The Church and Fellowship by Gary W. Summers

About 40-50 years ago, times were different.  With but few exceptions a congregation could fellowship all other congregations in the area.  Without even thinking about it, brethren could send their young people to a youth rally somewhere else without worrying if they would be taught to practice false worship or if those endeavoring to offer up true worship would be mocked. Sisters could attend a Ladies Day for a day of edification without having to ask, “Who is the speaker?”  Brethren could support gospel meetings in nearby areas without having to be subjected to an orator who glorified himself instead of preaching Christ crucified.  When vacationing, everyone felt secure in the knowledge that there would be a Bible emphasis, a good sermon, and like-minded brethren in that area.

These things are no longer true.  Brethren return from their travels with horror stories.  Several have mentioned that brethren in various regions have been studying The Purpose-Driven Lifeby Rick Warren, “pastor” of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.  Some brethren have even studied, in lieu of Sunday evening worship, Warren’s previous best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Church.  How sad that some brethren have turned away from a “thus saith the Lord” in favor of the wisdom of men.

We live in a time when fellowship can no longer be extended cart blanche to those calling themselves the church of Christ, for of a certainty some have departed from the faith.  But before we examine what the Bible teaches regarding the withholding of fellowship, we ought to consider the seriousness of doing so.  Some may find it easy to refrain from extending fellowship, but such an action can never be automatic.  It must be the result of an analysis of a particular situation.  When information has been gathered and reviewed, then is the time to make such a decision—not before.  To understand the extreme nature of denying fellowship, we must understand the value of it.

Fellowship is provided for us by the blood of Christ, and it is conferred upon us when we obey the Gospel.  When Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, several good things resulted.  Of course, the first and most notable of these is exactly that—the availability of the forgiveness of sins.  All are not automatically saved—salvation comes only in response to correctly receiving the gospel.

Once the multitude on the Day of Pentecost believed the message that Peter preached (which indicated their faith), they asked what they should do.  Peter mentioned two things that they needed to do if they expected forgiveness of their sins: 1) repent, 2) be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  These are not negotiable.  Jesus had already taught: “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).  Most people do not mind believing, but repentance requires effort.  Repentance is about changing one’s actions, one’s speech, one’s attitudes—even the way a person thinks.  It also means submitting oneself to the authority of Jesus.  Many people want the benefits of Christianity (eternal life), but few are willing to enter by the narrow gate or walk the narrow way that leads there (Matt. 7:13-14).

Equally important (and much easier to do) is to allow oneself to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.  No one can be saved who is baptized without faith or repentance first, along with the acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Despite the fact that many people today want to quibble over the importance of baptism, those who gladly received Peter’s word were baptized (Acts 2:41).  Fellowship can only be extended to those who have obeyed this gospel.  Only one gospel exists, and anyone who teaches another shall be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Those who obey are forgiven and made part of the church (Acts 2:47).

Members of the body of Christ are often criticized for being exclusive, but we cannot fellowship as Christians those who have never had their sins washed away.  Sprinkling infants (or adults) cannot take away sins—because neither it nor pouring water on someone constitutes baptism.  These are manmade traditions that have developed over the years, but by baptism ismeant immersion.  Such is the definition of the Greek word.  Any lexicon (dictionary of Greek words) will provide this definition.  Furthermore, John the baptizer baptized where there was much water available (John 1:29).  Why would he need much water—if he was only pouring or sprinkling it on people?  Both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and came up out of the water (Acts 8:35-39).  This would be a frivolous procedure unless he immersed him.  Finally, baptism is referred to as a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-7).

Those who have been sprinkled may be spiritually-minded individuals, who have never been taught the truth; they may have striven to live godly lives, but none of those things can change the definition of baptism nor make a Christian out of someone who has never obeyed the gospel.

Similarly, those who have been taught to say the “sinner’s prayer” have also been misled.  Men made up the words to this prayer, and there are infinite variations of it—precisely because it is not in the Bible.  Perhaps millions believe that they have been saved, but holding that view does not make it so. For this reason we constantly encourage people to study their Bibles and not rely on the doctrines of men.  Many will be lost who have trusted in men, and many are offering God vain worship, also (Matt. 15:8-9).

People like Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly no longer believe the truths just enumerated.  They will fellowship as Christians those who have never repented of their sins and been baptized for their forgiveness.  They are now teaching a false gospel, which will cause people to be lost, and for that reason they cannot be fellowshipped by conscientious brethren any more.

Thus, those who are members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12) are special people—because only a few (a small percentage) comprise the body of Christ on earth at any one time.  Those who have never been taught or obeyed the truth are not inside; neither are those who care nothing for spiritual matters.  Therefore, every brother and sister in the body of Christ is precious. Fellowship is a privilege.

Membership in the church of Christ means a great deal.  It means that we are part of a body that was planned from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4).  Many people have counted it an honor to be part of a club or association begun by men.  None of those can compare to the church, which was prophesied several centuries ahead of its establishment.  No human institution can compare to it; it is of Divine origin.  Those who are in it have been cleansed of all sin and have been made righteous.  We are true brothers and sisters, who have each other’s best interests at heart.

“Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God!” (1 John 3:1).  No one has ever received more love; no greater price has ever been paid than what Jesus paid for the church.  We are truly blessed to be part of such a wonderful fellowship.  We have the privilege of prayer, forgiveness of sins, the hope of eternal life, and the privilege of serving in the Lord’s army while we remain upon this earth.

We have one body of doctrine, the New Testament, by which we are governed.  Some of us are not under a certain set of rules, while others have it easier or harder.  We all abide by the same teachings—the apostles’ doctrine, which united all believers when the first-century church was first established (Acts 2:42).

As marvelous as all these blessings are, there is one catch—we must continue to follow Jesus.  We cannot give up, go backwards, or quit—and still be saved.  The same humble attitude, which brought us into the body of Christ, must be maintained.  Bound upon us is the responsibility of “walking in the light” (1 John 1:7).  We cannot say, “Well, I’ve been saved; so it doesn’t really matter what I do now.  I can attend a religious denomination, or I can be immoral.”  Perhaps, people do not say these words—but they live them.

Despite studying with people about salvation and the nature of the church, some will be baptized and attend their denomination, which never taught them the truth about salvation.  Will Jesus accept such a disposition?  He did not die so that someone could worship with a manmade religious institution.  Others who have been baptized live immorally yet convince themselves that they are all right.  Did Jesus die so that His people could live in fornication or adultery?  He gave Himself so that His followers could be delivered from that kind of corruption.  Yet some have two or three children out of wedlock and continue to practice immorality.  God cannot fellowship such evil; those who live in such a manner are only deceiving themselves.

Yet there are occasions when fellowship must be denied.  It cannot be for frivolous reasons, such as misunderstanding what someone has said or not approving of some inconsequential matter of opinion.  The Bible provides a list of reasons for withdrawing of fellowship from brethren.  If a brother is sexually immoral (and refuses to repent), then the church cannot continue in that once-cherished relationship (1 Cor. 5:11).  The same disposition must be practiced toward those who are covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners.  These are specifically mentioned, but anything that the Bible defines as a sin, which will not be abandoned, would equally qualify.  Those who do not work or provide for themselves or their families likewise were to be withdrawn from (2 Thes. 3:6-15; 1 Tim. 5:8).  How sad that brethren will not follow the Lord’s teaching in matters like these by withdrawing fellowship!

Equally damaging to the body of Christ are those teaching false doctrines.  Now the Scriptures plainly teach that there is to be no fellowship with those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).  The apostle did not write that fellowship would be all right if the false teacher had a pleasant personality, was popular, wielded great influence, or possessed large sums of money.  Does he uphold the truth—or compromise it?

Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matt. 23) and told others what their false doctrines were (Matt. 22:23-33); He did not seek fellowship with them because they were leading people astray. Some erroneously feel that false teachers can be “loved” into truth.  In the seventies there were efforts made to reach denominational preachers; nearly fifty of them (if reports can be believed) obeyed the gospel.  In 1984 there was a “unity summit” between preachers in the churches of Christ and Christian Church preachers.  Men with an irenic spirit were sought out (irenic in this instance is a Greek word, meaning “no backbone”).  Who has heard of a single Christian Church preacher who has been “loved” into the truth during the past twenty years?

A few weeks ago the Metro “Church of Christ” (in Oviedo) added instrumental music to their worship assemblies.  Most of their members were already so “loose” that they scarcely noticed a further departure, but it bothered a few—for a while.  Other congregations in the area are disturbed over this action, but the question is, “Why have they not been disturbed over other things that have been going on?”  On what basis do we excuse some who are guilty of wrongdoing?

Many of the youth meetings in this area involve the practice of clapping hands with singing.  Those who are spiritually mature (or who have at least occasionally read the Bible) know that handclapping (in accompaniment to singing) is not authorized as acceptable worship.  Whatever is not authorized is sinful.  We may only do what God has commanded (Col. 3:17).  So why do various congregations allow it?  What is the difference between clapping and beating a drum?  We should not be surprised that some want to introduce instrumental music when they have already shown approval to vocal sounds in place of singing and the clapping of hands.  Young people wonder why they can clap hands on Saturday night or Sunday afternoon at a youth meeting but not in the assembly?  There is no reason.  If it is authorized during a period of worship on Saturday, it is authorized on Sunday.  Why are brethren allowing false teachers to guide young people?

