Anatomy of Public Reaction by Gary W. Summers

The execution of Karla Faye Tucker has generated many comments among the general public, as well as letters to the editor both before and after the fact. Some of these will be referred to throughout this article, but we begin with a question which came via e-mail:

I just read your article, “Crime and Capital Punishment” and am wondering what your thoughts are about Karla Faye Tucker who was executed earlier this evening. God bless….

One wonders what the intent of this question was; it seemed to be asking if, in light of this woman’s execution, I had changed my mind about what was written in those earlier articles. Below is my reply.

My thoughts are pretty much irrelevant, but since you asked, they are these. Publicity, conversion, and emotions do not change the Word of God. Too much is being determined by public opinion polls today (how do you feel about that?) rather than, “What is the truth? What ought to be done?” The facts declared her guilty; she merited death.Personally, I am not moved by the argument that she is a different person today. I would be surprised to learn otherwise. But the person she killed is the same–dead. And if our justice system were the least bit timely, she would not have had nearly this many years of life. Hezekiah the king prayed earnestly and had 15 more years added to his life, but a criminal worthy of death gets almost the same amount that that righteous man got.

Anyway, she had the opportunity for salvation, and if she availed herself of it, she will be far better off than remaining in this world. I have no pleasure in her death, but the Scriptures make it clear that it is necessary to teach respect for life and accountability for one’s actions.

Fortunately, because it has discarded capital punishment, Wisconsin doesn’t get caught up in spectacles such as the one that surrounded Tucker. The legislature must keep Wisconsin death-penalty-free.

Yes, how fortunate for Wisconsin that there are no spectacles, such as Jeffrey Dahmer being beaten to death in prison. Tell us, Mr. Editor, was anyone ever arrested, tried, and convicted for that “non-spectacle”? And if he was, what kind of punishment will be given to the inmate already serving life imprisonment? Imagine arresting someone who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole who has just murdered again and knows he cannot be executed! “Man, you’re in big trouble now.” Such is truly a spectacle.

Then there is the letter from Paris pointing out that 100 countries have abolished the death penalty and that the United States is one of 93 remaining countries who have not as yet done so–along with Iraq and China.

The last paragraph of this insulting editorial reads:

But as Robert Badinter said when he obtained the abolition of the death penalty in France in 1981: nothing can justify “a justice that kills.”

Nothing? Perhaps Mr. Badinter is unfamiliar with God, who said that killing murderers is justice (Gen. 9:5-6).

In the last month I have seen countless pictures of the smiling, sweet-looking and arm-waving religious lady.Now I want to see the pictures of the two dead bodies she murdered. Let the people look at the pictures of the pickax still sticking in the hacked bloody body where she left it. Let the people see the ugly visual pictures as well as the sweet ones.

In the 14 years since the murder while Ms. Tucker was smiling and making friends, where have the victims been (Glenn Powell, The Dallas Morning News, 2-8-98, page 3J)?

A news story from the Denton Record-Chronicle did detail the crime that was committed.

Ms. Tucker and a companion, Daniel Garrett, were convicted of killing Jerry Lynn Dean, 27, and Deborah Thornton, 32, on June 13, 1983.Garrett beat Dean with a hammer, and Ms. Tucker used a 15-pound pickax to stop Dean from making a gurgling sound. Then Ms. Tucker attacked Mrs. Thornton, who had been hiding under a blanket. Ms. Tucker told friends she experienced a sexual thrill each time she swung the ax.

Garrett was sentenced to death, but died in prison in 1993 of liver disease (2-4-98, 9A).

The media devoted a great deal of attention to this case because the last woman executed in Texas was in 1863, and the last woman executed, period, was in 1984 (9A).

To be sure, her mother was a failure as a human being and should herself be punished. But even this depraved background is no excuse for murder.

Pope John Paul II and Pat Robertson tried to intercede for her. Robertson attributed the execution to “vengeance,” and said, in light of her purported conversion, “It makes no sense. This is not the same woman who committed those crimes” (DRC, 4-4-98, 9A).

Had Judas lived 14 years after his betrayal of Jesus, could not the same be said of him? Who is not different after 14 years? Our justice system needs reforming badly to allow a convicted murderer to live so long without being put to death. The argument about a murderer’s rehabilitation, which is often made, is irrelevant. Neither Tucker nor any other criminal is given the death penalty for purposes of rehabilitation; they are given it because they have merited it.

The sad truth is that many Americans do not want to hold anyone–even a criminal–accountable for her actions, particularly if she apologizes or says she has changed. How many prisoners would not claim to be rehabilitated if it meant a lesser sentence?

