On October 7th an article about Kenneth Starr and the church of Christ appeared in the Charleston Gazette. The article consists of a vicious attack upon both Kenneth Starr and the Lord’s church.
The opening line is: “Unfortunately for President Clinton, his sexual peccadillos were committed during the reign of a spiritual descendant of Oliver Cromwell.”
As the reader can already tell, this is yet another attempt to excuse the President by trying to shift his guilt to others. No one forced Clinton to commit adultery against his wife with a woman young enough to be his daughter. He has no one to blame but himself, but he seems to have many admirers who are willing to excuse him. We can only wonder if the wife of the writer (if he is married, as well as the wives of all the other men who have been minimizing this situation), agree with their husbands. And if they do, would they not mind if their own men did the same thing?
Starr does not have a “reign” and is in no way comparable to Oliver Cromwell. He was not elected, nor did he force his way into power. He was appointed by the President, and every action he has taken has been approved by Attorney General Janet Reno and/or a three-judge panel. This Cromwell comparison is ludicrous.
Furthermore, Starr was appointed to investigate Senator Robert Packwood; did Clinton’s apologists complain about him when he found evidence of impropriety on the part of a Republican Senator? Democrats approved of Starr because of his integrity and objectivity.
But the author of this article, H. John Rogers, is not content to simply trash Starr; he found it necessary to indict the entire church of Christ. He writes that Judge Starr “came from a little known fundamentalist sect that makes Jerry Fallwell look like a theological radical.” Rogers calls us “a 1.6-million-member denomination primarily based in rural sections of the South and Appalachia.” He obviously has never looked at a directory of churches of Christ and noticed page after page of churches located in big cities. We do not know what kind of law Rogers practices in New Martinsville, West Virginia, but with so little regard for facts, or even the inclination to do even minimal checking, no one would want him handling an important case.
The implication that members of the church are ignorant is precisely what he intends to convey. He later writes: “The median education level of the congregants is definitely below the 12th grade, so having an educated professional like Ken Starr in their midst is somewhat of an anomaly.” That will come as a surprise to all of the college students here at Pearl Street and other congregations, as well as those who hold higher degrees all across the brotherhood. Of course, education is not synonymous with Christianity; Paul told the Corinthians that not many were “wise according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 1:26), but Rogers’ assessment is not based on any kind of factual evidence.
He also alleges that we “still share the lower rungs with the charismatic Pentecostals” (many of whom are highly intelligent). Then he has the nerve to call us self-righteous; he should check a mirror.
Rogers heaps up plenty of venomous criticism on the Lord’s church, even though he is inaccurate:
Theirs is a fundamentalism so thorough and complete that, for example, no musical instruments are permitted in their churches, solely because the Bible does not specifically mention music in connection with either Jewish or Christian worship. They overlook David’s lyre and the frequent prefatory words to many of the psalms, “Lamnatseach Mizmor” (for the conductor of choirmaster with musical accompaniment).
What kind of off-key information is this? We have never denied that instrumental music was used in the Old Testament; 2 Chronicles 29:25 and several psalms make that fact clear. We have pointed out that neither Jesus nor the apostles (or therefore Christians in the first century) ever used it. A lawyer ought to have some respect for precedents; it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine what the U. S. Constitution authorized and what it has not. That is all our case against instrumental music involves: there is no authority for it in the New Testament (Col. 3:17); we are not under the Old Testament (Heb. 8:6-7).
If Rogers knew anything about history, he would know that we have successfully debated the subject of instrumental music many times. In 100 years no one has yet devised an argument, the conclusion of which is that the New Testament authorizes its use. Since Mr. Rogers is an ordained Methodist minister, perhaps he ought to read what Methodist Adam Clarke had to say about instrumental music in worship from his comments on the phrase invent to themselves instruments of music, like David from Amos 6:5 (volume 4, page 684):
“I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful… I am an old man and a minister; and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to think that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity. The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists said, in his terse and powerful manner, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.” I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared.
Will Rogers call Adam Clarke a thorough fundamentalist of low educational achievements? Perhaps, and maybe John Wesley was from a rural congregation in the South or Appalachia (an intended insult on his part). One thing Rogers cannot say: Clarke was not ignorant of David and his lyre. But the attack on the Lord’s church continues:
They hold a closed communion service and no one other than members of the sect are permitted to participate in “the Lord’s Supper.”
This will be news to most brethren who have failed to notice the “Lord’s Supper” police checking all the aisles to make sure no one has slipped in. Of course, the Lord’s Supper is designed for those who belong to Jesus, but there are numerous visitors each week who are unqualified to receive it–but who take it anyway. If their sins have not been forgiven, it will do them no harm. No one is prohibited from the observance. We do not practice “closed communion,” as many denominations have in the past.
Next Rogers accuses us of believing that the Roman Catholic Church is “the great whore of Babylon” in the book of Revelation. That view was once a popular one, held by many in denominations, including Methodist Adam Clarke (6:1036). But most members of the Lord’s church believe the great whore refers to the Roman empire. Rogers’ arrogance in telling us what we believe is exceeded only by his ignorance.
His next erroneous sentence (which most are) states: “The only way to avoid damnation is to repent, be baptized, and join–and be accepted into–their denomination.” The Scriptures do teach that repentance and baptism are necessary for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and we will stand with the Truth. If Rogers wishes to debate the subject, he will be accommodated.
But there is nothing in the Scriptures about joining the church–and being accepted–and we have never practiced such a notion, although many denominations have. Furthermore, we are not a denomination any more than brethren in the first century were a sect, of which they were wrongly accused (Acts 28:22). We are Christians, which is what anyone becomes when they obey the gospel (Acts 2:36-47).
A person like Judge Starr, affiliated with such hard-core fundamentalism, may well harbor a deep and visceral loathing towards an avuncular, hedonistic “Bubba” like our president. Like other fundamentalist sects, the Church of Christ’s teaching focuses heavily upon sexual conduct. As a practical matter, this reaches fullest flower in the castigation of libertines outside the fold.
May is the key word; Rogers is assigning motives to Starr’s actions. Are not denominational people supposed to refrain from “judging”? Jesus was condemning making unwarranted judgments on others (Matt. 7:1-5).
Our teaching does not focus heavily on sexual conduct–any more than the Scriptures teach on the subject. It has always been our goal to declare “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:28). It would be difficult to have fellowship with a holy God if He had not first defined purity for us. Some religious groups, such as Methodists, frequently IGNORE what God says on the subject of morality. They tolerate divorce, despite what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9; they accept homosexuals without any repentance. And, on the basis of Rogers’ column, adultery is all right, too. Telling lies must also be acceptable. The President can look the American people in the eye and say, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” when he knows he is not speaking the truth. Rogers thinks such behavior is understandable and is willing to excuse him, but we fundamentalists without much “ejukashun” think such actions are reprehensible.
We do not make it a practice to castigate libertines outside the church: “For what do I have to do with judging those who are on the outside? Do you not judge those who are on the inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Sure, we get upset that the voters of Massachusetts keep sending Barney Frank back to Washington, even though he is an admitted homosexual and one of his lovers ran a prostitution ring out of his house. And we get tired of the immoralities of Hollywood and the entertainment media. We even speak out against various evils from time to time (as John did, Matt. 14:4; see also Eph. 5:11) because as citizens of this country we are affected by the ideologies and behavior of others. But we rather expect non-Christians to be immoral. And, yes, we think national leaders should exhibit a higher standard of morality than someone not in a position of public trust. But those are expectations we have as Americans, not Christians. Most of the Caesars were corrupt; those in power frequently are. But this nation has invoked God’s blessings since its beginning; it has used many Biblical principles as a basis for law, and we would prefer that “Bubba” (and those supporting his immorality) not lead us back into the dark ages (morally speaking)!