The “Spiritual Growth Workshop” brings to this area every two years a program filled with false teachers.  Randall Harris (a blatant Calvinist) was here this past year; he co-wrote The Second Incarnation with Rubel Shelly, which is a book filled with error.  Furthermore, he is a professor at ACU, which has been apostate for years.  At Sonquest this past October, a man made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper in front of all the teens there (even getting most of them to participate with him), and his message was endorsed by the same person who directs the Spiritual Growth Workshop.

It is time for brethren in this area (including us) to decide if we are going to walk in the light or fellowship darkness.  No one can justify bringing Hymenaeus and Philetus to this area when they have been clearly marked as false teachers.  It is a violation of New Testament teaching to even invite them.  Some of those men do not even believe in baptism for the remission of sins (as discussed earlier in this article), which means they stand accursed.  Why would anyone want to invite those accursed by God to teach others?  Most of these men do not speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11).

Fellowship is not ours to grant or deny; we can only recognize what Jesus says concerning it.  He shed His blood on Calvary; every soul is important to Him.  He does not want to lose anyone.  He will not, however, allow the unrepentant to continually corrupt His body, the church.  He withdraws fellowship from those who persist in sin, and He expects the members of His body to do likewise.  If we fail to do so, we are rebelling against Him.  May the sheep follow their Shepherd.

The Holy Spirit: The Drug for Postmodern Highs by Gary W. Summers

[Before anyone e-mails me to protest this article, let me answer your first two objections. 1. What will be written herein is not blasphemous to the Holy Spirit who inspired the holy Scriptures; we only speak against the opinions (since theology would be too complimentary a word) of many who have been swept up in the so-called “Pentecostal” movement. 2. I have not experienced “outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” as some erroneously call it. Nor will I–because I have no desire to depart from the Book to practice foolishness. Please feel perfectly free to pray for me and pity me because I do not have what you have, but if you wish to discuss this doctrine, I am not interested in your subjective experience; please confine yourselves to the objective Word of God.]

Last year some liberal I had been engaged with in e-mail correspondence signed me up for a liberal e-mail publication called Freedom’s Ring, published by longtime liberal Cecil Hook. I browse through it periodically, and the other day the following heading intriqued me: “Beyond the Sacred Page.” It turns out that this is the title of a book by Edward Fudge (another liberal), which Cecil Hook will be publishing and distributing.

Edward Fudge has written another book, The Fire That Consumes, in which he argues that hell is not eternal. He is also is a member of a congregation, Bering Drive in Houston, that encourages women to exercise leadership roles in the worship. One of that congregation’s elders defended their position at a Freed-Hardeman Forum ten years ago (for which I was present). Now Fudge has decided to inform us about the Holy Spirit.

The following quotations are taken from this Internet publication, Freedom’s Ring, April 15, 1998, Number 28, “Week 4 of 6.” Consider Hook’s buildup to the contents of the book.

Can we believe that God is as alive, powerful, and near us today as He was in Biblical times? This book is Edward’s courageous witness of ways God wondrously directs those who seek his personal guidance–“beyond the sacred page.”

The answer to the first question is, “Yes.” God has not died, none of His power has diminished even one iota, and His presence still fills the universe (Psalm 139). Evidently, Hook thinks there is a connection between this question and Fudge’s book, but none exists. There is nothing inherent in the power of God that proves Fudge is a courageous witness.

Speaking of the word witness, what is Fudge a witness to? Hook claims that Fudge witnesses to the ways that God wondrously directs those who seek his personal guidance. What does this phrase mean? It seems to imply that Fudge has prayed for the Holy Spirit to personally guide him and that God has done so, which means that the entire book is full of Fudge’s subjective opinions about what he thinks God has done for him.

Did the Holy Spirit tell him that what he inspired Paul to write about the role of women in the church was just cultural (though Paul circumvents all culture and cites as precedent Adam and Eve)? Did the Holy Spirit, in response to his prayers for guidance, assure him that all those things Jesus said about hell were false?

One can only imagine what kind of material is in this book; Hook gives the following hint.

“Although I was reared in a Christian home,” Edward writes, “my church taught that God does not operate ‘separate and apart from the word.’ And since we generally believed that we had correctly deciphered and interpreted the Bible, God’s guidance meant little more to me than following ‘true doctrine’ and teaching it to everyone else.

How horrible–to follow true doctrine and teach it to everyone else! How dull! How boring! It’s much more fun to make up your own teaching and see how many others you can get to swallow it. If the Bible says that souls will be lost in eternal torment, and we simply believe that and teach it to others, how drab. It’s much more colorful to teach the exact opposite–just to see how many will believe YOU instead of the Bible.

Anyone who thinks the sarcasm in the preceding paragraph is out of order may have missed Fudge’s own sarcasm–“we generally believed that we had correctly deciphered and interpreted the Bible.” Since he obviously does not mind including little digs at others, he should appreciate them when they return upon his head.

Did his church really teach that “God does not operate ‘separate and apart from the word'”? Such a doctrine would ignore the providence of God. Whereas the Bible teaches that the miracles would pass away (1 Cor. 13), it never says that God would quit working providentially. If so, where is the passage? Exercising His providence may involve the Holy Spirit or angels–even in conversion.

Consider the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip was told by the Spirit to overtake the eunuch’s chariot (Acts 8:29). He received a direct communication from the Holy Spirit in that instance. Could the same thing have been accomplished providentially? Certainly. God could arrange for a member of the body of Christ to meet a non-Christian on a given day at a given time just as He arranged for the ram to be present for Abraham’s use.

However, despite this unusual method of pointing out a good contact, Philip still preached Jesus to the eunuch (Acts 8:35). The Holy Spirit (even in the days of miracles) did not directly force someone to obey; conversion always came through the teaching of the word (Acts 11:13-14). So today, God may arrange providentially a meeting, but it is still the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).

God does work separately from (yet in harmony with) the Word. He always has. But that working must remain in the realm of providence and not in any way be interpreted as miraculous or direct.

“Yet all the time, I secretly longed for more–and so did many others I knew. But the living God was full of surprises! And, although he would never act contrary to his word revealed in the Scripture, he was determined to show me that he is not bound between the covers of a book–not even the Holy Bible. This is my testimony to some of these encounters with the living God these past 50 years.

“Longing for more” is scarcely a new phrase. I heard it 25 years ago from members of the church who had fallen prey to the teachings of the charismatic movement. What this idea means is that the Word is not sufficient; I have to FEEL something. The Deity of Christ, the blessings of salvation, the hope of eternal life–these are all right, but if I could just have some sort of personal experience! If I could feel the presence of God within me–if I could just feel his love or peace or power surging through me, I would know that God is and that He is alive. If I could speak in tongues or observe a miracle, I would know without a doubt that the Bible is true; it would become more REAL to me. The Bible is so impersonal; I need this Holy Spirit contact today for my spiritual well-being.

If it has not been apparent yet, ME is at the center of this theology. Pentecostals are spiritual New Agers. The focus of attention is not the Bible, the gospel, or New Testament doctrine. The center of attention is ME. The experience is everything; all else is secondary. And if logic is absent, a Scriptural case cannot be made for this “approach,” or if what is practiced contradicts the Bible, these things do not matter in a postmodern world which has rejected reasoning and embraced contradiction. If ME is at the center of religion, everything else may be sacrificed, such as Truth. We either decide that Truth is irrelevant, or we redefine it subjectively, so that this is MY truth, and that is YOUR truth.

As the huge congregation rises, the Spirit descends. Off come shoes: this is holy ground. Young and old, black and brown and white alike, hop, twist and dance in the aisles…. As if on cue, the hoppers and twisters drop to their knees. A man from France curls up in a fetal position, burying his face in the carpet…. Here and there someone begins speaking in tongues (55-56).

Can anyone seriously imagine Moses hopping and twisting around the burning bush? Such is sacrilege.

The article continues to describe “ministers” who touch their thumbs to people’s foreheads, after which they fall or stagger back, which they refer to as being “slain in the Spirit” (56), which is another invention of men not found in the Bible. If pressed for an explanation, Pentecostals will cite John 19:6. When Jesus acknowledged who He was to the soldiers, “they drew back and fell to the ground.” Notice, however, that 1) the text does not say that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with their reaction; 2) the soldiers were not termed slain; 3) no one laid a thumb, let alone a complete hand or fist, upon them, and 4) they were not converted (since they arose and took Jesus captive).

The only New Testament conversion that might be cited to support this practice is Paul’s. Although Paul fell to the ground, no one touched him, nor does the Bible attribute his falling to the Holy Spirit (Acts 9, 22, 26). Furthermore, when Paul preached the gospel, he did not instruct people that the Spirit will slay them like He did him. This is nothing more than a man-made, Pentecostal doctrine, which has now become an accepted tradition without any Scriptural authority whatsoever. But being knocked down by the Holy Spirit is a lot more exciting than the bland words of Jesus: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Studying God’s written revelation to us just cannot compare to being “slain in the Spirit.”