This too is extreme; many stray from the Biblical pattern of forgiveness. Some are willing to forgive when no one has repented, and some cannot forgive when a person has repented. The Bible teaches that we must forgive WHEN a person repents. Tucker should be forgiven; if she was insincere, God will judge her.

But to return to Horton’s comments, she also becomes extreme. She says: “I thought we had moved past the days of flogging and hanging someone in the town square while the citizenry observed” and “Can we honestly say a parent who brings his child to an execution is acting in a civilized manner? I hope not” (6J). (TDMN, 1-15-98, 6J). What, exactly, is wrong with the populace seeing what happens to those who commit capital crimes? What better way to instill the fact that society requires accountability for one’s actions? It should be a grim event (not one of “raucous celebration”)–but one that impresses upon young people the penalty for wrongdoing.

The Applause of Men by Gary W. Summers

A few weeks ago a lady wrote to “Dear Abby” expressing dissatisfaction with the popular practice of applauding during worship. We were amazed that anyone would write such a letter in this age of “Don’t-be-judgmental-and-have-religion-your-own-way.” We were not amazed, however, at the protest that appeared in February 7th’s column. Below is Nancy Whitford’s (from Champaign, Illinois) response.

Regarding the woman who complained about clapping in church: She should relax and enjoy. Worship doesn’t have to be a somber and expressionless experience. The Psalmist tells us, “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord.”

How can people relax and enjoy what they do not consider to be spiritual or Scriptural? [Come to think of it, was not this Bobby Knight’s advice to women being raped?] The fallacy of this argument is that if several people enjoy it, this woman should, also. In other words, if the majority thinks a golden calf would be fun to worship, everyone should enjoy the revelry. The problem is that Nancy does not question whether the practice is right or wrong, which is the appropriate question to ask. Her comment here basically amounts to: “If it feels good, do it.”

The second fallacy in this paragraph is the false dilemma posed: either worship is an expressionless experience or we must clap our hands. How ridiculous! When Moses was in the presence of the burning bush, did he applaud God? When Peter, James, and John were on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus, did they applaud His bright appearance?

This comment assumA few weeks ago a lady wrote to “Dear Abby” expressing dissatisfaction with the popular practice of applauding during worship. We were amazed that anyone would write such a letter in this age of “Don’t-be-judgmental-and-have-religion-your-own-way.” We were not amazed, however, at the protest that appeared in February 7th’s column. Below is Nancy Whitford’s (from Champaign, Illinois) response.es that the minds and hearts of people are not nearly so important in worshipping God as their hands are. How preposterous to think that we can only be involved in worship if our hands can smack each other with precision. Fervency in worship is provided from within, not by some artificial, external stimulus.

The third fallacy is the appeal to the Old Testament for our standard of worship. We are under a new and better covenant now (Heb. 8:6-7). The law of Moses has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). To go back to the Old Testament as authority for anything in worship or practice carries with it two dangers.

First, to appeal to the Old Testament as authority for even one practice obligates one to obey the whole law (Gal. 5:3). Some Jewish converts in the first century church wanted to bind circumcision on Gentiles. Paul told them they could not just take that one item; they would be required to keep the entire law. Are there any who really want to be bound by the law? Do they want to offer the blood sacrifices required in Leviticus? Do they want to abstain from all work on the Sabbath day? Will they remove pork from their diets? The law requires all of these things–and more.

Second, anyone attempting to be justified by the law has fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). Now these are very strict statements, but Paul is trying to make the point very clear: We are not under the Old Testament, and we cannot appeal to the Old Testament for New Testament doctrine, worship, or practice.

“What’s wrong with church members expressing their enjoyment of worship? Amen and hallelujah!” Nancy writes (on page 9A of The Denton Record-Chronicle).

Excuse me, but for whom is the worship designed: God or us? Are we gathered together to please ourselves? The philosophy of the “me” generation has finally been applied to worship. People have whined, “I didn’t get anything out of the worship”; so religion (in general) has responded by saying, “What would you like to have?” If you want 15-minute sermonettes, you’ve got them. If you want dramas, we’re with you. Do you want games? Bingo! Do you like bowling? We’re right up your alley. Do you want choirs with a modern sound and a rock beat? We can handle that. Why doesn’t somebody just revive the Ed Sullivan Show? It was entertaining without being overly religious.

“Oh, but all of this is for God.” Sure it is–just as the animals that Saul was to kill (but instead brought back alive from the Amalekites) were for sacrifices to Jehovah (1 Samuel 15). Modern churches have adopted the Roy Orbison approach to worship: “Anything you want, you got it.”