Finally, Rogers brings up Lawrence Walsh. Bad move, counselor. People might remember how much money Walsh spent on Iran-contra and how few convictions he netted. Rogers concludes that Walsh would not have brought up any sex scandal involving Reagan; it would have been “beneath his dignity.” The reader is encouraged to consider what Walsh did, how long it took, and whom he subpoenaed. Starr did not investigate Lewinsky for purposes of sensationalism; he did it to reveal the President’s character. He succeeded.
Incidentally, has Starr even claimed to be a member of the Lord’s church? His father was a preacher, and he attended Harding, but according to an article by Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post, which appeared on the same day as Rogers’ article, Starr has been attending the McLean Bible Church for nearly ten years.
September’s Reader’s Digest highlights the successes of Ted Turner. He owns CNN, the Atlanta Braves, is vice chairman of Time Warner Inc., and was voted 1991 Man of the Year by Time magazine. And that’s just a smattering of the things he owns and the awards he has won. There is much, much more. In terms of how this world evaluates things, he is undoubtedly one of the most successful and most influential men of any generation–for what it’s worth.
We read of a few rich men in the Bible also. One was a farmer who had so many goods he decided to build bigger barns. Unfortunately, he was asked a rather embarrassing but pertinent question: “This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will these things be which you have provided?” (Luke 12:20). How trite, but accurate, is the old saying, “You can’t take it with you.” The point Jesus made was that the accumulation of goods was the man’s whole life; an empty man entered into eternity.
Another rich man fared sumptuously every day; he too departed this life without the accompaniment of any of those old familiar possessions. Only in this case we read that he was in torments in Hades with no relief available to him (Luke 16:23). Did not Jesus stress the difficulty of the rich entering into heaven (Matt. 19:24)? Even so, most people, if given a choice of whether to be rich or poor, would choose rich. Therefore, we do not begrudge Ted Turner all of his wealth. He earned it and shall undoubtedly enjoy the fruits of his labors for a few more years before going the way of all flesh. But what then?
Then he will be denied the one possession that even the lowliest of people, such as Lazarus, shall be given–a heavenly reward. In “The New Song” appear the words: “I want to see the Master bring a precious life-crown that I may own and wear.” That crown of righteousness shall be granted to all those who love His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8). Ted Turner won’t be able to win or buy one of those. Why not?
“Christianity is a religion for losers,” he said a few years ago at the American Humanist Association convention (222). Although he apologized for the way those words came across to people, he still believes what he intended to say. “Which was what?” some will wonder.
What he really meant, he says, is that Christianity is “the religion of the down-and-out, because Christianity says give everything to the poor, follow Christ and wear sackcloth and ashes” (222).
Exactly what passage of Scripture teaches that Christians should give all of their money to the poor? Perhaps Turner is thinking about the one rich man who came to Jesus asking what he should do to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. The man persisted: “What lack I yet?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Matt. 19:16-21). Notice that this response was intended to make him spiritually complete; it was not a requirement for salvation. This man was imperfect because he had a great love for his money; he went away sorrowful.
Zacchaeus, upon Jesus’ visit in his home, promised to give half of his goods to the poor, but it was voluntary, not a requirement (Luke 19:8). On another occasion, the Lord observed that “you have the poor with you always” (Matt. 26:11), meaning that we could give money to the poor at every opportunity and never rid ourselves of poverty. So, while there are precepts that encourage generosity and require Christians to give, no Scripture requires the followers of Jesus to “give everything to the poor.”
Likewise Christians are never told to sit around in sackcloth and ashes. The phrase only appears twice in the New Testament–and not in connection with Christian behavior.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. 11:21 and Luke 10:13).
Ashes is mentioned by itself once in connection with animal sacrifices (Heb. 9:13) and once in describing what was left of Sodom and Gomorrah after the Lord rained down fire and brimstone upon them (2 Peter 2:6). Sackcloth is referred to, apart from ashes, as the color black (Rev. 6:12) and as the clothing of the two witnesses (Rev. 11:3). Christians, then, have no command to wear sackcloth and ashes. There is no example of Jesus, the apostles, or Christians in the first century ever doing so.
Is Christianity the religion of the “down-and-out”? Of course it is! Otherwise, it would be no different from an elite social club which excluded those without a sufficient income. But neither does it deny membership to those at the upper end of the social scale or to the wealthy. Both slaves and masters stand in need of the forgiveness of sins. There have been many rich men who were Christians; they loved God, however, more than their wealth.
We must also plead guilty to being followers of Jesus. By definition, what else would we be? And what’s wrong with that? Besides, everybody follows the philosophy of somebody, whether it be that of Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, Gandhi, or Hugh Hefner. Why not follow Jesus, who died for the sins of all mankind in order to make salvation available to all (1 John 2:2)? No one else has ever claimed to do so; no one else was ever qualified to do so.
But Turner has more criticisms:
“What’s this burning forever in hell? For running around a little bit, or having a couple of beers? If I do have to accept any kind of religion, I like the Native American Indian’s concept that you’re born good, nature is god and then we all go to the happy hunting grounds” (222).
Turner reflects the arrogance typical of many Americans: “I don’t like the doctrine of hell; so it must be wrong.” Unfortunately for most people, God does not live by public opinion polls; God is sovereign. He can do whatever He desires (but He cannot act in such a way as to deny His holy character). And although God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, His holy character demands justice.
Some have no appreciation for the sacrifice that the Father and the Son both made to obtain salvation for us. Apparently, they can be blase about the suffering of Jesus on the cross with the Father powerless to stop it (and redeem us)! Some have no gratitude that God was willing to pay the price (at great cost to Himself) to keep us out of eternal torment.
Turner, as do so many others, seeks to create God is his own image. He’s run around on at least one of his wives; therefore, God should not find fault with such behavior. We might imagine that God does not object to Turner’s divorces–or any other kind of behavior he wishes to engage in.
His understanding of native American Indian theology may be a tad simplistic. If Indians believe that all men are born good, why did they fight and kill each other? Sure, there were two or three peaceful tribes, but others massacred each other. “The happy hunting ground” sounds good because it means there is no accountability, no judgment. However, if such were true, then neither Hitler, Stalin, nor anyone else who wants to rule the world will ever be judged. And if no one will ever be held accountable, then we are all free to do what we think we can get away with. The “happy hunting ground philosophy” leads to cruel and vicious living in this life.
People are not born good; neither are they born evil. They become what they choose to be. Some are greatly disadvantaged spiritually in their early training, but they can still become spiritual people. Others have had good training, but they have repudiated both the teaching and examples of godly men and women. Good parents do not always rear good children; bad parents do not always rear bad children; everyone has the power to choose (just as Joshua reminded Israel in 24:14-15).