All of the Pentecostal activities are long on feeling and experience while being very short on teaching and substance. Even the Newsweek article recognizes this point: “Typically, what gets thrown out of balance is the core doctrine of the Christian faith” (56). Some have even gone so far as to claim that the Bible is irrelevant, which would be an honest admission and in harmony with their beliefs (though very dangerous to say).

What else do they do? There is the Toronto blessing, which amounts to uncontrollable fits of laughter, hopping up and down (sometimes called pogoing), shrieking, and making animal sounds. R.C. Foster correctly said over thirty years ago in his monumental one-volume Studies in the Life of Christ: “More foolish ideas have been propagated to the square inch about the Holy Spirit and His presence and method of operation in our lives than any other theme one might suggest” (541).

As Newsweek observed: “None of this happened at the original Pentecost” (59). It is sad to see such nonsense perpetrated in the name of religion. The subjectivism in these matters is seen in one man who stated: “I’ve been overcome with peace and it blankets me, and nothing else matters in the world.” Again, notice the emphasis upon ME rather than God or Jesus the Savior.

And is this the place that Hook, Fudge, and others wish to take us?

Why Would Children Kill? by Gary W. Summers

The nation was stunned by the recent shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Since that time a national soul-searching has occurred in an effort to understand how an eleven and a thirteen-year-old could be so callous as to shoot their schoolmates. Many reasons have been proposed, but it is unlikely that the blame for this tragedy can all be isolated to just one cause; there is undoubtedly a combination of factors.

Yes, guns are a problem, as is any weapon–if it falls into the hands of the ignorant or the psychotic. Are guns THE problem? No. Just a few days ago it was stated that more young people are killed with knives than with guns. And what of the two preteens who murdered a 5-year-old by dropping him from a high-rise apartment window? Shall we pass legislation against gravity? Still, guns made it easier for the two boys to kill so many people so quickly. And for that reason people must be required to practice appropriate safety measures.

Some have attributed this increase to the influence of movies and television. This observation is not without some merit, although there has been violence in these genres for forty years. “Westerns” have traditionally been replete with shootings, which involved the use of guns. But those who grew up watching Gunsmoke, Wanted: Dead or Alive, or Have Gun; Will Travel never thought about killing anyone. Probably, many boys wanted to grow up to be like John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, or Tom Mix, but it would never have crossed their minds to kill their playmates.

Certain movies, however, have spawned imitations, such as misguided souls playing Russian roulette after The Deer Hunter was aired. Other incidents have been duplicated, such as bombing a toll booth or dowsing a derelict with gasoline and setting him on fire. It would be foolish to assert that what people see on the screen has no effect on viewers (why advertise?). Furthermore, it’s not just the violence, which has always been present; recently there has been more graphic violence and an indifferent attitude toward killing. Villains flaunt their lack of remorse, and the heroes possess such little virtue that the two are practically indistinguishable.

Is that not the message of society? There might be a birth defect; abort (translate “kill”) the child. Pain is too burdensome; call Kevorkian. Society approves and applauds the deaths of the defenseless and the infirm. The only way to improve on these already legal means of death is to additionally “relieve” society of the burden of those who are mentally and physically handicapped. The latter category always gets the best places at stores and restaurants anyway. Never mind the triumph of the human spirit overcoming adversity; we deserve a perfect world.

Consider some other factors that lead to the cheapening of human life. In public schools children can no longer pray or study the Bible–or even learn about God’s creation. But they can be taught the theory of evolution–and sometimes it is presented as fact. Parents ought to think about what that doctrine means to a child. The young one is taught that he is just like the “other” animals instead of a unique individual created in the image of God. He may be genetically unique, but he can never transcend being merely a higher animal.

Hunters go out and kill animals. “Doctors” kill babies and the elderly. Humans are nobody special; if it’s all right to kill the one, why not the other? What difference will a person or two in this world make, one way or another? Life in any form is not that valuable.

The problem with this theory is that by itself it does not explain everything. Evolution has been taught for a number of years now, and Roe vs. Wade was legislated by the Supreme Court 25 years ago. If this were the sole explanation for these tragic events, we might have expected them to have occurred before now.

However, it would be a mistake to summarily dismiss these ideas, for they obviously contribute in large measure to the problem. Because bureaucrats, the National Education Association, the ACLU, and other powerful influences upon society will never admit that they and their philosophies are at fault, problems like these will continue. Passing assault rifle legislation will have no appreciable effect on crimes like these; it will prove to be a solution without effect.

What kind of example do young people have set for them when atrocities such as these are occurring? Granted that the two boys in Arkansas may have never heard of any of these incidents, but unfortunately these are not isolated examples. What about the teacher who has given birth to the child of her 14-year-old student? Teachers, like “clergymen,” used to set high moral standards.

And then there is the matter of the President, who wants to discover why children do such things. A Dallas Morning News article, entitled “Nation Must Try to Discover Why Children Are Killing, Clinton Says,” he says:

“At heart, it’s a matter of basic values, of conscience and community. We must teach our children to respect others. We must instill in them a deep, abiding sense of right and wrong” (March 29, 36A).

Please, sir. Is it appropriate for the person with more scandals in his administration than any other president in the last 50 years (actually, since Harding) to speak with such moral conviction? The White House has done nothing but contribute to the decline of this nation. Is it possible to teach respect for life and one another when signing the partial-birth abortion bill into law?

Parents must bear their fair share of blame, also. Consider the beginning of this story that appeared on page 3A of the Denton Record-Chronicle on April 7th.

Things have gotten out of hand, with all the rudeness and foul mouths teachers contend with. A new school policy aims to put an end to it–curse out a teacher, get suspended. But the rule isn’t aimed at students. It’s for their parents.A 1 1/2-page statement spells out what the district’s 4,000 employees should do when a parent gets abusive or threatening.

If someone shouts, curses or becomes demeaning, a staffer should politely remind them to be civil. If the person refuses, they are “suspended” and told to leave. If necessary, the staffers should call police.

People keep talking about “road rage”; what road rage? We have a nation of spoiled “brats” who get mad when they don’t get their way–whether on the highway, in a school meeting, or the grocery store.

No, instead, we tell them, “It’s not your fault for the way you are. It’s genetic–or something.” If a basketball player tries to kill his coach, we may suspend him for a few weeks, but it was probably the coach’s fault for making him mad.

The father of one of the two murderers is quoted as saying, “My son is not a monster.” Oh, really? If normal children behave this way, the nation is really in trouble. We hardly expected that anyone should say, “I have failed as a parent” or “I’m not sure how my son came to be so pathetically perverted.” No, that would be taking responsibility–something hardly ever done any more.

On a recent Kojak rerun several detectives were analyzing a security leak, which led to one murder and the theft of over a million dollars. By process of elimination, the culprit had to be a man who had held his job for 20 years, which made him seem like a highly unlikely suspect. One detective was running down a list of his virtues to show that there was no reason to suspect him: he paid his bills, live modestly, drove an older model car. Kojak interrupted with his usual cynical comment: “Tell me he loves his mother.” The point is that possessing good qualities doe not negate evil actions.

But society does not want to hold people accountable for their actions. They are to be explained away–or forgiven. One news story coming out of Jonesboro just days after the killings reported how the town was trying to forgive the boys. Right! If we cannot find some way to shift the blame for their actions onto someone or something else, why not do the next best thing: forgive them for what they did? Forgiveness apart from repentance (or even an appropriate length of time to grieve) is not forgiveness–it is psychobabble.

Who knows what drives someone like Cain to say, “I’m going to murder my brother”? Sure, he was envious of his brother, but many siblings have survived that state of affairs. What pushed him to the point of saying, “I’m so mad, I will kill–despite whatever consequences there are”? Murder is not a logical or practical thing to do; what pushes people over the edge of rationality? Cain could not claim genetics, environment, bad examples, or the availability of guns. He chose to do evil because he wanted to do evil.

But even if all these things were adequately handled, there would still be the problem of evil.

PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY: DAILY CHRISTIAN LIVING – Recommended Reading by Gary W. Summers

The Shenandoah church chose as the subject matter for their 12th annual lectureship things pertaining to practical Christian living, which is always a timely theme. Too many people view religion as something that is done on Sunday instead of being practiced daily.

In fact, the very first chapter stresses this point. After a brief look at passages which emphasize the word daily, one’s thoughts, speech, and actions are discussed. Other activities that touch our daily lives include prayer, Bible study, spiritual growth, concern for the church, and persecution. The chapter concludes with “The Reason for Daily Christian Living.”

The second chapter analyzes and applies the admonition: “Take Up Your Cross Daily.” Chapter three contains four reasons for “The Need For Daily Study and Meditation.” No matter how long we have been members of the Lord’s church, we still have a need for studying the Word and to hear exhortations that encourage us along those lines.