Of course worship should be joyous. What we offer to God should come from a heart that is overflowing with praise and gratitude, but it should be directed to Him, not ourselves. The problem with much of today’s “worship” is that it is directed first at the “audience” and only secondarily (if at all) to God, the reason being that worship has become entertainment.

When the choir or soloists use their God-given talents in a worship service, worshipers should be free to express their appreciation. We clap at the church I attend. Yes, there are a few silent types who seem shocked at the vocal majority, but most of us believe there’s nothing wrong with showing our appreciation to those who use their God-given musical talents for the rest of us to enjoy (9A).

The last sentence reaffirms that worship is designed for the enjoyment of those present rather than God. But consider also the idea of clapping for the “performers.” Does that include the one presenting the message? As Dave Miller said, perhaps all of the elders should line up to give him “high fives” after he has presented the message. Neither Moses, the prophets, the apostles, nor Jesus our Lord ever spoke to receive the praise of men. In fact, those who do are called ear-ticklers (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Those who allow their pulpits to be prostituted for the sake of pleasing the multitude are worthy only of contempt. The applause they hear is the only reward they will receive (Matt. 6:1-2).

These men bear no resemblance to those who preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), to those who preach the truth in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:1-2), or to those who risked death for the Word of God.

Of course, the musical talents to which the writer refers are probably the ability to play musical instruments, a practice not authorized in the New Testament. And neither are choirs or soloists, which are also designed to please the ears of men rather than the mind of God.

It is amazing how simply following the New Testament would resolve the perceived problem of non-participation. All Christians are exhorted to sing. We are to speak, teach, and admonish one another while singing praises to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). If all were singing as they should, then all worshippers would be expressing themselves to God (and would not have to rely on someone else to do it for them).

Only one man can speak or pray at one time, but all can sing together, give together, and observe the Lord’s Supper together. But even if one man is leading the prayer, we are still all praying, listening to his words in order to say “Amen” at the conclusion of the giving of thanks (1 Cor. 14:16). Only one man may be preaching, but all are attentive, as the Bereans were, to see whether the things that were said are so (Acts 17:11).

God never designed worship as a spectator sport or as entertainment for the masses. It was designed as a way to praise God and edify one another by the enthusiastic participation of all.

Handclapping in worship (during announcements or at baptisms) is nothing more than another carnal influence of the world upon the church; it cheapens worship and accents worshipping “in spirit” to the exclusion of worshipping “in truth” (John 4:23-24).

The following paragraph well sums up the current practice of so many. It is from Dave Miller’s book, Piloting the Strait.

Current culture has groomed and conditioned us to be entertained. Television and the cinema have so developed in their sophistication that they are able to stimulate us and hold our attention with little or no effort on our part. As Neil Postman describes in his bestseller Amusing Ourselves to Death, we have allowed ourselves to shift away from rational assessment of truth in exchange for substanceless emotional stimulation. So in religious practice, worshippers appear driven by that which is “better felt than told” (232-33).

Although some may think that handclapping is a minor issue of no importance, it should be remembered that this action itself is not so much the focus of attention as are the attitude and philosophy it represents. The absence of applause does not make worship less spiritual; its inclusion does not add anything spiritual. Applause is not praise for God; it is praise for mankind–for our “performance.” Would it not be better to honor Him with the fruit of our lips (Heb. 13:15)?

Internet Correspondence: Lucado & Baptism by Gary W. Summers

[Editor’s note: Sometimes internet correspondence has a broader than just personal appeal. Following are two letters and answers concerning salvation.]

Gary,

I have, over the past two days, read many of your articles posted on your church’s web site. It is actually ironic how I came across it. I was searching for stuff on Max Lucado (please do not quit reading this now) and your site was the first one I looked at.

I don’t say all this to waste your time; I realize you are probably extremely busy. I am just curious to learn more about your beliefs. I understand that your first reaction is to say, “If you want to know about our beliefs just pick up your Bible and read it.” I guess more specifically I am interested in why you stated in one of your pieces (sorry, I don’t remember the title) that the Baptists’ gospel is not true.

I realize that you must believe that Baptists have distorted a specific passage or doctrine in the Bible and I am just curious what part is erroneous. Is it that baptism is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins? Or that, plus a whole lot more?

I guess the cat’s out of the bag as to what the name on the outside of the building where I worship says. I don’t expect a lengthy answer or anything, but I would appreciate a response.

By the way, I am only a 19 year old college student, please remember that before you rip my head off. Thanks for taking time to read this and don’t hold it against me for originally searching for stuff about that guy who probably makes you cringe every time you hear his name.

