Okay, the details of the following description here may not be accurate; I only saw the video for a brief moment. Perhaps someone else viewed it and can provide more information. The brief clip showed one woman savagely beating another alongside her car. Whether she pulled her out of her car or the woman voluntarily left it, I cannot recall. But the one relentlessly punched and kicked the other. Someone called the police; the beating was taped on a cell phone (fortunately).The woman meting out the punishment had obviously lost control of herself. When the police came to inquire of the incident, the woman guilty of the assault said without hesitation that the woman lying on the ground half dead had “started it.” Her mother backed her up. Both lied.
The victim of another human being’s rage survived to tell the truth of what had happened. A few frightening things concerning this event present themselves. First, if the woman had died, the other side of what occurred would be quite sketchy. Second, without the video, the police may not have been able to arrest anyone. It might have been chalked up to a street fight with conflicting testimonies. Third, that an innocent motorist could be beaten in broad daylight is disconcerting. Could anyone be susceptible to such an attack? Fourth, in how many people does such anger reside? She did not know her victim. Was the true object of the woman’s wrath a boss who had recently fired her—or a boyfriend who beat her? We don’t know, but no one should possess such fermented bitterness to unleash on a fellow individual made in the image of God.
Perhaps it was another manifestation of her explosive anger, but the fact that she so willingly lied to shift the blame on the helpless soul she had pummeled indicates an absence of morality, Christian thinking, and conscience. The fact that her mother corroborated her lie may explain where she got those values. Why didn’t her mother try to stop her? Did she not have any compassion whatsoever? Such extreme selfishness on the part of both should never be imitated. Is what happened here a demonstration of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”?
Is this event a harbinger of what is to come as many children today are reared apart from Christian teaching? Each decade that passes finds more and more young people who know little about the Bible, God, and Jesus. The information is available, but teachers and various college professors mock holy concepts. In older movies, one could often observe some of the main characters worshiping on Sundays, but such scenes rarely can be found these days. God and His ways have no place in the public forum. So, is this what’s coming—more displays of thuggish behavior by heartless souls devoid of self-control?
While many chapters in Proverbs combine unrelated gems of wisdom, some of the earlier sections contain several verses dealing with certain subjects. Proverbs 3 is one of these, and the first eight verses serve as a unit. It begins with Solomon writing an admonition to his son in the form of a parallelism:
My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands (3:1).
How often did God command Israel to do the same thing? In Deuteronomy 4:9, God warned Israel to “take heed” and “diligently” keep themselves lest they forget what they had seen and depart from their God. A few verses later they were cautioned to “take heed” to themselves lest they forget the covenant God had made with them (4:23). Similar passages are found in Deuteronomy 4:31, 6:12, 8:11, 14, 18; et al. Deuteronomy 8:1 also expresses the positive principle: “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe….”
For length of days and long life
And peace they will add to you (3:2).
On this occasion promises attend the exhortation. Of course, keeping God’s laws always provides His followers various blessings, but it is helpful to have it spelled out sometimes.
Let not mercy and truth forsake you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart,
And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of God and man (3:3-4).
Without a doubt, every man needs to be the recipient of mercy, as well as finding the truth (Pr. 23:23), but the point here is to extend those qualities to others. A person should not need to strain himself to be merciful if we recognize our own need of it. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7). We must also avoid deception and lies as we speak to others (Rev. 21:8). These attributes must be part of our character, and they will cause us to be held in high regard both by God and man.
Keeping God’s commands are beneficial to us; so is the possession of mercy and truth. But the centerpiece of our spiritual life is found in Proverbs 3:5-6:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
No one should be persuaded to give up his obedience, mercy, and grasp of the truth because of various forms of adversity. One must maintain his faith.
Does it seem as though things are not working out? Does the devil appear to be winning? Is there pressure to throw in the towel and either ignore or participate in all the various forms of ungodliness? Discouragement comes easily; faithfulness requires effort.