The fourth chapter reminds us all of “The Need For Daily Evangelism,” which cannot be emphasized too strongly. After discussing the command and the need to evangelize (and some other matters), the writer lists seven reasons why the church has failed to carry out this mission. Judging from a lack of growth on the part of many congregations, it would appear that these reasons are in some measure defining the problem. Suggestions are given for ways of overcoming obstacles to evangelism. Christians need to take this responsibility as seriously as they did the one to obey the gospel.The Shenandoah church chose as the subject matter for their 12th annual lectureship things pertaining to practical Christian living, which is always a timely theme. Too many people view religion

“The Need For Patience And Long-Suffering,” on which most of us need improvement, is followed by “The Need For Appreciation, Gratitude, and Thanksgiving.” This chapter contains some excellent material: one brief prayer begins, “Father, we thank you for this sink of dirty dishes. . .” (104). A later paragraph contains information about “leper squints” (110). Several reasons for gratitude are listed, one of which is the great prosperity we have in this nation. Although we often reflect on these matters at Thanksgiving, gratitude should be part of daily Christian living.

“Daily Devotion” is followed by a comprehensive treatment of “Daily Christian Living in Light of God’s Grace.” Equally stimulating is “Daily Exhortation and Provocation of the Brethren,” which contains 21 exhortations from the Sermon on the Mount and a listing of exhortations from the book of Hebrews.

Another area of Christian life, which deserves greater emphasis is “Daily Anticipation of Christ’s Coming.” Losing sight of this great event may lead to sinful activities and staleness of worship. Appropriately, this chapter is followed by “Daily Thoughts of Heaven.” What will heaven be like? All of God’s children occasionally ask this question; some challenging thoughts are herein presented which stimulate one’s imagination.

Next is the highly practical “Overcoming Temptation,” which thoroughly analyzes what the Scriptures teach about the sin process and how to fight against Satan’s various techniques. As so many other topics in this book, this one is fundamental to our spiritual well-being.

“Overcoming Discouragement and Developing Optimism” is a lesson more practical than one might at first imagine. The author disassociates himself with the current crop of self-help books while focusing on a legitimate issue. The Christian has a sound basis for being optimistic. Discouragement is linked to guilt, worry, and other concepts which weigh upon an individual.

“Overcoming Pride and Prejudice” is an outstanding chapter, but it will probably be ignored by those who need it the most because they either do not care or cannot recognize these attitudes in themselves.

The next chapter is ambitious as it sets forth suggestions on “Overcoming Worry, Fear, and Doubt.” They are defined and associated with even greater problems; finally a solution is provided which can lead a person out from under their domination.

In “Coping–A Biblical Perspective” the presuppositions of the field of psychology are challenged–as well they should be. Steven Lloyd has written an entire book on this subject but presents an excellent sampling of that larger work in this brief chapter. He sets forth Biblical principles that afford real solutions to the various problems which people experience.

“The Joy of Christianity” is another positive chapter; it reminds us of the outlook all Christians should possess. “The challenge of Christianity” covers some earlier topics with a fresh perspective. “The Christian’s Speech” can never receive too much attention–especially in today’s world.

“The Christian in the Workplace” was not written as a hypothetical treatise, nor as the result of other people’s experiences; the chapter is written by a preacher who supports his family with a secular job and faces conflicts on a regular basis.

Next there is a section on “The Beatitudes,” followed by “Christians Are To Be the Salt and the Light.” A history of the value of salt is included, as well as a discussion of four of its uses. The properties of light are also considered.

“Doing Alms, Prayer, and Fasting” from Matthew 6:1-18 is followed by a presentation of what it means to “Seek Ye First the Kingdom” (Matt. 6:33). Closing out the chapters from the Sermon on the Mount is “Beware of False Teachers” (Matt. 7:15-20).

Next is “Practical Points From Proverbs,” which by itself is worth the price of the book. There is some excellent material here on “Parenting,” “Responsibility,” “Obedience,” “Virtue,” “Reverence,” “Self-Control,” and a few other topics. Only a few of these are discussed in detail, but the chapter is especially valuable in serving as a springboard to further study.

Another book of the Bible receiving special treatment is the book of James (“Practical Christianity”). After a brief summary of each chapter, some special attention is given to praying and anointing with oil the sick (James 5:14). A variety of other matters complete the chapter. The material was compiled by Johnny Ramsey and is worthy of study, but the reader should also obtain the tape of this lesson, which varies from the book. The oral version is a rich gold mine with a copious supply of nuggets there for the taking.

Another subject that interests most Christians is “Prayer and Providence in the Christian’s Daily Life.” The writer lists factors that are important to our prayers being accepted by God and also analyzes some of the hindrances that will keep them from being answered. Providence is also defined and illustrated. “Prayer and Providence” is followed by the equally alliterative “Possessing Peace Passing Understanding,” a state pursued by men in all the wrong manners but available in Christ.

“Successful Christianity” covers a variety of subjects; it includes an outline for being a successful Christian and some material from the book of Acts. The last regular chapter deals with the question: “How Can I Be Holy As God Is Holy?” The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Malachi are studied briefly in connection with their emphasis upon holiness, along with numerous New Testament Scriptures. Sin is then defined and presented by its various categories. Finally, suggestions are given as to how to be godlike with respect to holiness.

A new and valuable section has been added to the book this year. The final three chapters are all written by young men, sons of gospel preachers. The first one is titled “The Christian in High School.” The emphasis is on the environment at school and the pressures to engage in drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and dancing. Also there are some practical hints for dating and warnings about some of the false teachings that permeate the public school system.

The second of these is “Daily Christian Living in College.” It looks at some of the challenges of being away from home in a new environment. Some of the temptations that attend this new found freedom are also given some consideration.

The third in this series, “The Christian Athlete,” considers the values taught by athletics: “The Art of Getting Along With Others”; “The Necessity of Following the Rules”; “The Costs of Commitment”; “The Benefits of Discipline”; “The Results of Endurance”; “The Importance of Goals”; “The Reality of Christian Warfare”; “The Power of Unity”; and “The Thrill of Victory.”

The book costs $15.00 and may be ordered from the Shenandoah Church of Christ, 11026 Wurzbach Rd., San Antonio, TX 78230 or from Valid Publications.

Who Is a Pastor? by Gary W. Summers

It is not uncommon for preachers answering the telephone to hear those famous words, “Are you the pastor?” After replying in the negative, and perhaps adding, “I am a preacher,” callers usually respond by saying, “What’s the difference?” or “Same difference.”

Those in the second category are obviously salesmen–and obtuse ones at that, or they would feign interest in the distinction. Those who do ask expect an answer in ten words or less; so they often lose interest about three sentences into the explanation, and if they ever call back, will ask for “the pastor” again.

For most preachers, this conversation occurs dozens of times a year either on the telephone or in person. The reason is that the “pastor” concept which has developed over the years has become so accepted into society that when the truth is set forth, it sounds strange and peculiar to most people. What does the Bible teach on this subject?

The four passages using “rule” are in Matthew 2:6 and Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15. The other seven times “feed” represents the Greek word; two of those verses we will especially want to consider (later)ÑActs 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2.

Two other related words should be mentioned. One (pronounced poim’ nay) is translated “flock” (Matt. 26:31; Luke 2:8; 1 Cor. 9:7) and “fold” (John 10:16); the other (pronounced poim nee’ own) is also translated “flock” (Luke 12:32; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:2-3).

A pastor, then, is a shepherd. Members of the church are referred to as sheep, who are tended by shepherds. Jesus is THE shepherd (or pastor) over His flock, the church.

“So what’s the problem?” someone asks. “We have always understood that; the pastor takes care of his flock–literally or spiritually. So why don’t you want to be called a pastor?” There is more to discover in this study: God uses some other words which also refer to these same men.

One related word (pronounced eh peace koh pay’) refers to the office of a bishop (Acts 1:20; 1 Tim. 3:1). Someone might wonder, “What do these words have to do with the ‘pastor’ word group?” After one more word is examined, the relationship will be shown.

Elders are older men (and always have been, historically, regardless of the Mormons’ misuse of the term) who shepherd (feed) and oversee the flock. How do we know they refer to the same group of men and not three different classes of men? We know because the three terms are used interchangeably in two passages of Scripture. First, let us study Acts 20.

Paul wanted to talk to the leaders of the church at Ephesus, but he did not want to take the time to travel there because he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem. “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the ELDERS of the church” (Acts 20:17). They came to him and he told them the things he wanted to say in verses 18-35. In verse 28 he says to take heed “to all the FLOCK, among which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS, to SHEPHERD the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (NKJ).

Clearly, the elders (v. 17) are also the overseers (v. 28), whose function it is to shepherd the flock (or pastor it). The next verse mentions “savage wolves” who will come in among you, “not sparing the flock.” The pastoral function of elders or overseers can scarcely be overlooked.

Another passage in which these words are used interchangeably is 1 Peter 5:1-4. Peter begins by giving an exhortation to the “ELDERS who are among you” (1). “SHEPHERD the FLOCK of God which is among you, serving as OVERSEERS, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain” (2). FLOCK is used again in verse 3, and in verse 4 Jesus is termed the CHIEF SHEPHERD. Just as in Acts 20, so here it must be obvious that elders are overseers (bishops) are pastors (shepherds).