Sincerely (one who had to stop and think about the fact that Christmas and Easter are not Biblical),

Nathan

Please be at ease. I do not make it a practice of ripping people’s heads off. Occasionally, I will take issue with a false teacher or oppose fairly forcefully someone who misrepresents both us and the Scriptures (as per the Melton series).

To answer your inquiry let’s begin with Galatians 1:8-9. Paul is writing this letter because the Judaizing teachers had been teaching that the Law of Moses was still valid, along with circumcision. Paul calls this another gospel, which is not another. Their teaching was not authorized by God, and all who taught this “gospel” were accursed.

We don’t know anyone teaching that particular false gospel today. But there are other false gospels. In fact, everything is a false gospel–if it does not agree with the one gospel taught in the Scriptures.

What is that one gospel? Baptists (and they certainly are not alone) teach that people are saved by grace through faith. So do we. The problem is that they stick the word “only” after the word faith, and the Scriptures do not do that. In fact, “faith only” appears only one time in the New Testament–James 2:24, which states that we are not justified by “faith only.”

Are we saved by faith? Absolutely. Are we saved by faith only? Absolutely not. Even just giving Hebrews 11 and James 2 a mild consideration should convince a seeker of truth that faith cannot be defined apart from an expression of obedience. Yet Calvinist doctrine has a person saved at the point He realizes that Jesus is the Son of God. Then he is taught to say, “Jesus come into my heart.” Exactly what Scripture teaches this idea?

Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). This seems fairly straightforward. There’s no symbolism or metaphor here. But “faith only” conflicts with what the Lord said here. Furthermore, Peter wrote, “Baptism does also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). That too conflicts with “faith only.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Paul also said that love of the truth is necessary for salvation.

In other words, “faith only” has a person saved without repenting of his sins, without being baptized for their forgiveness, or even having a love of the truth, by which he could be made free (John 8:31-32). Any doctrine which clashes with so many other Scriptures cannot be the true gospel.

Second, Baptist doctrine sets at nought New Testament teaching on baptism being for the remission of sins. Since “faith only” must exclude all else, baptism must be minimized or made optional. Attempts to eliminate it have proven embarrassing, since Jesus connected faith and baptism together with the conjunction and in Mark 16:16.

Notice that Baptist doctrine says, “He who believes is saved and should then be baptized” (as an outward sign of an inward grace–where is that found in the Scriptures?). The Bible says, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” You may only be 19, but I’m betting you can see the difference between these two statements.

Of course, on the day of Pentecost when the church began, and people wanted to know what they should do, they were told, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of your sins…” (Acts 2:38).

Notice Acts 8:35-39. Philip preached Jesus. How did the eunuch respond? He wanted to be baptized. Does anyone ever ask this question when Baptists preach Jesus?

When was Saul of Tarsus saved? Just think about that one, and answer the question if you wish. You may discover a discrepancy between Baptist doctrine and the Scriptures if you study Acts 9 and 22.

3. Calvinistic theology sets up a false dichotomy. To them the choice is clear: one is either saved by grace or works. So if you don’t choose “faith only,” then you must believe that you can merit salvation. These are not the only two choices. We do not believe we can do anything to earn salvation. Anyone who does is foolish. Let’s use an example to explain how this works.

Naaman was told that, in order to cleanse his leprosy (2 Kings 5), he must dip in the Jordan River seven times. He finally did so, and the leprosy was gone. Did it disappear by the grace of God or did Naaman merit his cleansing? Of course it was by the grace of God. And although Naaman did not merit his cleansing, still he was required to obey God as to the means of its removal (dipping in the Jordan 7 times).

Likewise, we do not merit salvation. But there are requirements of obedience necessary–repentance and baptism. These acts do not earn salvation; they merely comply with God’s terms of acceptance. Furthermore, including them as part of the process of salvation eliminates the contradictions posed by “faith only,” which leaves no room for the other elements of salvation that the Scriptures require.

There is much more that could be said, but hopefully these observations will prove helpful to you in clarifying your own thoughts. Let me know if I may be of further service, and thank you for reading our Web page.

Gary

I read your scathing “Spiritual Perspectives” article dealing with Max Lucado. As a Christian I find it quite disturbing. IF (and I say IF) in fact one MUST be baptized to be forgiven of sin, explain two things to me please:

1) Luke 23:40-43……Did they take the thief off of the cross, baptize him and put him back on the cross? Surely not, he was forgiven by Faith and GRACE not ACTION or DEEDS!!!