Nature is not God; it was created by God. It became treacherous due to the sins of man (Gen. 6:5; 7:11). Who can believe in a god that causes volcanoes to erupt, spewing hot lava down mountain sides, melting villages along the way? What about floods, hurricanes, tornadoes–all of which are powerful forces of destruction? Is the nature-god angry? Shall we offer human sacrifices to appease it? When God created the world, it was very good, but the excessive sins of mankind brought on the flood. Catastrophic changes in the earth opened up the “natural” disasters we now experience. Nature is not god; it is the servant of God.
“I’m just sick of all the ism’s,” he once explained, “whether it’s Catholicism, Protestantism, communism, capitalism, because everybody always thinks my ismis better than everybody else’s ism. The only ism that I can really be happy about is humanism, where you respect everybody” (222).
If Turner is serious about capitalism not being superior to communism, perhaps he ought to give away all the money he earned through this system (preferably to me) and go live under communism in Red China.
All isms are not created equal. And humanism does not respect everybody. In general, they do not respect Christians, and specifically they do not respect infants in the womb. Faye Wattleton, for example, one time President of Planned Parenthood, was the 1986 Humanist of the Year (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was selected in 1957). She was succeeded by Margaret Atwood, the Canadian author, who suggests in her book, The Handmaid’s Tale, that if Christians were in power, it would be worse than a Nazi regime. No wonder Turner likes humanists; he was voted Humanist of the Year in 1990 (see Understanding the Times by David A. Noebel 126). Humanists may have respect for one another, but not for all.
Mr. Turner also believes the Ten Commandments are obsolete (should we guess which ones he finds fault with?). Well, he is right on this one: they were taken out of the law and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), but the principles are repeated in the New Testament. Consider adultery, for example.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Whoops! Ted won’t like that one. So he made up his own list, which he carries around with him. His first one is “Love and respect the planet Earth and all living things thereon, especially my fellow species mankind” (222). We need a clarification of “all living things.” Does that include malaria-carrying mosquitoes and rats spreading the Bubonic plague? Should people who live in hot climates, such as Atlanta, spray for insects? And what about those who enjoy hunting or fishing? Is that out under this commandment? Must we all become vegetarians?
And if we are going to respect “all living things, especially” mankind, does that include unborn children? According to the book, Rites of Life by Landrum Shettles, M. D., and David Rorvik, babies do have a heartbeat which can be detected at nine weeks after conception (55). If Mr. Turner is not pro-life, he ought to amend his statement about respect for all mankind to “respect for all mankind, whose existence is not inconvenient for me and my fellow humanists.”
The Reader’s Digest does not list all ten of Ted’s Commandments; but number 3 is: “Promise to have no more than two children or no more than my nation suggests,” which he has since amended to one child (222-23). And Atwood thinks Christians ruling the world would make it dictatorial! This world will never be in deeper trouble than the day humanists gain absolute control. The “one child” policy has been adopted by one nation–Red China. And the state will put to death a second, unauthorized child. If Ted’s wife, Jane Fonda, is willing to submit to her country on this policy (if it had one), she has certainly had a change of heart since the 1960’s.
Ted’s 10th commandment is that people pledge their loyalty to “the United Nations and its efforts to collectively improve the conditions of the planet” (223). Personally, I had rather eat green beans (which makes me throw up). That’s all this world needs–a bunch of bureaucrats dictating how everybody ought to live. Hey! Maybe they could enforce political correctness.
None of Ted’s Ten seems to have anything to do with morality (no mystery there). He thinks, as does Time-Warner, that man has evolved: “Basically we are chimpanzees with about two percent more intelligence and a little less hair…” (223). Wow! Just imagine what we could be with an additional 1% and more hair!
It may be that Ted’s real problem with religion stems from the painful suffering (from lupus) and death of his younger sister at age 15. Ted’s father concluded from this tragedy, “If that’s the type of God he is, I want nothing to do with him” (66). So what does such an attitude gain? God did not create the world with such misery; it entered in because of sin. It is the Humanist’s evolutionary world that is the father of these things (if God does not exist). Ted should be angry with the god Nature. The truth is that all the suffering of this world is mankind’s fault, not God’s. We can endure these hardships, however, with God’s help. And for the faithful, there is a crown of life.
This year’s Fort Worth lectureship book is a volume well worth having–even if the reader has comparable books. Last year’s Power lectures on Dangerous ‘Isms covers much of the same ground as this book does, but the material scarcely overlaps at all: both books contain a wealth of information.
This effort approaches false doctrine from the aspect that error is darkness while truth is light–thus the first three chapters are “Darkness and Light,” “Christ the Light of the World,” and “The Prevailing Darkness.”
Following these introductory exhortations is “The Darkness of Judaism,” “The Darkness of Buddhism, Shintoism, and Confucianism,” and “The Darkness of Islam.” These are all world religions whose sincere adherents are actually walking in darkness. The origin and history of Buddhism is delineated, along with some of its key teachings. Shintoism is one of the oldest religions, but it is mostly followed in Japan and not on a worldwide basis. Confucianism is “mainly an ethical system dealing with getting along with one’s fellow man” (79).
There is a great deal of attention given to “Islam,” and for good reason: It is worldwide and spreading in America. Several teachings from this religion are quoted from the Koran (Qur’an). Also cited are several contradictions within this alleged “holy” book. Additional information is provided elsewhere in the book dealing with “The Life of Muhammed” (419-26), “The Koran” (427-33), and “The Tenets of Islam” (434-38).
There are two sections on “The Darkness of Hinduism.” Unusual in this system is that it “is the only religion in the world without a definite founder, without a single book which all of its followers recognize as a definite source of authority for what it believes and practices” (326). Dharma and karma are explained as well as the importance of “the caste system.” The effects of Hinduism are particularly horrible for women, as it pertains to the dowry system, arranged marriages, and “suttee” (379-87).
One chapter deals with “The Darkness of the Watchtower and Adventism”; another covers “The Darkness of Mormonism.” One will get a much better perspective of what happened in Nauvoo, Illinois, from reading this chapter than visiting the actual location. Mormons do not hesitate to revise history at every opportunity. Joseph Smith, the founder of the cult, had instituted the practice of polygamy but denied the practice publicly (in other words, he lied about it). Some of his own people were so struck by the hypocrisy that “they purchased a printing press and published a newspaper, The Nauvoo Expositor, exposing the gross immorality that was being practiced so widely among church members” (153).
Although one chapter is devoted to the “New Age” movement, three more deal with various aspects involved in it: astrology, communication with the dead, and reincarnation. From here it is but a short step to a discussion of cults. One chapter lists seven characteristics of a cult while its successor explains that “The Church Is Not a Cult.” The section on atheism includes the admission by Aldous Huxley that one reason that atheists reject the Bible is that it curtails their sexual freedom (212). The author also calls attention to statements made by Richard Dawkins (1996 Humanist of the Year), Herbert Spencer, Paul Kurtz, and Carl Sagan.
Bert Thompson writes of “The Darkness of Evolution” in his usual thorough manner. He too mentions British evolutionist Richard Dawkins, along with French existential philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, and others. He is one of the few who had mentioned Carl Sagan’s Parade magazine article, in which he taught the “embryonic recapitulation” doctrine, which scientists abandoned long ago (241-42).
Wayne Jackson (he and Bert Thompson were honored for their work this year) wrote on “The Effect of Darkness on America and the Church.” Areas that he touches upon are economics, education, and justice (including the results of Pamela Powers’ murder, 301-302) in society before moving on to “Storm Clouds over the Church.” The chapter is succinct but thorough.