Consider also that when Paul reached the farthest point in his first missionary journey, he returned through all the congregations he established and “appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). He left Titus in Crete to do the same thing. But when he sent a letter to the Philippians, he addressed it to the bishops and deacons (1:1). The bishops or elders or pastors are over the church; they serve as shepherds over the flock.

Did Paul call for “the pastor” of Ephesus to come meet with him? Did he appoint “the pastor” in every city or instruct Titus to do so? Is the epistle to the Philippians addressed to “the pastor” and a board of deacons? The Bible always speaks of elders–not the elder, the overseer, the pastor. So even if a preacher is an elder, he is still not “the pastor.”

The denominational world has spawned a great deal of terminology that is not Biblical. Many have “youth pastors.” But the qualifications for elders-pastors-bishops includes being married and having children. “A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife. . . one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence” (1 Tim. 3:2-4). Paul repeats both of these in Titus 1:6: “the husband of one wife, having faithful children.” Yet how many denominational “pastors” have no children, and how many youth “pastors” have no children? It should be clear to any right-thinking individual that the “pastor” system was one invented by man and not instituted by God. The “pastor” concept, as practiced by most religious groups today, is a departure from the Word of God.

Timothy was instructed to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 2:5). He was a preacher of the gospel of Christ, an evangelist. Now admittedly some of the work of the preacher overlaps with the work of elders, but each has its own emphasis. Elders primarily oversee the flock, but that does not mean they cannot teach the gospel to those who are lost in sin. Preachers want to preach the gospel to those lost in sin, but that does not mean they cannot teach or speak to the church.

Timothy and Titus were instructed by Paul to do the following things.

1. Put brethren in remembrance of certain things (1 TIm. 4:6). 2. Rebuke them that sin–even elders (1 Tim. 5:20). 3. Hold fast the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13). 4. Reprove, rebuke, exhort (2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:15). 5. Speak things that become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). 6. Commit the truths they had learned to faithful men who would be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). 7. Put things in order (ordaining elders) (Titus 1:5).

All of these require dealing with members of congregations; preachers can teach the church. And there is no age requirement to preach, nor are there any family requirements, as there are for pastors. All one needs to do to understand how God organized the church is to read and study the Scriptures, looking for truth,and setting aside society’s cultural influence upon “Christendom.” In two thousand years, many traditions have been begun by men–many practices which are not authorized or taught in the New Testament.

Many traditions, owing their origin to a time and place outside of the New Testament era, have likewise been handed down: sprinkling in place of baptism, instrumental music in addition to singing, Easter and Christmas celebrations, the “pastor system.” None of these is authorized in the New Testament, but people practice them anyway, just as if they were sacred commandments. “And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9).

So, while to denominational folk, a pastor may be thought to be the same as a preacher, the New Testament does not teach such an idea. Of course, no one expects this explanation to have any effect on “pastors,” since, if they were concerned about what the Bible teaches, they would recognize that denominationalism itself lacks Scriptural authority. God did not create denominations, and Jesus did not die for them; He died for His body, the church (Acts 20:28). But those who are truly interested in what the Bible teaches will profit from this study.

In Hosea’s today God’s people were destroyed for a lack of knowledge (4:6). In Jesus’ day, people were more enthusiastic in keeping the traditions of men than they were the commandments of God (Matt. 15:1-9). The same is true today. Many are unwilling to let the lack of Biblical authority (Col. 3:17) stand in the way of their love for “pastor” system or the use of instrumental music in worship. “What saith the Scriptures?” has been replaced with “What saith my emotions?” and “How do I feel about that?”

Popularity (what pleases mankind) has taken precedence over pleasing God, as demonstrated by man’s neglect in even caring about correct church organization. Furthermore, many have no respect for true worship (as opposed to vain worship), eschatology, or whether baptism is “in order to obtain forgiveness of” or “because of having obtained forgiveness of” sins. Words have definitions, and the Holy Spirit chose them because of that fact. Oh, that man might be satisfied to follow God’s Word on every subject (Gen. 6:22).

“Preparing for and Serving God or Ignoring God and Glorifying Man?” by Marvin L. Weir

It is absolutely pathetic that the majority of mankind will believe anything and everything other than God’s Holy Word.  Man, reveling in his own wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21), continues to purposefully distance himself from his Creator.  Many today believe they know what is right and true, but they do not because they have rejected God’s Word which is right and true (John 17:17; Psa. 119:160).  As people continue to further remove themselves from any connection with Deity, they will find themselves more and more captivated with the speculative theories of men and mesmerized by the glitter of the world.

There were three recent articles in the Dallas Morning News that shows man’s ignorance about God, the creation of the universe, and sin.  First, in the March 12, 1998 Dallas Morning News is the shorty of a large asteroid that could be on a collision course with Earth.  The paper states, “This asteroid is not as large as the one scientists believe hit Earth 65 million years ago, killing two-thirds of all life forms, including the dinosaurs.”  Scientists need time, lots of time, for their theories, and the Bible is rejected because it does not provide it for them.  If not a literal 24-hour period of time, what is the meaning of God saying, “And the was evening and there was morning, one day” (Gen. 1:5; cf. also verses 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).  How much clearer can God be in describing day and night?  In Exodus 20:9-11 God uses the pattern of creation as one to be followed by His creatures.  The Bible says, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all they work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God:  in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, no thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (emphasis mine, MLW).  One must have help to miss the truth that this earth is not remotely close to being 65 million years old.  Dinosaurs and man once co-existed, but the universal flood (Gen. 7) forever changed the environment dinosaurs needed to exist.  One does not find in the Bible the “billions” of years needed to prop up the theory of evolution!  Neither must we be concerned about this world coming to a premature end.  God still rules in the kingdoms of men (Dan. 4:17), and even though this world will one day pass away (Matt. 24:35), it will do so at God’s choosing (Matt. 24:36) and will not be prevented.

Second, the March 13, 1998 Dallas Morning News tells of the Methodist minister who is appearing before a church jury to determine whether or not he will be fired for “performing a lesbian unity ceremony.”  the article says the minister “pleaded not guilty to charges that he held an unsanctioned liturgy and disobeyed the United Methodist Church rules by conducting the ceremony.”  The minister replied by saying, “I was responding to them as a pastor, to give them pastoral care.”  He also stated he “takes the church liturgy seriously but that his main calling is to serve his local church and its members.

Most are under the false impression that a preacher’s “main calling” is to serve men.  This attitude has even found its way into the Lord’s church!  God’s preachers are spokesmen for God.  Their foremost desire should be to serve and honor God-not man!  Neither do you “serve men” by promoting that which the Bible condemns.  Homosexuality is sinful and wrong (Gen. 19:1-13; Lev. 18:22; 20:13), is against that which is natural (Rom. 1:26-27), and those who engage in such will not enter Heaven (1 Cor. 6:9).  The Methodist minister served the Devil and not God and violated the law of God (not just the law of the Methodist church) when he performed the ceremony!

Third, the March 13, 1998 Dallas Morning News tells of “God’s Salvation Church” in Garland who continue to prepare for God to arrive on March 31, 1998.  Their leader says God will “commandeer all television stations beginning at midnight March 24 to broadcast bulletins about His plans.”  He also says, “If it doesn’t turn out to be true, you can just take this as nonsense.”  You can mark it down as “nonsense” now because it contradicts God’s Word.  Naturally, no scripture is referenced in the entire article.  I wonder why.  The Bible still says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.  But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Matt. 24:35-36).  Mr. Chen, leader of the group, also says that God prohibits them “from even killing an ant.”  Dr. Lu, a physician who follows Mr. Chen, says, “The group so reveres life that members say a prayer of apology before cutting the grass.”  What is really sad is that God’s Word is not revered the way grass is.  Enough said!

If people really want to prepare for God and serve Him, they will respect and obey His divine Word.  If one chooses to do otherwise, he ignores God and basks in self-glorification.  Such a choice is spiritually fatal!

“Report on Russia Trip” by Dub McClish

Murmansk rests near the top of the globe, above the Arctic Circle, separated from the North Pole by the Barents Sea and a lot of ice.  It was an important port city for receiving US war material during WWII; consequently, the German Luftwaffe almost bombed it off the map, as well as making ground assaults from their forces in neighboring Finland and Norway.  It was then part of the “Soviet Polar Region.” (Does that give you any clue about the weather?)  The summers last about two months, during which the sun does not set for six weeks. (The high may reach a sizzling 70 degrees!)  The winter lasts the other ten months, including a six-week period in which the sun never shows itself.  It was still winter in late February and March when I was there, and the only steps we took (and we walked several miles while there) which were not on packed snow and/or ice were those inside buildings.  It is now a city of approximately 500,000.

The church began in Murmansk about 1992 and now has thirty-three members.  This includes American brethren Bob Hawkins and Cliff Lyons who live and work there.  The church has some significant strength in the person of Alexander and Tatyana Nesterkin.  They are both medical doctors who took two years away from their practice to come to Memphis for Alexander to attend the Memphis School of Preaching.  He graduated last June and they have been back in Murmansk since then.  Alexander does the preaching and teaches a beginner’s class each Sunday.