Christians know the fundamentals are true. None of us can seriously question the existence of God or the Bible being from Him. The evidence is overwhelming to an honest heart. We know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, because of the “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). But the majority of people are not paying attention to these truths. We therefore simply don’t understand either people or events—especially those that have an adverse effect on Christians. John wrote the entire Book of Revelation to deal with that problem. In the final analysis, we are “more than conquerors” (Rom. 8:37). So, when things do not seem quite right, and we have no explanation, we should not lean to our own understanding. Our goal must be to trust in His providence—even when events are confusing. He always knows what He is doing. Or do we think we know more than God? Verses 7-8 address that notion.
Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and depart from evil.
It will be health to your flesh,
And strength to your bones.
No matter how cleaver we might fancy ourselves, God stands high above us in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. We cannot compete with omniscience. We cannot allow a lack of understanding on any point to lead us back into sin; nothing can justify such an evil choice. As in verse 2, the right character has advantages. Health and strength are similar to long life and peace. God also grants prosperity to those who trust completely in Him.
Honor the Lord with your possessions,
And with the firstfruits of all your increase;
So will your barns be filled with plenty.
And your vats will overflow with new wine (3:9-10).
The last holdout some may have in their dedication to God is their money. Although exceptions exist (the Pharisees, for example), when a person is willing to give generously, he usually has given himself totally to God. In fact, it is often the case that the more one has, the harder it is to part with it. Consider the selfishness of the rich man, who could not spare anything for Lazarus and the rich farmer with a huge “I” problem (Luke 16:19-31; 12:15-21). The rich young ruler desired to be perfect—until Jesus told him to give away all that he had, promising him treasure in heaven (which would be far greater than what he would have given away) (Luke 18:22). The man was sorry to hear Jesus say those words because he was very rich (v. 23). His trust in God did not allow him to cross the wealth barrier.
My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor detest His correction;
For whom the Lord loves, He corrects,
Just as a father the son in whom he delights (3:11-12).
Of course, sometimes when things do not go well, we might consider that it is our own fault. Perhaps we have committed a sin unwittingly—and then defended our actions. Or maybe we did know it was a sin but thought we could get by with it. No. Because God loves us, He chastises us. It may not even be our sin—but rather that of someone in the family or someone in the congregation. All Israel was punished for Achan’s sin. Whatever the problem is, it needs to be discovered and corrected.
Proverbs 3:13-26 is a section which pleads for all to seek wisdom. The early chapters of this book often list tributes to wisdom. The great charge of 4:5 is: “Get wisdom! Get understanding!” Verse 7 adds: “Wisdom is the principal thing….” Chapter 8 records an extended praise of wisdom. Perhaps the greatest comment in our text is 3:18: “She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her.” The idea of the tree of life refers to that which refreshes, but it also sustains. We can live by wisdom, and she will not disappoint. God denied access to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden once Adam and Eve sinned, but it exists symbolically as described in this verse, and it will be part of heaven itself—to sustain us eternally (Rev. 22:14).
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
when it is in the power of your hand to do so.
Do not say to your neighbor,
“Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,”
When you have it with you (3:27-28).
After the section on wisdom, the last nine verses may serve as examples of it in the way we treat one another. Verse 27 reminds us of three important verses in the New Testament. The first is the Golden Rule: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). Would any of us appreciate it if someone had the power to do good to us but refused? Hardly. We would be saddened and greatly disappointed. How, then, will others feel if we are equally hard-hearted?
The second verse is James 4:17: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Again, if we have the opportunity to do good to someone, we ought to do so, as Galatians 6:9, the third passage, indicates. The illustration may refer to the prohibition of keeping a person’s wages overnight (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15). Despite the specific application, however, we must honor the principle.
Do not devise evil against your neighbor,
For he dwells by you for safety’s sake.
Do not strive with a man without cause,
If he has done you no harm (3:29-30).