“The Darkness of Satanism and the Occult” provides some background information about Aleister Crowley and Anton LeVey, whom most credit with the modern Satanism movement. LeVey wrote The Satanic Bible, whose first assumption is that “religion and pleasure are mutually exclusive” (344). Equally informative is the analysis of Wicca, the so-called “white” or benevolent witchcraft, which includes portions of an interview with Lady Phoenix, (a former member of the church who now heads a coven).
A chapter on secular humanism will enlighten those who remain in the dark on that subject. The book closes with an outstanding chapter on homosexuality, which includes factual evidence about the practice seldom or never mentioned in the news media (but which people need to know to be really informed on the subject), one on partial-birth abortion, which includes a description of it from a formerly “very pro-choice” nurse (480), and one on euthanasia, which gives a brief history of how euthanasia played out in Germany. Some things being proposed are absolutely frightening–especially in view of the intense apathy of the general public. This book is well worth the $12.00 that it costs to buy it. It may be ordered from the Brown Trail Church of Christ, P. O. Box 210667, Bedford, TX 76095.
One of the richest spiritual feasts each year is the Power lectureship, directed by B. J. Clarke. Every one of the accompanying books is a masterpiece–a comprehensive, thorough, up-to-date collection of essays on the selected theme. The video and audio tapes for this year’s program are equally inspiring (they vary somewhat from the written material).
The Godhead: A Study of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit contains 616 pages of solid material on one of the most fundamental subjects of all. The nature of God is perhaps the most misunderstood, yet crucial concept in society today. Many have invented their own versions of Deity; this volume sets forth the truth in convincing manner.
Chapter one begins with “The Existence of God.” The writer illustrates misconceptions that people have about God with quotes from writers such as D. H. Lawrence and R. J. Hollingdale, artists such as Pablo Picasso and Andre Breton, and Spanish filmmaker Luis Bunuel, who probably summarizes the way many people feel about God–if they were honest enough to admit it: “If someone were to prove to me–right this minute–that God, in all his luminousness exists, it wouldn’t change a single aspect of my behavior” (15-16).
Arguments for the existence of God are then presented, including appeals to intelligence, morality, and design. All people need to be reminded of the validity of these arguments periodically–especially since no answer to them has ever been effectively offered. God does exist; mankind is accountable to Him.
“Vital Questions About Knowing God” deals with the possibility of knowing Him and the correct means to come to that knowledge. Many seek that information in erroneous ways; others claim such understanding while disregarding God’s revelation. The quotes from “the artist formerly known as Prince,” the artist still known as Madonna, and entertainer of the year for four years running (and sometimes leaping), Garth Brooks (53-55), are worth noting (as bad examples).
The next two chapters deal with “The Nature of God” and “The Sovereignty of God.” The former outlines some key attributes of God; the latter explores the Biblical version of God’s sovereignty and contrasts it with Calvin’s erroneous concept (ideas with which brethren ought to be familiar). These two chapters are followed by “The Work of the Godhead in Creation” and “The Work of the Godhead in Redemption.”
Another crucial concept deserving of attention is “The Triune Nature of God.” The writer contrasts the triune nature of God (“tri-unity” or “three-in-oneness”) with tritheism and explains how God is one (121). He demonstrates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all possess the characteristics of Deity. Many religious errors have sprung from a failure to comprehend what is explained so well in these pages (119-39).
Another thoughtful essay deals with “The Omniscience of God,” which at first may seem to be an obvious idea. But there has been, even among some faithful brethren, the notion that God can choose not to know certain things. This position is thoroughly analyzed.
“The Foreknowledge of God” overlaps, perhaps, just a little with the preceding subject, but it proceeds along different lines in that it reaches into the Calvinistic realm once again, dealing with the question, “If God foreknows something, then does He also not cause it or bring it about?”
“The Great I AM” is followed by “The Holiness of God.” The author does well in demonstrating the importance of understanding this characteristic of God by relating it to various other attributes of God. Perhaps the most crucial link is to God’s justice:
If God should pass over one guilty person without the demands of His justice being satisfied, He would at that point cease to be a righteous God of absolute and perfect holiness (206).
“The Immutability of God” is another important topic which affects our view of God. The word of men is generally suspect in these times; most people are honest enough to admit that they tell lies (how’s that for an oxymoronic idea?); perhaps they view God in the same way. His word, however, is truthful. God is faithful; what He promises He will keep. He will not bring forth excuses for failing to make good on His Word, nor will he try to rationalize His way out of His promises. This chapter, as with most of the others in the book, will preach. The author also explains passages which, at first glance, indicate that God does change (220-28).
Always a favorite topic for many is “Sins Against the Holy Spirit,” which includes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, lying to the Holy Spirit, resisting the Holy Spirit, grieving the Holy Spirit, quenching the Holy Spirit, and despising the Holy Spirit.
“The Omnipotence of God” dwells upon the majesty and vastness of the universe which God created, which reflects upon the great power of God. The information provided is both convincing and thought-provoking. Also considered are limitations upon God’s power.
“The Godhead and the Problem of Evil” contains 55 pages devoted to the explanation of how and why evil can exist in the presence of an all-powerful, yet kind, good, and benevolent God. The subject is introduced with a letter to Ann Landers from a bereaved and irate mother who can not understand why God allowed a drunk driver to kill her daughter. Many people undoubtedly have similar feelings; thus, the need for material such as this. The information here is well researched and presented (270-325).
“The Operation of the Holy Spirit in Conviction and Conversion” is followed by “The Operation of the Holy Spirit in the Life of a Christian.” The former denies the doctrines of Calvinism, and the latter mentions how some in the brotherhood have espoused Pentecostalism in various ways (341-46).
Perhaps an often-overlooked characteristic of God is His jealousy, even though it is mentioned in the second commandment. The author discusses its meaning and its application for us today. The next chapter is full of information about “The Names of God,” all of which relate to us something about the character of the Almighty.
“Who Is The Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament?” is an interesting subject–one that is often overlooked. “Of the 104 times the word angel is found in the Old Testament, only 4 of those clearly do not refer to ‘the Angel of the Lord'” (401). All of the instances are reviewed, and then conclusions are presented as to who that Individual was.
“How to Answer the Arguments of Oneness Pentecostals” accomplishes what the title suggests by first considering what the word one means and then sifting through the various arguments that are sometimes offered by adherents of the “oneness” doctrine.
“How the Godhead Dwells in Man” is followed by the ambitious “False Ideas About God.” Of course, not every one of these could be covered; the writer begins with the false ideas prevalent in the first century and then moves to our current era to consider atheism, Buddhism, Islam, Universalism, Denominationalism, and various cults.
“The Love, Grace, and Mercy of God” are delineated, as well as “The Patience of God.” In “The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit” the Jehovah’s Witness erroneous notion that the Holy Spirit is just a force is refuted. The personality traits of the Holy Spirit are presented, as well as His characteristics of Deity.
“The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ” destroys another doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses–namely, the error that Jesus is not eternal but was a created being. This is one of the few times it has been mentioned that Barton W. Stone held such a view (537-38). The reader may also find interesting the discussion centering on the concepts included in the words word and idea.
The book closes with essays on “The Incarnation of Jesus Christ,” which examines Isaiah 7:14, the prophecy of the virgin birth, “The Deity of Jesus Christ,” and from Romans 11:22 “The Goodness of God,” and “The Severity of God.”