Four of us (David Brown, Wayland Melton, Terry Mabery, and I) arrived on Friday, February 26, for two weeks of work.  The brethren on the scene (Cliff Lyons, Bob Hawkins, and Alexander Nesterkin) had planned Gospel meetings both weeks, the first week in Murmansk and the second week in Murmashy, a small city about twenty-five miles away.  I was asked to preach at the worship hour Sunday morning (41 were present).  A Seventh-Day Adventist lady who had been visiting and studying desired to be baptized.  About fifteen of the members wen tot Cliff Lyon’s flat a few blocks away, where we baptized her in Cliff’s bathtub (they insisted I do hte baptizing, which I was pleased to do).  The meeting in Murmansk went Monday-Thursday night an d each of us took a turn preaching, with a translator (a 30-minute sermon thus takes an hour).

Each night after the sermon, the floor was opened to any questions from anyone present, and we four, plus Cliff, Bob, and Alexander, responded to them for another full hour.  Attendance for those meetings averaged about thirty-three.  Most of them were non-members, and many returned repeatedly.  It was amazing to see some in their sixties (one lady with a cane) who would get out in zero-degree weather, ride some distance on a trolley or a bus, and then walk at least three hundred yards on packed snow and/or ice.  Such was the hunger of some for God’s Word.  There were questions about such things as war, baptism, Russian Orthodox Church practices, Pentecostalism, Christian living, and others, all of which indicated serious thought.  Much good seed was sown that we pray will eventually be harvested.  During the day Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week we each had appointments to teach junior-high youngsters in School 17.

Thursday afternoons (both weeks) we went with Cliff and Bob to the Seaman’s Hospital where they are allowed to teach a Bible class in the chapel each week.  We all went from room to room passing out invitations to the patients.  The hospital was pitiful as to equipment, building condition, sanitation, and such life, but it is all they have.  This was followed by going to an orphanage which houses about ten youngsters; Cliff and Bob are allowed to teach simple Bible truths each week.  The headmaster at School 17 allows Cliff and Bob to us a classroom each Saturday to conduct “Bible College” classes.  We accompanied them; David and I took turns with Bob teaching on the inspiration of the Bible in the two-hour class, attended by about twelve Russians, most of whom were non-members.

The Gospel meeting at Murmashy (in a rented room at School 10) attracted only one person Monday night.  (Monday was a national holiday, “Woman’s Day,” which was likely a great factor.)  However, Tuesday night we were encouraged that eleven were present.  I preached on baptism, and during the question/answer period it was obvious that they had listened and understood-one or two were rather hostile to the thought that their Russian Orthodox sprinkling as infants was unscriptural, but this gave us further opportunity to teach.  Wednesday night we were further encouraged by the presence of eighteen non-members.  On the strength of this interest and a request by one of the visitors that we return, arrangements were made to rent the room each Sunday afternoon for a Bible class.  Thursday night was spent preparing to depart the next day (March 13); so the meeting went only through Wednesday night.

It was well below freezing all but the day of our arrival, and it snowed some most of the days we were there.  Some of the nights, when we walked and rode trolleys home from the meetings, the temperature was single digits.  It was seldom warmer during the day in Murmansk.  However, it was noticeably colder in Murmashy due to its distance from the bay and some warning effect Murmansk derives from its waters. The quarter mile we had to walk from School 10 to the taxi/bus stand was in bitter, subzero temperatures that would be fatal in a short while if one were not clothed to withstand it.

The Truth has a toehold in this bitter and barren land.  There is an evident hunger for religious and spiritual matters in the hearts of some.  Most of the people go their various ways by foot and by public bus and/or trolley (which is the way we got around most of the time).  Their demeanor does not involve smiling, eye contact, or conversation (even with their fellow Russians).  The buildings are uniformly crudely constructed, dirty (inside and out), and many are crumbling.  This assessment is true of the buildings housing the residential “flats” (single family housing is all but nonexistent), commercial, and public buildings (including the airport), reflecting the generations of Communism’s suppression which has robbed the Russian people of any initiative or incentive to excel.  It will take some generations to overcome this attitude and for their new-found freedoms to be reflected in their national personality.  With time and the leavening influence of the Gospel, an interest in spiritual matters can doubtless be sparked in more and more people.  There is a marked difference in personality between the general populace and those who have obeyed the Gospel.  The latter are warm, friendly, outgoing, even exuberant in their approach to life and to other people, more so than many saints in our own land.  we must keep on taking the Gospel to this and other far-flung areas.  I am thankful I had the opportunity to sow the seed of the kingdom in this remote and unusual land.

Tolerance, Understanding, and Forgiveness

By now everyone has probably heard the “You may be a redneck if…” jokes and their spin-offs.  Someone could produce a round of “You know religion is in trouble when…” jokes if they thought abut it very long.  The purpose of this article is to do just that with on subject, but it is not really humorous:  “You know that religion is in trouble when the secular media must remind those claiming to be Christians of what the Bible teaches.”

Apparently the push for tolerance and understanding in society has caused people to be so cautious that they are now demanding no accountability whatsoever of transgressors (even murderers) and furthermore are ready to forgive anyone of anything, no matter how heinous.  The problem is brought to light in the March issue of Reader’s Digest in an article entitled “When Forgiveness Is a Sin” by Dennis Prager.  This message which first appeared in the Wall Street Journal, is a vital one needed today.  Prager begins with a factual summary:

The bodies of three teenage girls shot dead last December by a fellow student in West Padacah, KY, were not yet cold before some of their schoolmates hung a sign announcing, “We forgive you, Mike!”  They were referring to Michael Carneal, 14, the killer (37).

How gracious.  How understanding.  How preposterous!  Has there been any remorse, any repentance?  “Mike” has scarcely been booked, let alone tried or convicted.  What is behind the eagerness to forgive him?  Are we trying to show how broad-minded and noble we are?  This is tolerance gone to seed.

Society has needed (and still does) racial tolerance.  People ought not to be judged (either favorably or unfavorably) on the basis of race, nationality, gender, or social status.  It is a positive step when we can be civil even to those whose ideas are radically different from our own.  But now it would appear that these ideas are being extended toward those who have violated laws which are common to all societies.

When anyone violates our nation’s laws, he loses certain privileges.  He also loses the right to be treated with tolerance and understanding.  When Cain killed his brother, God did not say, “I understand and forgive you, Cain.  And although I would not have personally responded the way you did, I respect your thinking on this subject.”  One’s thoughts will be judged by God alone, but one’s actions must be judged by society.

Or has not being “judgmental” been so emphasized that we cannot even have a reasonable trial to determine guilt anymore?  Perhaps it is time to render righteous judgments once again (John 7:24).  It is not time to be forgiving in the midst of the aftermath of a senseless crime; it is a time for justice.

After describing the school shooting, Prager cites another example of over-tolerance–a preacher who invited everyone to look at a picture o Timothy McVeigh and forgive him (37-38).  His bomb resulted in the deaths of 168 (the number of hours in a week) Americans. McVeigh doesn’t need my forgiveness.  As Prager wrote:  “You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive Timothy McVeigh or Michael Carneal; only those they have sinned against have that right.”

In a broad sense, McVeigh and Carneal have sinned against us all–if we follow John Donne’s “No man is an island” philosophy.  After all, McVeigh intended to kill anyone who was in that building, and I am “anyone.”  “Anyone” might have been my father or mother, sister or brother, son or daughter.  In that sense I take it personally and am not particularly in a forgiving mood.

But Prager is right that the immediate families are the ones who are most directly involved, and the last thing they probably need to see in the midst of their grief is some over-tolerant do-gooder offering forgiveness while they are still reeling from the tragedy.

Have Americans become so gutless that we just cannot stand to make even criminals accountable for their actions?  [18% fewer Texans than five years ago supported the death penalty.]  Is “forgiveness” our way of tidying up unpleasant events so that we can put them out of our minds and get on to our next party?  Is it selfishness that prompts us to forget victims?

Prager’s observations make a great deal of sense:

And I am appalled and frightened by this feel-good doctrine of automatic forgiveness.

This doctrine advances the amoral notion that no matter how much you hurt others, millions of our fellow-citizens will forgive you.

If we are automatically forgiven no matter what we do, why repent (38)?

Prager is Jewish, but he seems to possess a better comprehension of the New Testament than many so-called “Christians” have.

“Even by God,” Prager writes, “forgiveness is contingent upon the sinner repenting…” (38). When King David, for example, sinned, it caused him great anguish and grief–because he had not repented of it. Psalm 51 shows the anguish of mind he endured while separated spiritually from God. Did God forgive him? Yes, WHEN he repented and confessed his sin.

Christians are told to do the exact same thing under the new covenant.  Simon was told to repent of the thought of his heart (Acts 8:22), and in 1 John the apostle reminds us all: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Forgiveness is not automatically received from God.  There must be genuine repentance, not merely the desire to escape the consequences of one’s actions.  God did not allow even David’s sincere repentance to keep him from being punished.  He suffered greatly for his choice to sin (2 Samuel 13-20).

