping outside the assembly in youth meetings or Bible camps, but now it has worked its way into worship assemblies on the first day of the week. The fact is that there is no authority for it anywhere–in or out of the assembly.

Will there ever come a time when Christians will refuse to be distracted by innovations? Will there ever be a time when brethren will be satisfied to do those things which God has authorized without the desire to “jazz up” the worship? Will the church never learn to be content to just speak, teach, and admonish one another, with our voices, as our Lord has directed? We pray so.