This book is one of the best and most comprehensive, not to mention doctrinally accurate, ever written on this subject. All brethren would profit from a careful study of the material presented; preachers would do well to preach sermons on the nature of God. The book sells for $15 and may be ordered from the Southaven Church of Christ, which sponsors the lectures or Valid Publications, Inc., in Denton.
If the question were asked, “What does a Christian owe to those in the world?” some might answer, “Nothing! I haven’t bought anything from them; I haven’t contracted any of their services. I owe them nothing.”
Not all debts are incurred, however, on a goods-for-cash basis. Sometimes, they arise because of the amount of general good that can be produced by what an individual or small group possesses. Four leprous men, for example, went out to the Syrian camp and discovered that the enemy had fled. They rejoiced in the food and the spoils they found there (2 Kings 7:3-8). Did these men owe all who were starving in Samaria anything? As lepers they were outcasts. They had no deal with the leaders of the city, such as, “If you provide for our needs, we will share with you any treasures that we find.”
Yet even they recognized an obligation: “We are not doing what is right. This is a day of good news, and we remain silent” (2 Kings 7:9). It would be sinful to keep to oneself that which would profit so many.
The same would be true of a scientist or a research institute that made a dramatic breakthrough in cancer research. What would the public think if they learned that a cure for cancer, not involving radiation or chemotherapy, had been discovered–20 years ago?! All of those who watched loved ones die needlessly during that time would be absolutely livid with rage against the one who had withheld such a cure. All would look upon it as a matter of obligation to all society. “They owed that knowledge to the public,” we would say.
It is this kind of debt that a Christian owes to the world. Paul wrote: “I am a debtor both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and to unwise” (Romans 1:14). And what is it that the Christian owes to the world? In a word: light.
The world lies in darkness. Paul reminds the Ephesians: “For you were once darkness, but now are you light in the Lord. Walk as children of lightÓ (Eph. 5:8). As he himself was commissioned by Jesus, he was told, “I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17-18).
Christians owe it to those in darkness to bring the light to them, as it was once brought to us. Light is that which enables man to see. It is that which makes available real spiritual food, not just physical nourishment which the lepers brought to Jerusalem. Light is much greater than a cure for cancer; it is a remedy for death and eternal suffering. The world needs light.
There is an irony about light for the world, however. Whereas starving people do not refuse food, and those dying of cancer would enthusiastically accept a guaranteed treatment, many balk at the light. “And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). It remains the case, however, that many seek redemption from their evil deeds.
To offer light is to offer salvation. All have chosen to sin (Rom. 3:10, 23). All stand in need of redemption. Not everyone suffers with cancer. Many do choose to contract it by putting themselves at risk with incessant smoking, but a few (who are never around smoke) can also be afflicted by it. But even so, cancer is not common to all, as sin is. If anyone had a cure for cancer (which distresses only some), we would agree he had an obligation to share his knowledge to save the few. How much more, then, must the light shine in the darkness which engulfs all mankind?!
To offer light is to offer Truth. Jesus not only claimed to be the light of the world (John 8:12); He also claimed to be “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). But as with light, many have also hated Truth. Paul wrote of “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18) and “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie” (Rom. 1:25). Such is irrational and would be equivalent to the inhabitants of Samaria saying, “We don’t believe the Syrians have left their camp. We think these lepers are lying. We’re staying put.” Actually, Israel did consider the idea that the Syrians were pulling some sort of trick on them (had they heard of the Trojan Horse?). But they were clever enough to investigate to find out the truth of the matter. Sadly, some have eliminated even the possibility that Truth exists; others do not care if it does. These do “not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10).
To offer light is to offer hope. Those who are starving always have hope that food will become available. Those suffering through the agonies of cancer can always hope for remission or some new discovery. Those in moral and spiritual darkness have no hope as long as they remain where they are. Those who die in that condition will have no hope throughout eternity. Hell provides no end to its multiple miseries; it offers no relief or abatement of torment, as the rich man learned (Luke 16:24-25). No sane, rational person on Earth would choose eternal damnation in hell if he could experience for a few moments the agony felt by the rich man. But daily many are making decisions that will result in eternal hopelessness.
The Christian has an obligation to those in moral and spiritual darkness. Most will resist the light, and some will respond in a hostile fashion toward the light-bringer. “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). But our willingness to present the gospel to lost souls does not depend on its reception. If starving people refuse to eat, or if cancer patients refuse a lifesaving treatment, such rejection is not the fault of the person of good will. The price of salvation was too dear to keep silent about it. Truth must be spoken; hope must be extended. Eternal life is too great to be hidden. The gospel much be preached. It’s not just a good idea; it’s an obligation.
A few weeks ago we discussed Steve Blow’s column from The Dallas Morning News, in which he advocated (tongue-in-cheek) that the Southern Baptists at their next convention re-establish child sacrifices. Then his satire lost its humor as it became apparent that it was the Bible itself under attack, not just Baptists.
He has written a follow-up article (August 23rd) in which he states that the first column was a joke and that he knew he was “twisting verses all around” (35A). However, his attempt to straighten up the first mess only confirms what most people thought all along.
This time he suggests that Baptists “just kill people who don’t believe like we do.” As authority for such behavior he cites 2 Chronicles 15:12-13.
Then they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; and whoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman (35A).
He calls suggestions like these having “more wacky Bible fun.” Apparently, he is not able to tell the difference between humor and attacking the Scriptures. He includes no qualifying comments, such as, “Of course, Israel lived under a theocratic system; we do not; thus, such a passage cannot really apply to us.”
No, instead he thinks that the existence of Scriptures such as 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 give everyone the right to pick and choose what they want to obey from the Word of God. One lady wrote to him, saying, “Unlike you, I believe ALL the Bible.” He responds:
Oh really?How about this one from Deuteronomy 21: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death” (35A).
Once again, his argument is that, since no one would today advocate this behavior, the Bible is not to be taken literally or in its entirety. For Blow, that means one can pick and choose what Scriptures he will obey and which ones he can simply reject (such as wives being submissive to their husbands or homosexuality being a sin).
The word hermeneutics is obviously not in his vocabulary; perhaps he ought to ask a Southern Baptist preacher to explain it to him. The first thing a student of the Word is taught is to ask of any text questions like these: “Who is speaking?” “Who is being spoken to?” “What is the purpose of the statement?” “To whom are the things taught herein applicable?”
Noah, for example, was told to build an ark; should we all rush out to buy the appropriate tools and lumber? We restrain ourselves because God told Noah to do so, not us. He told him to build an ark because He was going to destroy the world with water. Later, he promised He would never destroy the world again with a flood, which is the reason nobody teaches classes in “ark-building.”
The Law of Moses was given to God’s people, who in Old Testament times lived under a theocracy. The Law of God was their civil and legal authority. Hence, they could do what they did in 2 Chronicles 15 and Deuteronomy 21. They were commanded to put the ungodly to death because they knew of a certainty that those who violated the law were disobedient to God and worthy of death. We can know the same thing today, but we have not been granted authority to enforce the laws of God. We are not Israelites living under the old covenant; we are Christians living under the new covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). The law under which Israel lived was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Blow calls recognizing such distinctions “picking and choosing,” but the Bible calls it “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
He also mentions that believers are told “they can handle snakes and drink poison without harm. Should we believe it? I don’t know. You go first.” Blow thinks balking at snake-handling proves that we all selectively ignore certain verses. Actually, this is a difficult passage to exegete–but scarcely impossible. First one would need to notice that the text focuses on the unbelief of the apostles.