Not can we forgive one another without the evidence of sorrow and a change of behavior.  In the illustration Jesus used of a brother sinning against a brother seven times in one day, he was to be forgiven WHEN he said, “I repent” (Luke 17:3-4; 3:7-9).

Newspaper columnist Cal Thomas wrote an article about Billy Graham, which appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle on March 13th. Thomas begins:

Evangelist Billy Graham told “Today Show” viewers last week that he forgives President Clinton because “I know the frailty of human nature…. He has such a tremendous personality that I think the ladies just go wild over him” (10A).

Thomas is very perceptive in asking, “So what exactly is Graham forgiving the President?” (10A). The President has denied all allegations of any wrongdoing. If he is innocent, he does not need forgiveness; if he is guilty, he would not only be guilty of sexual misconduct, but of lying about it to the American people, since he denied it emphatically just a few days ago. Judging from Graham’s remark about human frailty, he must think the President is guilty.

But why then is Graham in such a hurry to forgive him (if his assumptions are right)? When Nathan confronted David, the king did not say, “I never had a sexual relationship with that woman, Mrs. Uriah.” Can anyone imagine God replying through Nathan, “I recognize that you are a frail human being, David, and I have put away your sin (even though you deny having committed it)”?

There is a second problem with Graham’s willingness to forgive; he actually seeks to excuse the President (apparently assuming he is guilty) by portraying him as a frail human being with a dynamic personality that women cannot help throwing themselves at. Even if such an opinion of the President’s charm were true (and many women deny that it is so), how Biblical is it to excuse someone for sin?

Neither Jesus nor the Father excused Judas’ behavior as a matter of human frailty: “Poor Judas: he just can’t turn down money.” Paul did not write of the man living with his father’s wife in Corinth: “He is such a dynamic personality that even married women go wild over him; he’s just a frail human being; forgive him.” Paul did ask them to forgive him WHEN he repented and quit participating in the sin (2 Cor. 2:6-11).

Cal Thomas writes the truth when he says: “On a theological level, surely Graham knows htat only God can forgive sins and that forgiveness does not precede acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance” (10A). How embarrassing for a newspaper columnist to have to teach the world’s leading evangelist (by the world’s standards, not God’s) what the Bible teaches!

A number of scriptures could be examined to support Thomas’ observation. Jesus said, “Except your repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Why? God does not forgive unless people are willing to acknowledge that their behavior is sinful and give up the sing. As long as a person or a nation persists in the sin, God will not forgive. Have we never learned the lesson of His allowing His own people to be taken into captivity? Does God’s destroying the ungodly people of Noah’s day with a flood fail to convince us that it is wrong to think that God will forgive us no matter what?

Many seem to have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that God is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16) and that sin separates mankind from Him (Isaiah 59:1-2). To cleanse us of our sins there are two essential ingredients: 1) the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins, and 2) our repentance of sin which prompts us to be buried with Christ in baptism to meet His blood and have our sins washed away (Rom. 6:3-5).

Where does the Bible teach that God forgives in absence of repentance? Someone might answer, “Luke 34:34,” which records Jesus’ first communication from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” However, there are three points about this plea which must not be overlooked.

The first is that, since Jesus was the One Who had been wronged, He could legitimately ask forgiveness for his crucifiers. This situation differs greatly from the forgiveness offered to the murderer of the high school girls. A parallel to that would have been for the apostles to have tacked up a banner on the temple saying, “We forgive you, Judas” or “We forgive you, Caiaphas.” Jesus is the only One who could rightfully forgive, since the crime was committed against Him.

The second point is to be made in the form of a question: “Whom was Jesus forgiving?” Was He forgiving those who had been duped into yelling, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him”? Or was He forgiving the Jewish leaders who (due to their intense hatred) had sought to kill Him on a number of occasions?

Third, was this forgiveness automatic? Or did they first need to repent? The multitude had told Pilate, “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matt. 27:25). Historian Josephus describes how the Romans shed the blood of the Jews still remaining in Jerusalem. Apparently, tragically, they received what they asked for.

On the other hand, there were many Jews who obeyed the gospel on the day of Pentecost; they were forgiven of their sins when they were baptized (Acts 2:38-41). Some had clamored for Jesus’ death (Acts 2:23, 36). Their blood was not shed in the streets of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 because they had fled the city. The difference between those who repented and those who did not was the difference between those whose blood was shed and those who survived.

God always requires repentance before He grants forgiveness. It is a shame that those purporting to be Christians need to be reminded of these facts–and that by journalists.

An Open Letter to Paul Harvey Regarding “The Letter from God”

Article by Gary W. Summers

On Saturday, March 7th, news commentator Paul Harvey read a lengthy document purporting to be “a letter from God.” He said it was on the Internet but did not specify why or how to access it. For this response we wanted the text that he read so that we could quote precisely from it. When calling his office, however, we were informed that 1) he was out of town this week, 2) no one in the office had a transcript of it, 3) they did not know hot to find it on the Internet. Since the letter purports to be from God and was written by someone anonymously, searching for the document on the Internet provided fruitless. So, in place of precise text, we (of necessity) must rely for the moment on memory and a few hastily scribbled notes.

Dear Mr. Harvey,

Before reading the “letter from God” on the air last week, you described your reluctance to do so, lamenting your consultation with a family members, some of whom disagreed with the plan. If you are still vacillating as to the letter’s genuineness, I can assure you that the letter is phony from beginning to end. The comments are thoroughly humanistic and totally outrageous to anyone who takes seriously the teachings of the Bible.

The letter begins by stressing the patience of God with respect to the years it took Him to create the Grand Canyon. This error was enhanced with a statement that He had spent millions of years creating the world through Darwinian evolution. Mr. Harvey, it may have been a while since you read Genesis 1; if you will check, the verses there mention days, not years.

Not only are days mentioned (as opposed to millions of years), but what occurred on each and every day is specifically detailed. God rested on the seventh day (Gen. 2:2). When God gave His law to Israel, He told them to rest on the seventh day: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day “ (Ex. 20:11). We still observe a seven-day week, Mr. Harvey. Is there some other explanation for that besides Genesis 1?

Attempts to compromise evolution with the Bible have failed; it is obvious from Exodus 20:11 that the days of Genesis 1 are intended to be understood literally, and in fact there is nothing in the text that should suggest any kind of figurative interpretation. Nowhere else in entire Bible in any doubt cast upon the fact that the days in Genesis are literal, 24-hour days. In fact this truth is corroborated:

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Ps. 33:6-9).

There is only one ideology that needs millions, perhaps billions, of years–evolution. The power of God is such that He can do things instantaneously. Could God have used billions of years to create the world? Yes. But did He? He says He did not, but rather accomplished the whole feat in six days. The so-called “letter from God” would have Him contradicting Himself.

But even more deadly than preceding subject is the declaration that in all of the scriptures God inspired He made sure there were mistakes. Mr. Harvey, if such a position were true, it would make the Bible worthless. The Bible cannot be both inspired and yet contain errors. If it is, then who will point out the places in which it is wrong: you? Please tell us the flaws so that we may not believe and practice things that are wrong.

If the Bible contains errors, then maybe it is wrong in telling us to love one another or to love our enemies. It might be mistaken as it describes the beauties of heaven; certainly, those descriptions of hell fire must be erroneous since most people find them unpalatable. Yes, we have a real problem on our hands, trying to determine what verses have error in them.

There is also a conflict with what the Bible teaches. The apostles were told they would be guided into all truth (John 16:12-13); Peter later affirmed that “God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Paul told the Thessalonians that he had taught them the truth (1 Thess. 2:15). Imagine that! Paul was assuring everyone that he was teaching them the truth (Gal. 1:8-9), but God may have tricked him and occasionally given him some error to write.

This kind of drivel is nothing more than warmed-over modernism which sought to do away with the inspiration and integrity of the scriptures; it’s just not as clever as what Wellhausen and “higher criticism” developed in the last century. It is an appalling and loathsome idea which is extremely offensive to Christians. Shame on you, Mr. Harvey, for giving this “letter” any credence whatsoever. How can you repeat your birdcage illustration each year if you believe the contents of this “letter”? After all, redemption from sin may just be one of those errors that God put into the scriptures.

Another bit of advice purportedly from God was: “Trust in your own heart rather than the words written in a book.” Oh, such wisdom! Isn’t trusting in his own heart what Cain did? The Bible specifically says: “He who trusts in his own heart is a food, but whoso walks wisely shall be delivered” (Pr. 28:26). “The heart is deceitful in all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9).

Making one’s heart the authority is not only foolish; it moves one away from the truth, which Jesus said men could learn by continuing in his WORDS (John 8:31-32). The standard by which all men will be judged is not the heart, but the WORDS of Christ (John 12:48).

One line from “the letter” said something akin to “Don’t win souls for Me.” Has it occurred to you, Mr. Harvey, that if such a philosophy had been followed by Jesus and the apostles, no one would be a Christian today? People all over the world would still be following pagan religions (and following their own hearts).