2) Luke 7:50…..Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

This seems to me to be in direct conflict with what you are teaching. Are you arguing against what our Saviour Himself taught? An explanation would be welcomed but based on your other teachings I don’t believe it’s necessary. Thanks and God bless!

P.S. One could also point to John 8:1-11. Did Christ tell her to go and be baptized? Keep in mind I believe baptism is important just not REQUIRED to be forgiven of sin.

Alec

Thanks for your inquiry, but you indicate you might not be greatly interested in my response. But here it is anyway. I hope you will give it serious consideration.

1. All three people you cited as examples lived and died under the Law of Moses, as did Jesus. He was teaching principles that would be part of his kingdom, the church, once He died, was buried, and rose again. But they did not take effect until then.

Consider this text closely: “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:16-17).

In the three examples you cited Jesus was not teaching what people they should do to be saved under His system. His pronouncements had nothing to do with baptism, but they did stress repentance.

However, after Jesus arose from the dead and commissioned His apostles, He told them to preach the gospel to every creature. Now notice: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Jesus not only included baptism; He links it to faith, and both precede salvation. If you would change that verse to “He that believeth shall be saved,” you are the one tampering with the Scriptures. Are you arguing with what the Lord taught?

Furthermore, the apostles preached the same message on the day of Pentecost when the church began. When the convicted crowd asked what they should do, Peter did not say, “Do? Why, nothing; it’s all grace.” Instead he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

Jesus was not two-faced nor self-contradictory; He taught different behavior for those under the Law than for those under the gospel system because the Christian system is different than the Law of Moses. Surely you must have noticed this in a study of the books of Galatians or Hebrews. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second” (Heb. 8:6-7).

Perhaps there is some confusion over the two covenants in your mind (I don’t mean to be unkind in saying so; it is the case with many people). Please give the matter some consideration, and let me know if I may be of further help.

Notice that Peter, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, linked repentance and baptism together; he made both of them occur before salvation.

Gary

“Where Is Their God?” by Riley L. Walker

Joel was pleading to his heavenly Father on behalf of faithless Israel. He didn’t want the heathens to make God’s people an object of scorn by asking such questions as, “Where is their God?” (Joel 2:17). Israel professed to be servants of the most high God–the Holy God who was above every god and over every nation. Yet their persistent sins had degraded them. Israel appeared to the heathens as a people who had no God.

Unfortunately, the Lord’s church in many communities is in the same situation today that Israel was in centuries ago. Professing Christians proclaim to know the truth above their fellow man, but when their lives are examined, they are living the same immoral, sinful, ungodly lives as others who don’t pretend to serve God. The ungodly are justified in asking, “Where is their God?”

Some Christians take a firm stand on the teachings of the Bible with their lips, but their lives proclaim a different gospel. These individuals remind us of the story about the Christian who argued with his neighbor about the importance of the Lord’s day and how essential it was to assemble with the saints each Sunday.

His neighbor was silenced by the Christian’s logic and use of the Scripture until they accidentally met again on the lake. It was a beautiful, sunny, Sunday morning during the worship hour when their boats passed one another on the lake. The neighbor yelled to his Christian friend, “I guess I won the argument after all!” Some Christians talk so far above where they live that the world can legitimately ask, “Where is their God?”

Hearing the message of the cross and proclaiming that message is of no value until it is acted upon by faith–a faith that works by love (Gal. 5:6). As a result of a dead faith, the original Israelites who left Egypt died in the desert before reaching the promised land. (Hebrews 3:16-17). The Hebrew writer encourages us not to fall short of God’s promises as Israel did (Heb. 4:11). “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (verse 2).

When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:8). The end of those who DON’T KNOW God and those who DO NOT OBEY God is the same for both are living in such a way that people ask, “Where is their God?”

Would You? by Riley L. Walker

The concert pianist received a prolonged, standing ovation after his superb performance. Following the concert a reception was given in his honor. As a crowd gathered around him, one lady remarked, “I would give anything to play as you do.” The pianist looked at the woman and said, “I don’t believe you would.” A tense hush fell over the group. “Yes, I would,” repeated the woman. The pianist insisted, “No, you really wouldn’t. If you wanted to pay the price, you could play as well, possibly even better then I. It has taken me seven to eight hours a day, seven days a week for years to play as I do. You would give anything to play as well as I do except time. When you say you would give anything, you really don’t mean it.” That was the end of the conversation.