And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe (Mark 16:11).After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either (Mark 16:12-13).
Afterward He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen (Mark 16:14).
It is to this group of slow-on-the-uptake apostles that Jesus says: “These signs will follow those who believe. . .” (Mark 16:17). In other words, Jesus’ promise was not made to every believer, but to the apostles. What confuses people is the great commission that Jesus gave in verses 15-16 (it especially confuses Baptists who want to exclude baptism so that the verse would read, “He who believes is saved,” which would harmonize with their theology). But notice that verse 16 uses the pronoun he, while verses 14 and 17 use they or them. Salvation is for everyone; serpents and poison are not.
To interpret Scripture correctly, one must study each text carefully. The next question would be: “How do these verses relate to the teaching of other passages of Scripture?” With respect to poison, nothing further is said; a viper, however, attached itself to Paul (Acts 28:3). Jesus’s promise held true; no harm came to the apostle (much to the surprise of everyone watching). It is true that this promise was not made directly to Paul, since he was not present, but when God chose him to be an apostle, he was granted everything accorded to the other apostles, including immunity to poison and serpents.
There is no record of Christians handling serpents or drinking poison that would confirm the interpretation that what Jesus said applied to all individuals; hence, most people rightly regard that idea as false and the interpretation which applies it only to the apostles as true. But Blow could not just bring up the serpents; he had to cast doubt on the entire passage.
You’ll find a footnote in most Bibles after Mark 16:8, saying something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
Actually, most modern versions do not have that statement; only the NIV is bold enough to propagate this untruth, which is deliberately calculated to mislead people. The New Revised Standard Version says it correctly: “Some [emphasis GWS] of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8.” Earlier manuscripts than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the two referred to by the NIV) have Mark 16:9-20; some predate them by as much as 200 years. Most of those, however, are not complete New Testament manuscripts.
The NIV translators want their readers to conclude that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong–hence, their inaccurate wording. Also, it is a matter of judgment, not fact, that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the MOST reliable manuscripts.
Having said all of the above (and more), Blow then tries to get on the right side of the Bible–but fails.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired. It’s got more wisdom and guidance than 10,000 of today’s self-help books.. . .but I don’t think it dishonors or diminishes God one bit for us to wrestle with the Bible, trying to pull out timeless truths from the ancient stories, cultural quagmires, and human errors (35A).
Steve never seems satisfied to quit while he is ahead. He thinks the Bible is divinely inspired, but at the same time it is merely a collection of ancient stories couched in a cultural quagmire–with human errors. This is an interesting view of inspiration, somewhat equivalent to telling a young lady, “You’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen, if I just disregard your obesity, abrasive personality, and lack of good taste or judgment.”
The same book that mentions the “rebellious son” also records God saying to Moses: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). God expected His inspired revelation to be respected, which is more than Blow seems willing to grant.
If indeed there are human errors in the Bible, one wonders who shall be commissioned to tell us which verses err and which ones we can trust. And some people think that Bible-believers are arrogant! But just as there is a penalty for mishandling serpents, there is one for mishandling Scriptures, too–death.
One of our college students, a conscientious one who actually reads the textbook, was shocked to discover the following at the very beginning of her history book. In answer to the heading question (Was Columbus the first to believe the earth was round?) the writer, Gloria Deak, comments:
Not at all. Every educated man in his day believed it was a sphere, and every European university taught the concept in geography classes. There were, of course, some who clung to the ancient biblical notions that the earth was a flat disk with Jerusalem in the center and that one could fall off the edge (3).
This quotation appears in Volume I of Our Nation’s Heritage, edited by Larry G. Bowman and Randolph B. Campbell, and published in 1997 by American Heritage–Custom Publishing, a division of Forbes, Inc., 60 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011. The editors, in their glowing praise of Ms. Deak prior to the chapter’s beginning, comment that “she provides her readers sensible answers to some of the more persistent misconceptions concerning Columbus’ adventures” (1).
It would appear, from the editors’ comments and the writers’ remarks, that academia is in sad shape. Graduate students are taught to document their facts. Their introductory (and obligatory) research course requires about ten to fifteen hours a week in the library. When the instructor assigns questions, he expects documented answers. At least, ten years ago that was the way the system operated. Apparently, those who write textbooks (“opinionbooks” might be more appropriate) are exempt from such petty scholarly annoyances.
Deak makes two unsubstantiated statements: 1) That all the elite minds of Europe knew the world was round; 2) That only Bible-believers (obviously ignorant souls) believed the earth was flat with Jerusalem in the center. The inaccuracy of the latter statement forces one to question the former–or anything else this writer says. The student should ask some questions at this point.
1. What source is cited to establish what every European university taught about geography? Could the writer not list even one book that gives a summary of the beliefs of European university professors, with specific quotations? Ms. Deak has heard of footnotes, hasn’t she?
2. To what ancient “biblical” notions does the writer refer? Presumably, if they are “biblical” notions, they could be traced to the Bible. Exactly what verse says the Earth is a flat disk? One cannot turn to Isaiah 40:22 for that information. God is described as “He that sits above the circle of the earth.”
3. And what passage proclaims Jerusalem to be the center of the Earth? Students can only hope that Ms. Deak knows history better than she knows the Bible (which she has obviously not studied).
But the real damage is that a number of young people (who have never read the Scriptures) will take courses (filled with prejudices) and emerge from them convinced that the Bible is full of superstitions and myths. How ironic that, in an age of information, ignorance such as Deak’s is propagated in the name of higher education!
Dear Mr. Fielding (minister of the Denton Unitarian Universalist Fellowship):
Your August 28th column in the Denton Record-Chronicle was most instructive, if not edifying. First of all, you have an “I” problem. Like the rich fool in Luke 12:16-20, who left God out of his life, you leave God out of your column except for taking cheap shots at the Book He authored.
Eleven times you use the pronoun I in your column, and usually it is to set yourself above the Scriptures. You frequently use such expressions as “I say” and “I think.” With all due respect, does it matter what you think any more than it does what I think? Who made either of us, as human beings, experts? If everyone lives according to “I think,” then there can never be a standard of morality–only chaos (see Judges 21:25).
Although this article takes strong exception to what you wrote, you are to be commended for one thing–your honesty. So many people try to twist the Scriptures to make it appear that homosexuality is acceptable. You did not try to justify the sin by avoiding the obvious meaning of numerous passages; you just threw out the whole Bible and said that It does not matter. This is pretty shrewd thinking on your part.
Many feel guilty in practicing evil. They want to sin, but they want to think God accepts them, also. Many have done so with respect to unlawful divorce and remarriage. By the time they have finished wringing a text, they have it saying the very opposite of its obvious meaning. How refreshing to hear someone be honest enough to admit, in essence, “We don’t care what the Bible says; we like this sin, and we’re gonna do it!”
There is no way to know yet how “religious”-minded homosexuals are going to react to your column. After all, they have been working hard to get the Bible to endorse their sin. But maybe your willingness to publicly trash the Scriptures will inspire them to abandon their hypocrisy.
Your brilliance in taking this new approach, however, is also your biggest problem, because you are gravely wrong about the Word of God. There is no greater mistake that anyone could make. Following are some of your reckless statements with appropriate responses.