The ironic thing about this anti-Biblical advice is that whoever wrote this “letter” repeated the phrase, “I am with you always.” Do you know, Mr. Harvey, in what context Jesus uttered that statement? Jesus assure the apostles that He will be with them as they evangelize! Consider the entire text:

Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven n and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
(Matt. 28:18-20)

Whoever wrote this “letter” has revealed major ignorance concerning the scriptures. Jesus said, “I am with way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). If this statement is true, then Mohammed cannot get the job done; neither can Buddha. Peter declared to the Jews: “Nor is their salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Now honestly, can anyone imagine these statements being true and God telling his followers not to “win souls”? Either the Bible is fraudulent, Mr. Harvey, or the letter you read claiming to be from Him was. There are no other alternatives.

A corollary to the evangelism statement is the one involving disputes between professing Christians. There were such statements as: “Religious rivalries are yours, not mine” and “Give up your religious bigotries and sibling rivalries.” Certainly, religious division is counterproductive at best and at worst abhorrent. Jesus prayed for the unity of His followers that the world might believe that God sent Him (John 17:20-21).

But to characterize disagreements as “sibling rivalry” is not correct either. That phrase would describe what was going on in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:11-13), but it does not apply to the current religious situation because not all profess to be Christians are actually children of God. In fact, what the Bible teaches about the way to become a Christian had Ben disputed for nearly 2000 years. The period of time when these subjects were debated, and many were converted from error to truth (which has nothing to fear from honest study).

The “sibling-rivalry” statement also presumes that truth and doctrine are not important. Yet Solomon placed a high value upon truth (Pr. 23:23), and the young evangelist Timothy was told by Pu:

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save oh yourself and those who hear you (1 Tim. 4:16).

DOCTRINE DOES MATTER! It matters so much that God filled the entire New Testament with it. In Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus he said:

“Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:16-27).

Paul’s innocence of their blood is contingent upon the fact that he taught them everything they needed to know which was pertinent to t heir salivation. The “whole counsel of God” cannot be summed up in pithy little statement such as: “Be about My business of loving one another” and “Play nice with each other.” While it is true that loving one another is commanded (john 13:34-35) it is not the case that such summarize Christian responsibility.

One egregarious error of this “letter” is that there I no mention of anything related to one of God’s key attributes–holiness. Is it possible that God would address a nation nearly as sodden with sin as Sodom (and with the same sin of homosexuality) and not call us to repentance? Could Ninevah, to whom God send Jonah, have been any more violent than a nation that allows a million and a half infants in the womb to be killed each year?

Is it possible that God would write a letter to a nation in which a high percentage of couples are living in fornication before they get married (if they get married) and not call them to repentance? And what of the couples who promise to be together until death do them part, but quite trying after two years? Is there not even one tiny warning for Hollywood that their blasphemy, nudity, lasciviousness, and violence will be punished?

Mr. Harvey, this God is so tolerant that He does not at all resemble the One who has destroyed entire nations and empires for their sins. He does not offer a world of condemnation to us for violations any of His divine laws. Rather He just ants us to live, love, laughter, and be happy. People are trying to do us that without any attempt to be reconciled unto Him, without any pretense of trying to be holy and they are failing miserably. In the communication that God really wrote, He called us out of the pollutions of the world into true liberty. Genuine happiness does not come form pursuing fleshly pleasure; it is driveled from knowing and serving Him.

Why Do Broadcasters Approve of Homosexuality? by Gary W. Summers

For years Dear Abby and Ann Landers have promoted homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle, and one would hardly expect that anything coming out of Hollywood would do other but contribute to the nation’s DeGeneresy. But it is surprising that some, who are generally thought of as moral conservatives, have not take a stance against this sin.

Dr. Laura Schlesinger, for example, is usually a hard-hitting, no-nonsense type of person. Yet, for all that, about the strongest thing she has said on this subject is, “Homosexuality is different.” Such a statement scarcely reflects her usual “Here’s-exactly-what-I-think” approach. Certainly, no one could argue against the fact that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality; that much is true simply by definition. There is further not even a hint of condemnation in her appraisal, since Dr. Pepper has assured us that “Different Is Good.”

It is our understanding that Dr. Schlesinger is Jewish, and therefore we are as puzzled about her as we are the two advice columnists mentioned previously. What God did to Sodom and Gomorrah is related in the very first book of the Jewish Bible–Genesis. And it reads for Jews just as it does for Christians. The translation published by The Jewish Publication Society of America in 1917 reads as follows:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: ‘Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out to us that we may know them’ (Gen. 19:4-5).

Reading just a bit further yields the same final result: God rained down “brimstone and fire” upon those cities (Gen. 19:24). Leviticus 20:13 still prescribes the death penalty for homosexual males. So why would a Jewish person “pass over” these Scriptures?

Does she really believe that homosexuality is all right, or has there been a threat to drop her program if she speaks up on this point? If it is the latter, could such be called “censorship”? Surely, that cannot be the explanation. So, why the reluctance?

Do any of these promote homosexuality? Considering the respect Mr. Harvey has for religion (in just about any form), how does he not notice the discrepancy between the morality that all of these uphold as taught in the Bible and the immorality of homosexuality? Furthermore, Mr. Harvey has always been a promoter of marriage and families. For years he has mentioned couples whose marriages have endured the longest (frequently 75 to 80 years). How is it that he does not see homosexuality as a threat to the home and society?

On his February 25th, noon broadcast he mentioned a news story out of Austin, Texas. The 180-member executive board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas (this information can be found in AP articles printed on the same date) voted to “disassociate itself from Austin’s University Baptist Church” because they were fellowshipping practicing homosexuals.

Consider the issue: It is not the case that the University Baptist Church feels compassion toward homosexuals and is working to help them change; the church has accepted the practice. In other words, they have renounced what the Bible teaches about this sin and told homosexuals that they can continue to sin (with no intention of repenting) and still be in fellowship.

So what did Paul Harvey have to say about this newsworthy event? What follows is not an exact quotation, but itÕs the gist of what he said.

This is not the first time this church has been in trouble. In 1948 they were censured for allowing blacks to worship with whites. And their critics had Biblical reasons for opposing integration. Then in the 1970’s they were in trouble again for ordaining women deacons.

Now what do these comments imply? One would conclude that this church is on the cutting edge of doing what is fair and right. First, they granted the equality of blacks, then women, now homosexuals.

Blacks and women ought to be outraged at being compared to homosexuals. It is no more sinful to be dark-skinned than it is light-skinned. Pigmentation is not now, nor ever has been, a sin! It is, unfortunately, true that some, in an effort to try to maintain the status quo and traditions with which they were reared, did try to seek Scriptural support for segregration and the superiority of the White race, but there was never any substance or merit in such futile imginations. Such efforts really did constitute resistance to change.

Women ought to feel equally insulted by being put in the same category as homosexuals. Gender is not a sin, and never has been, any more than race is. Women ought to be further insulted by the idea that they cannot be equal unless they can be deacons, elders, and preachers, when God has given the role of leadership to men. The University Baptist Church was wrong [of course, they are also wrong in name, salvation, doctrine, and worship] for granting women a function God specified for men, and all the churches that followed in their footsteps have also departed from New Testament teaching (1 Tim. 2:9-14).

But, while race and sex are not sins, sexual preference is. Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as in the Old (Rom. 1:23-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). In fact, consider this strong condemnation.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7).

Those who practice homosexuality will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; such is hardly a punishment to dismiss without giving it serious thought. Certainly, such a grievous sin cannot be fellowshipped by those striving to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, who have set their sights on the holiness of heaven.

Would the University Baptist Church also accept into fellowship members practicing polygamy? If they had an unmarried “youth minister,” who decided to “shack up” (to use Dr. Laura’s terminology) with one of the congregation’s single women, would they fellowship him? If their “pastor” and one of the “deaconesses” moved into an apartment together, would that be acceptable? Would they continue to be on the cutting edge in these instances?

If so, why not just go the whole nine yards and say, “We don’t really think anything is sinful; the Bible is wrong”!? After all, it is just as easy to ignore fornication and adultery as it is homosexuality. In many cases, these sinful deeds are in the same verse or passage.

Now, Mr. Harvey, why are you so homosexuality friendly? It is certainly not you or your family that prompts such an attitude. What is it, then, that causes you to contradict the family, moral, and Biblical values that you usually champion (and for which most of us listen to you)? Are there some colleagues that prompt this aberration? Are there some artistic friends of your son who prevent any condemnation of the sin?

Whatever the reason, you should know that it is disappointing and disillusioning for those who believe the teachings of the Bible that there is not even one national voice to condemn this sin. Sure, Rush Limbaugh has spoken out against preferential treatment of homosexuals and “gay” lobbies (which is pretty gutsy), but even he imposes limitations on going any further than that.

Is there not one nationally-known voice who can acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin? If it be argued that it’s not part of the job description to preach against sin (although value judgments are constantly made as to right and wrong), could you at least not be supportive of a practice that God has defined as a sin worthy of eternal condemnation? And could you refrain from insinuating that those who reject such behavior are prejudiced, bigoted, and antiquated? The Bible is right; the Word of God is truth: why are you opposed to it?