These verses expand the idea of wrongdoing. It is bad enough to withhold from someone what is owed, but now we see that some people actually go out of their way to devise evil. This is not just taking advantage of a circumstance; it involves seeking a way to do harm, which is the opposite of loving one’s neighbor. Each neighbor depends on the other to have his back. We do not expect, should thieves come by to rob someone, for a neighbor to offer to lend a hand to the thieves! He is there for protection. We trust our neighbors that way. So it is evil to do him harm. One who would extend ill will to someone who never did him wrong violates both loving God and his neighbor—and it puts the aggressor and his family at risk. “Whoever rewards evil for good, evil will not depart from his house” (Pr. 17:13).
Do not envy the oppressor, and choose none
of his ways, for the perverse person
is an abomination to the Lord (3:31-32a).
Why would anyone envy an oppressor? Is this an Old Testament variation of the Stockholm Syndrome? According to Wikipedia, only 8% of people who are kidnapped form a bond with their captors. Is it possible that, when people see injustices, a certain percentage of them want to emulate the one committing the wrong? Apparently, but no one should because God does not respect him, nor will He save him.
But His secret counsel is with the upright.
The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the habitation of the just (3:32b-33).
The Pulpit Commentary suggests that secret counsel means that God sits together with the upright. In other words, God communes and fellowships them. He approves of them (though they are not perfect). But they are not persecuting others for their own advantage. Solomon presents two different types of people who receive two different responses from God. He enjoys blessing the upright, but the house of the wicked receives no such favor. In fact, all they can expect is a curse, which includes the youngsters in the family who grow up to be like their parents.
Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace
to the humble. The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools (3:34-35).
Wisdom should cause us to act in certain positive ways while avoiding behavior that is unacceptable to God. The chapter begins with praising the obedient one who practices mercy and truth, while trusting in God completely. Here it ends by defining more fully the way to treat others, especially neighbors. We reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7-8). God scorns the scornful; they receive back what they gave, and God can repay them perfectly. The humble and wise receive grace and glory, which is the way God chooses to reward imperfect human beings who are nevertheless trying to please Him. Only a fool would prefer a legacy of shame, which not only follows him but spills over to his offspring. His unconcern demonstrates his unbridled selfishness.
Who would issue such a statement as the claim made in the title of this article? The answer is that a Baptist Church in this area not only would but has done so. It is from “Session 1” of a handbook given to those who decide to be members of that particular Baptist Church. The title of this section is: “Baptism and Church Membership.” Underneath this main heading is the following sentence: “After a person receives Jesus as Lord and Savior, God commands him/her to be baptized and join a local church.”
No Scriptures are provided for this point, but the claim is made that one is baptized after he receives Jesus as Lord and Savior. Apparently, receiving Jesus is the equivalent of being saved. Only when this has been accomplished does one need to be baptized and join a local church. The Bible teaches that one is saved WHEN he is baptized (not before) and does not speak at all (in any of the verses cited later) about joining the church.
Ordinarily, when citing materials produced by others, only the most pertinent comments are repeated, but in this case every word will be cited just to make certain that the reader knows nothing significant has been omitted. Section 1 includes two sub-headings, the first of which is BAPTISM. Immediately under the heading are the following words:
Baptism does not save us (give us or keep us in a relationship with God), but it is the first step in obeying our Lord.
Have these Baptists never read what Satan did in the Garden of Eden? God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die (Gen. 2:17). Eve knew of this command because she repeated it in Genesis 3:3. Satan told her, “You will not surely die.” When a statement such as this one is completely reversed in meaning, most of us call it a lie.
1 Peter 3:21 says: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us….” Yet the Baptists say, “Baptism does not save us….” To contradict the Scriptures in this way is just as much of a lie as what Satan told. Jess Whitlock used this comparison in a debate once. The entire audience could see the difference between the words now and not. Does baptism save us now? Is it part of the process of having sins removed, as Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 teach? Or does it have nothing to do with salvation?
Most people would absolutely dread directly contradicting a verse of Scripture, but Baptist leaders do not hesitate to do so. Nor can this be an honest mistake—not when it is as clear a lie as the devil’s. No one can claim sincerity when they add not to a command of God. Such an act is intentional.