When someone sits in my office and declares, “I would give anything if I could just be happy,” my first thought is, “No, you wouldn’t.” I did say that once, and it upset the person that I was counseling with. The thing that upset the person the most was that she came to realize that she really wouldn’t give anything. She just wanted to want to, but wouldn’t. Happiness is not something that a person accidently acquires, inherits, or buys. Happiness is a by-product of a lot of sacrificing of self, coupled with hard work. It isn’t easy to obtain, or everyone would have it. The Bible is the perfect guide to happiness, but most people will not give anything to acquire its blessings. They will not study it, and they will not put it into practice. After Jesus gave His disciples a lesson on service, He said, “Since you know these things, you will be happy if you practice them” (John 13:17–SEB).

You say that you would give anything to be happy. Would you give yourself? Would you give up your own ideas of happiness? Would you?

In my years of preaching I have had numerous parents tell me, “I would give anything if my teenagers were interested in the church.” I have been tempted several times to say, “No, you wouldn’t.” These parents were always too busy to bring their children to Bible school and youth meetings when they were younger. They spent the nice Sundays at the lake; company kept them from worship on other Sundays; and being “too tired” caused them to forsake most of the Sundays that were left. When they did come, they were habitually late, and on their way home they griped about the sermon, the song service, and the unfriendly members. They say they would give anything, but they really wouldn’t, because they didn’t. They wouldn’t give their involvement and interest and enthusiasm to the work of the church. They wouldn’t set a good example before the children because “Christianity is caught, not taught.” Generally speaking, children have a way of growing up to be what their parents are, rather than what they preach.

When I hear someone say, “I would give anything if I could know the Bible the way he does,” I think to myself, “No, you wouldn’t.” Are you in the habit of at tending regularly Bible classes and worship? Do you sacrifice to attend lectureships and gospel meetings? Do you have a regular daily Bible study of your own? If your answer to any of these questions is “NO,” then you really wouldn’t “give anything” to know the Bible better. Age, education, and memory have NOTHING to do with Bible knowledge. The key ingredient is DESIRE.

Moses E. Lard was illiterate at age 17. He was too poor to buy books; so he learned to read from advertisements. He later became one of the great preachers of the Restoration Movement and preached without notes. He had a passion for learning. Being illiterate at 17 did not hold him back because he WOULD give anything to know the Bible, and he did!

Years ago before the Bible was available on cassette tapes, I read the story of a man who was injured in an explosion; dynamite blew up near his face and hands. When he left the hospital, he was blind and had no feeling in his hands. He developed a sudden passion for Bible knowledge. He could not see to read, nor could he follow Braille with his fingers. He learned to read Braille with his tongue. It took him five years, but he read the Bible completely through. How many times have you read the Bible through in the past five years? How many hours of television do you watch a week? How many hours do you spend in Bible reading and study? Would you really give anything to know the Bible better? The sacrifice of half of your television programs for Bible study would make you a Bible scholar in a few years!

When your desire for the thing that you want becomes stronger than your urge to make excuses, you will get what you want. Anyone can find an excuse, but some people don’t need them.

Would you give anything to have the blessing you want? Would you really? They why don’t you give it TODAY!

Obstacles or Opportunity? by Riley L. Walker

When something gets in your way and keeps you from your desired goal, how do you view the situation? Do you see your circumstances as an obstacle to thwart your progress or as an opportunity for you to go up higher? Your attitude will most likely be the difference between failure and success in whatever you attempt.

In 1850 a Bavarian dry goods dealer stepped off a boat in San Francisco with a single bolt of canvas tenting but with no job and no money. What could have been an obstacle was turned into an opportunity by Levi Strauss. Learning that local miners would pay a good price for a pair of rugged pants whose pockets would not tear easily, Mr. Strauss began to manufacture canvas pants with pockets and seams that were reinforced with copper rivets. Mr. Strauss’ Levis and overalls made him the biggest pantsmaker in California within one year; eventually he became one of the biggest pantsmakers in the world.

When Napoleon Hill was in his eighties, he told of a conversation that he once had with Thomas Edison. “Did you really have 10,000 failures before inventing the light bulb?” Mr. Hill inquired, whereupon Mr. Edison ushered him into a room filled with volume after volume of experiments that had failed. The failure totaled over 14,000. When Hill asked Edison what he would have done if he had not found the solution for the light bulb, he replied, “I would still be in my laboratory working instead of wasting my time talking to you.” Then he observed, “I knew that sooner or later I was going to have to find a way that worked because I was running out of ways that wouldn’t.” Failure can be an obstacle or an opportunity. It all depends on your attitude.

As God gave His law to Israel, He warned, “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction” (Deut. 30:15). God was giving the Israelites a law that could either be an obstacle or an opportunity. It proved to be an obstacle to them because they chose to disregard it.