Isn’t it obvious that it is marriage, a loving relationship between any two beings, that is sacred, not some ancient book? If one must choose between a loving relationship and scriptures, I say opt on the side of love! I say, instead, whenever any loving relationship is contradicted by any scripture, throw out the scripture, not the relationship (6B).
To answer your first question, “No, it is not obvious to everyone that a loving relationship takes precedence over Scripture.” John did not think the loving relationship between Herod and Herodias was more important than God’s teaching on the matter. John said, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). He later lost his life for defending the Word of God; this won’t happen to you, will it, Mr. Fielding?
Homosexual “marriages” (an oxymoron) are not authorized in Scripture because the practice itself is condemned. It remains a “vile passion” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). And no one who practices such can enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Furthermore, God did not recognize the “loving relationship” between the Christian in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and his father’s wife. Paul commanded them to withdraw fellowship from such a person.
In the Old Testament, God did not recognize the loving relationship between Israelite men and their pagan wives; they had to put them away in order to be pleasing to Him (Ezra 10:44). Perhaps you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately and are getting your theology from them instead of the Bible. Loving relationships! It is estimated that the average male homosexual has 500 “loving relationships” during his short life, every one of which is an abomination to God.
Your real problem is expressed by your brutally honest statement–“throw out the scripture.” What a keen idea. What will be next–“Kill any one who stands in the way”? After all, if the “loving relationship” is the highest thing there is in life, then why are a few stodgy old legislators standing in the way? Get rid of them; take them out. What? You say that murder is wrong? Why? Because some ancient book says so? I say, “Throw the Scripture out and kill anyone who stands in the way of loving relationships.” Such is the result of your irrationale.
We are buying into centuries old prejudices that the Hebrews wrote into their scriptures. Do we really want to perpetuate such insanity, just because it is scriptural? I think not! (6B).
Well, thank you, Mr. Fielding, for enlightening us about the Hebrews writing their prejudices into their Scriptures. We would not have known that without your exhaustive research to declare it unto us. But now that we know, we can really be free. Some of us have often felt intimidated by the Hebrew prejudices against rape. Please explain to any daughters, nieces, etc., how great it is to feel uninhibited. What? You say that rape is illegal? No problem. We’ll just lobby a few legislators to change that.
Oh, and while we’re at it, those old Hebrew prejudices against stealing have stymied some for a long time. Don’t you agree that people are just selfish when they try to hold on to things they have worked for and earned? The “have-nots” have probably just been deprived by society anyway; stealing is just a way of “evening” things up. And who cares what some ancient book or a few out-of-touch legislators think? After all, you admitted it. Abiding by such ancient ideas and prejudices is just perpetuating insanity.
For a long time people have critiqued scripture on the basis of unlikely events: living in a whale’s belly for three days, walking on water, virgin births, etc. Darwin’s science challenged the Genesis story with a more rational explanation of our origins. Now we find that there are perhaps moral reasons to critique scripture as well (5B).
We now abandon showing you the absurdity of your statements in favor of a serious analysis. What you are really saying here, whether you realize it or not, is that you do not believe in God. If God were powerful enough to create this universe, then what would be the problem with walking on water–or any of the other things mentioned? Anyone who denies the evidence of God’s supernatural actions is essentially denying His existence.
It was precisely the miracles that convinced people of the Deity of Christ (John 20:30-31). Denying the validity of this proof constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32). You have placed yourself in sorry company.
Darwin may have challenged Christianity, but he did not do so with a “more rational explanation of our origins.” Darwin admitted that his theory had problems, and no evolutionist today believes the mechanisms suggested by Darwin. Actually, your rebellion against Biblical morality is not new; Sir Julian Huxley (whose ancestor, Thomas Huxley, popularized the theory of evolution) made this admission: “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of the Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” If God interferes with the lusts of men, mankind determines that He therefore cannot exist; if the Scriptures interfere with man’s perverted choices of sexuality, “throw out the scripture.”
It’s true we need something to turn to for moral and theological authority, but no book written by human hands can ever provide that authority. No Hebrew book, no Greek book, no English book, no book–no Scripture! (5B).
Human hands wrote down the Scriptures, but they were inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But infidels such as you have rejected the Word of God in any form. God spoke directly to Balaam, and it made no difference whatsoever. Oh, Balaam spoke God’s Word when he prophesied, but he was covetous to the core.
If there is one claim the Scriptures make throughout, it is that they are inspired. You have, in effect, called Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter , and Jude LIARS!! They claim they were speaking the words of God; you say they are not. Whom should we believe?
So no book is to be trusted? Then what, pray tell, shall people use for moral and theological authority? You cite a quotation from an 1841 book by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Wait a minute! What happened to not using any book as an authority? Yet after denouncing books, you turn right around and use an uninspired book by Emerson as your source of authority. Emerson wrote: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” These may sound like high and lofty words for Americans who grew up on Christian principles, but it is doubtful they would have made much of an impact on Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan. Even for those who have been taught Christian ideals, however, this statement is gibberish. As with humanism, it makes man the measure of all things. “I decide what’s right for me.”
You wrote that “we all have to use our intelligence to make it through this world in a loving fashion” (5B). Oh, really? Who says so? Who decided that love was important? Certainly, we would not want to cite those old prejudices of the Hebrews, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). “Have to?” There is no such thing as “have to.” The sacred integrity of my mind says I don’t have to do anything you think is a standard, such as love for others. As far as I’m concerned, such sentimentality is for chumps; I’ll take what I can get and do what I can get away with.
“Using someone else’s standards will eventually clash with our own,” you write. Exactly. Which is the reason I refuse to use your ideas; they clash with mine. Now what has been gained by rejecting the Scriptures?
Finally, you ask us to respect the Scriptures of the past (even though they are filled with prejudices and biases), and then you add: “None of them, however, is binding, and to the extent we treat them as though they are, it is we who are the lesser” (5B).
So the Scriptures are not binding because you think they are not. Well, that should convince just about everybody. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away” (Matt. 24:35). The words of Jesus and His apostles and prophets, Mr. Fielding, will haunt you throughout all eternity. You will forever be able to ponder those “nonbinding,” eternal words. And you will be judged by those “nonbinding” words, too. Jesus, who wants you to be saved from your sins, said, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Now would be a good time to repent of your blasphemy against Jesus and the Bible.
Irving Wallace has written several books with recognizable titles, among which are The Prize and The Chap-man Report. Many of his writings deal with the subject of sex, and we would not endorse them in any way. In a way, Wallace’s The Twenty-Seventh Wife also discusses this subject, but mostly its relationship to polygamy is at issue, and the subject is never approached in lurid fashion.
Wallace says he has tried to remain objective in writing this book; the reader will be impressed by the difficulty of such a task since the existence of two (or more) separate versions of what happened is more frequently the rule than the exception. The author (from our acquaintance with the facts) succeeds in his attempt at being impartial. The book includes seven pages of acknowledgments and over six pages of bibliography. This surely indicates the author’s intention of being factual and accurate.
The 400-page book is divided into nine chapters. The subject of the book is introduced in chapter one: “The Fugitive.” She is Ann Eliza Webb Young, and she will soon become the foremost enemy of polygamy, “a slavery which debases and degrades womanhood and the family,” as Harriet Beecher Stowe described it (14).
Wallace begins by describing Ann Eliza’s dramatic decision to flee the Mormons and trust in “Gentile” friends for safety. The reason she needed guarantees of safety are also examined. Wallace explains on page 27 who the Danites (alias Destroying Angels) were and how they got their name.