EVERYTHING that God commands in His holy word can be an obstacle or an opportunity; it all depends on your attitudes toward what God has said. If you look upon His word as a book of laws that were made to keep you from having your own brand of fun, His commands will be in your way. If you see His precepts as an infallible guide to a better life, His decrees will be a blessing. Paul once explained the results of different attitudes in another way when he said, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Along with God’s holy book, the things that come into your daily life can be obstacles or opportunities. Judas was trusted with the high position of being treasurer of the apostles, but his greed turned the position into an obstacle which led to misuse (John 12:6). On the other hand, Paul used his “thorn in the flesh” as an opportunity to let Christ’s power be demonstrated in his weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

Everything written in God’s word and every situation that God allows to come into your life is meant for your good. But whether what is written and what happens from day to day is a hindrance or a blessing depends upon YOU. By your attitude of heart and your commitment, life and all of its blessings will be an obstacle or an opportunity. You make the choice.

The Poverty of Values by Gary W. Summers

Sometimes changes occur so gradually that we lose all sense of perspective about the evil that has crept in to society. The public is no longer shocked by the last line ofGone With the Wind as they were in 1939. But even then the shock was not that people’s ears were so tender that they had never heard the word damn; they were stunned because no movie had included such dialogue. Now it is likely that there are few words that moviegoers have not heard; people often ignore bad language or don’t even notice it because they have been desensitized by its frequent use.

Nudity will undoubtedly be next, receiving a huge boost from the movie Titanic. A nude portrait figures prominently in the story line, and (judging from the success of the movie) few are outraged over the inclusion of this unnecessary scene. It was not too long ago that there would have been a hue and a cry over big screen nudity, but society has apparently become desensitized to that, also.

In fact, one wonders if there are any standards that anyone is willing to stand up and fight for any more. On January 23rd the Denton Record Chronicle published an AP article entitled “Clinton’s Behavior ‘Inappropriate’ If True.” The final two paragraphs read as follows.

Yet many voters seemed eager to excuse any presidential affairs.”They’re going to try to impeach a president because he had an affair?” said Tracy Ray, a Los Angeles actress. “Ultimately it comes down to: Who cares? It’s only sex” (3A).

“It’s Only Sex”

This statement tells us quite a bit about Hollywood, if it represents thinking there, and it probably does–being the corollary to “It’s only nudity.” But wait a minute. Has not this actress inadvertently given a line of defense to sexual harassers, if not rapists: “Hey, it’s only sex”? Certainly, this statement should find its way into the Guiness World Book of Stupid Statements.

Undoubtedly Potiphar’s wife could have used Tracy Ray’s assistance in her attempts to seduce the virtuous Joseph: “It’s only sex.” When Tamar gave Amnon the reasons why they should marry first, he might have replied, “Relax, sis, it’s only sex.” And when the multitude brought to Jesus the woman taken in the very act of adultery, He could have said, “You Pharisees are legalistic and hung up over things that don’t really matter. Why don’t you loosen up a bit? It’s only sex.”

Hollywood hasn’t made many Biblical epics in the past 35 years (Richard Gere’s portrayal of a faithless King David doesn’t count); so they MAY have forgotten that God is opposed to illicit sexual relationships and punishes people for them. What does the Bible say?

If perchance someone overlooked Joseph’s calling adultery a sin against God (Gen. 39:9), there is the little hint of God’s disapproval dropped in the ten commandments: “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). Then there was God’s displeasure with Israelite men who committed harlotry with the women of Moab; 24,000 were killed in a plague of judgment (Num. 25:1-9).

Moving to the New Testament, we find early on that not only is adultery wrong, it’s something that shouldn’t even be entertained in one’s thoughts. Jesus said:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).

In case Tracy Ray would say something equally intelligent, such as, “Oh, well, lust is YOUR problem,” Jesus also talked about those who are stumblingblocks–how it would be better for them to put millstones around their necks and be cast into the sea (Luke 17:1-23). Do you suppose God might consider all the “starlets” who expose themselves (or most of themselves) in movies as provoking lust and being stumblingblocks?

Jesus told the woman taken in adultery: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He referred to her act of adultery as SIN! Sexual sins head the list of acts that will prevent someone from inheriting the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Number one is fornication (single people enjoying marital privileges); second is idolatry, but then Paul mentions adultery, homosexuals, and sodomites (NKJ). Idolatry is not out of place in this list since the exaltation of sex is a form of idolatry. Later in the list come thieves, drunkards, and extortioners.

If someone stole all of Tracy Ray’s possessions, would she say, “It’s only theft”? Adultery heads the list of sins in Galatians 5:19-21, which also includes murder. If someone killed Tracy Ray’s dearest friend, would she comment, “It’s only murder”?

God takes seriously people’s sexual behavior.

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Heb. 13:4).

Furthermore, all those who are sexually immoral shall “have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

I’m struggling because everyone else seems to have no trouble with it and I’m starting to feel weird or stupid for holding out for something I believe in and am not sure why any more (The Dallas Morning News (12C).

Dr. Schlessinger’s response is excellent. Some of her comments include:

Passions devoid of ideals, values, and standards lead to chaos in one’s life and heart.

I could tell you that marriage is not just a piece of paper, it’s a covenant before each other, your families, and God–but she’s already told you that she knows what God really desires.

Ultimately, you have to decide whether you want to be like all lower animals and just snuggle up and have sexual relationships because it feels good for now, or whether you want to be elevated above the animal kingdom, living a life which is special and even holy, by reserving cohabitation and sex for a lifetime marital commitment (12C).

If those who are raised with Biblical values will not stand up for them and live by them, who will? Why are not those who claim to be followers of Christ teaching the values of Christ? How can one know the truth but just ignore it? When those who are supposed to have a degree of spirituality can allow themselves to be persuaded to live as do the ugly and profane, there must be very little light left.

Remarkably, he was not ousted from his position as leader of this denomination. One would think it would be embarrassing to belong to a group with such an unscrupulous man as its head.

Now Mr. Lyons is in trouble once again. It seems he has what was a secret bank account with $350,000 in it. Worse yet, the money appears to have come from the Nigerian government and was to be used for him to lobby our government (although he is not registered as a lobbyist). Lyons’ explanation is that he has to support his family and his efforts are strictly humanitarian. Will people buy that? He is currently denying all allegations (The Dallas Morning News, 1-18-98, 9A).

Is it any wonder that standards are so low and values so impoverished? The world needs some strong leaders with moral fiber. Those claiming to represent Jesus ought to live by His teachings. The average person needs to lead a moral life even if no one else does. We need positive examples, like Joseph, for all to follow. The world needs more light.

“I don’t know what people are so upset about this time. People knew about all his affairs while he was governor of Arkansas, and they still voted for him.” If true, this statement does not reflect very highly upon the president or the American people; maybe he really does represent them if they are this corrupt (which certainly does not bode well for America’s future).

Tapes made by Gennifer Flowers (obviously no paragon of virtue herself) revealed the president telling her to deny their affair, which he has now admitted did occur although he plainly denied it earlier to the American people (his wife defending him). Asked what was the difference between then and the current situation, one journalist said, “Then he just lied to the whole world; this time he would be lying in a court of law.” Say what? Is the first situation comparable to swearing by the temple and the second swearing by the gold in the temple (Matt. 23:16). Jesus called the Pharisees who used such logic (?) “blind guides.” Lying to the whole world is apparently not all that important.

“What the president does in his private life is his own business. If the first lady doesn’t mind, why should we? What he does in his personal life doesn’t affect his leadership ability.” Who is responsible for such a line of thinking, if not the devil? Although this may not be the most important issue, some of us would like to think of the president as a man possessing dignity and integrity. Due to his admission of committing adultery (with Genni-fer Flowers while governor of Arkansas), lying about it, and asking her to lie about it, such is not possible. The man broke his wedding vows and then lied to cover it up. Why do these things not matter to people? Are they guilty of the same sins? Is this situation similar to the heavy drinker on a jury who refuses to convict someone else of drunk driving because he could be the one on trial some day? Where are our values?

As for the so-called discrepancy between personal life and leadership ability: “Leadership descends from character,” Rush Limbaugh rightly says. If a man is a rock musician, he may bed a different groupie every night, and it will not affect his guitar-playing skill. A professional basketball player may have a woman in every major city, and it may not affect his Superstar status. But the same is not true of those in positions of leadership because their professional skills, unlike the rock musician and the basketball player, involve character.

If a man has no integrity in his personal life, why should anyone think he will possess any in public life? If a person cannot be faithful in his little domestic sphere, will he be faithful in a much broader domain? If he will cheat on the wife of his youth within the intimate relationship of marriage, what is to prevent him from cheating those with whom he has less of an emotional attachment? If he would lie to cover his personal failings, why would he not lie to cover his public failings?

How can people work with and serve a man who is deficient in character? Would they not have to lack the same values he lacks? And what of those who would vote for such a person, knowing these things about him? Americans have no one to blame but themselves. There needs to be a purge from the greatest to the least. There needs to be an effort to restore values and righteousness in this nation, which would exalt us, but sin is a reproach to any people (Pr. 14:34).