Chapter two, “The Prophet,” returns to Ann Eliza’s birth and beyond. Wallace relates what he can about Ann Eliza’s parents, but he also gives an account of Joseph Smith. The so-called plates (which he allegedly translated), along with the Urim and Thummim, are mentioned as well as the Spaulding manuscript.
The author outlines the Mormons’ move from Kirtland, Ohio to Far West, Missouri to Nauvoo, Illinois, where Joseph and his brother Hyrum were shot to death. Mormons had been “run out” of Missouri after considerable friction with its inhabitants. Their activities in Nauvoo soon stirred up community sentiment against them.
Wallace gives some insight into Smith’s character. “Combining the delicate and handsome features of a matinee idol with the physique of an athlete, he wrestled, gambled, swore. . .drank, and whored” (35). And those were just his good points. While the fighting was going on in Missouri, Smith addressed his flock, “Do all you can to harass the enemy. I never felt more of the spirit of God at any time than since we commenced this stealing and house-burningÓ (40).
Joseph Smith first introduced polygamy (Celestial marriage) at Nauvoo. Smith’s wife took the “revelation” and threw it into the fire. Ann Eliza’s mother “was horrified” by it, but she submitted to it (52). This chapter ends with Brigham Young in control of the Mormon religion and in Salt Lake City.
Chapter three, “The Five Mrs. Webbs,” not only discusses Ann Eliza’s home life and her parents but the subject of polygamy in general. In 1852, Brigham Young made it clear to the whole world that the “doctrine of plural marriage was an official tenet of the Mormon Church” (68). Some of the problems of plural marriages began to surface. Among them were favoritism, jealousy, a sense of worthlessness, loneliness, apathy, and a loss of love.
Some time later Mrs. T. B. H. Stenhouse, A Mormon defector, would aptly write: “A man may have a dozen wives; but from the whole of them combined he will not receive as much real love and devotion as he might from one alone, if he had made her feel that she had his undivided affection and confidence. How terribly these men deceive themselves!” (213). The practice of polygamy has never been about love.
Chapter four might more appropriately be titled “Brigham’s theater” since the first twenty pages talk about it and Ann Eliza’s short career there. She does, however, become “The First Mrs. Dee,” but that turned out to be an equally short career. She claimed her husband was violent towards her and divorced him after two and one-half years.
Chapter five follows Ann Eliza as she becomes “The Twenty-Seventh Mrs. Young.” How that event occurred makes for interesting reading, as does the description of life among his several wives. Chapter six continues to follow Ann Eliza as she continues to grow dissatisfied and becomes “The Rebel of the Harem.” Wallace recounts what led up to Mrs. Young’s decision and describes her new Gentile friends. Ann Eliza also slapped a divorce suit on her husband and leader of the Mormon church, Brigham Young. The chapter closes with her decision to lecture against the evils of Mormonism and her escape from Utah.
“The Adulteress” is the title of chapter seven. Ann Eliza begins lecturing across the Midwest, and though she begins with great fear and feelings of uneasiness, she finds a receptive audience. Her first two lectures are: “My Life in Bondage” and “Polygamy As It Is.” Soon she makes enough money to support herself, which is fortunate because her divorce suit filed in 1873 will not be resolved until 1877. She lectured in Peoria in January of 1874.
Ann Eliza met with James Redpath at his Lyceum Bureau in Boston; he scheduled her lectures, and she made a good salary. Just before her first lecture in Boston, theChicago Times printed an untrue story, alleging that she was having an affair with Major Pond, one of her Gentile friends. To make matters worse, Victoria Woodhull, who traveled the country lecturing on the virtues of “free love,” also confirmed the story (283). Eventually the so-called “witnesses” denied that the story was true. The whole, unfair concoction was the work of a Mormon lawyer and a $20,000 bribe (290).
Ann Eliza eventually spoke to several Congressmen and the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant. She convinced many influential people of the evils of polygamy and was instrumental in getting legislation passed against the practice.
In chapter eight Ann Eliza comes home to lecture in (of all places) Salt Lake City. This chapter outlines the outcome of her divorce, her correspondence with President and Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes, her ten-year lecture career, and her marriage to Moses R. Denning. The final chapter briefly sketches her remaining years and the ultimate fate of polygamy. Irving Wallace includes this interesting sentence on page 382: “In 1959 a high official of the Mormon Church admitted to this writer that there were 2,000 polygamists in Salt Lake City.” [Now the estimate is much higher.]
Wallace unfolds the story of Ann Eliza Webb Young against its historical background. Mark Twain, Horace Greeley, Thomas Nast, Susan B. Anthony, Jenny Lind, P. T. Barnum, Josh Billings, and Artemus Ward are only a few of the notable people mentioned throughout the course of the book.
Since it reads like a novel, it is hard to put down. It contains outstanding insights into both Mormonism and polygamy. This book was published in 1962 and may not currently be in print. A person might try the public library or contact the New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019. [This review was originally published in the Southside Mirror in Peoria, Illinois on June 3, 1984.]
With society on the verge of accepting homosexual marriages (repeated endorsements have been given by Ann Landers), we have wondered, yes, even predicted that it would not be long before the idea of polygamy would be revived. Well, the idea has now been suggested–and in a public way.
Mike Leavitt, the governor of Utah (where else?), is not only in favor of the practice, he argues that polygamy should be allowed as part of religious freedom. According to an article in the Denton Record-Chronicle, there are tens of thousands believed to be practicing polygamy in Utah, the governor does not consider the practice a serious threat of any kind, and prosecutors do not prosecute polygamists there even though it is clearly against the law (July 28, p. 2A).
The average person might think that this is Utah’s problem, but such is not the case. The Denton Record-Chronicle was quick to publish an editorial in favor of the governor’s position. One marvels that this endorsement appeared only one day after the news story was published. Observe the rationale expressed in the editorial, “More Than One Wife?”:
Laws against polygamy were adopted because a majority of its citizens believed Christian morality demanded faithful, monogamous marriages. . . .. . .our neighbors are increasingly Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, Sisters of the Goddess, Vegans, agnostic and a host of other non-Christian faiths and non-faiths and we have to find a basis for our civil laws that will accommodate this growing diversity (10A).
This “multi-cultural” argument fails on two grounds. First, it is an oversimplification (at best) to say that Christian morality inspired laws against polygamy. It would probably be more nearly accurate to say that the laws were inspired by the evils of polygamy.
Second, why is it assumed that a nation founded upon Christian principles must be so generous as to throw out all of the moral values that made her great in the first place? Whether we deserved it or not is certainly debatable, but God has blessed America; shall we render our thanks by destroying even further the little morality that remains?
Perhaps the editor should reflect upon how open-minded Muslim countries are toward Christianity or any other religion. They have not exactly opened wide their arms. We have a far better policy: those in the minority here are free to worship as they wish. Most do not complain about the heavy influence of Christianity on this society, nor should they. Americans who travel in other countries do not expect them to give up their dominant views just because we are there.
Fourteen years ago I recommended a book that dealt with the subject of polygamy. This article will be reprinted on the next page with just a few edits. At the time I wrote it, it never occurred to me that in a few years a newspaper editor would write:
If an adult man wants to be married–at the same time–to three adult women who want to be married to him, what is our basis for denying them the right to live their private lives as they wish (10A)?