The truth is that baptism does put us in a relationship with God because we connect to the death of Christ through baptism. We are united with Him in that watery grave (Rom. 6:3-5). His blood washes away our sins at the time we are immersed. For this reason both the blood of Jesus and baptism are said to wash away our sins (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Baptism is not the first step of obedience; it is the last step in the salvation process, following faith, repentance, and confession (Mark. 16:16; Acts 2:38, Acts 8:37). Rejoicing always follows baptism (Acts 8:38-39; Acts 16:33-34). In the Scriptures, no one ever believed, rejoiced in his salvation, and then was told to be baptized. Not once! If the Baptists had a single example of such an occasion, they would present it for everyone to see. Such a turn of events does not exist.
Baptism Is Commanded
Roman numeral I is titled The Importance of Baptism. It consists of an A, B, C, and D. A is very brief: “The last command Jesus gave his followers.” This is followed by Matthew 28:18-20, and that is the entire point. This passage does teach baptism—but not the way Baptists do. Jesus said to go and “make disciples of all nations.” Now an inquiring person might wonder, “How does one make disciples?” There is a twofold answer: 1) “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; and 2) teaching them to observe all things” that Jesus had commanded the apostles (Matt. 28:19-20).
One is baptized as part of the process of becoming a disciple. Neither this verse nor any other verse says that one is a disciple before being baptized. He cannot be because he is not saved until baptism. But watch carefully how Point B is stated:
After 3000 people were saved on the Day of Pentecost, they were immediately baptized and made members of the local church.
Following this statement the Scripture passage of Acts 2:41-47 is cited. This is all there is to point B.
The discerning Bible student must ask, “Where in this passage does it say that anyone was saved?” First of all, they did not start with the correct verse. They should have started with the question that the people asked Peter on the Day of Pentecost after he convinced them that the Jesus they crucified was, in fact, the Christ (Acts 2:36-37). They asked what they should do, and Peter answered in the very next verse:
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).”
Why Were They to Repent and be Baptized?
Notice that the people have not responded by verse 38. They had asked what to do in verse 37, and Peter is just now answering their question. If they want to do something about their sins (specifically, crucifying Jesus, but all others as well), they must repent and be baptized. Notice that these acts bring them forgiveness of sins (remission). Why did the Baptist booklet fail to mention the answer Peter gave the people?
But he is not through. He continues to speak to them in verse 39: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” At the end of verse 39, no one is said to be saved yet. They are still listening to Peter’s answer to their question. However, the apostle is still not through: “And with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’”
Notice that nowhere does the text say they were saved. In fact, not one of them was yet because Peter was still pleading with them to save themselves! Yet the Baptist booklet provides none of this background. It simply says 3,000 were saved and then baptized, advising their readers to begin reading with verse 41, which does mention 3,000—but still says nothing about being baptized after they were saved. In fact, no one has responded yet to Peter’s urgings to be saved, but they will in verse 41. Consider it carefully.
“Then those who gladly received his word were baptized….” This is the crowd’s response. Peter told them to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, and now we see that they are. Nothing is said about them being saved before this point. This is the way they are saved—by being baptized. They gladly received his word regarding repenting and being baptized.“…and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.”
The Baptist booklet is wrong to say they were saved and then baptized. Peter admonished them to save themselves, and this they did by repenting and being baptized. Whoever wrote those words in the booklet deliberately misrepresented this text. They can read and understand the text as well as anyone, but their doctrine does not match the truth; so they just twist the truth and hope no one will read the text carefully. Below is a synopsis of the text.
1. Peter preaches the resurrection of Christ, which he established through fulfilled prophecy and through eyewitness testimony (Acts 2:22-36).
2. The people ask what they should do (verse 37).
3. Peter tells them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (verse 38). He then encourages them and exhorts them to save themselves (verses 39-40). Nothing has been omitted in this summary.
4. Those “who gladly received his word” (about repenting and being baptized) “were baptized.” What is so difficult about understanding this point (verse 41)?
5. These 3,000 “were added to them” (verse 41). Added to whom? The apostles who had been doing the preaching.
6. It is not until later in verse 47 that a more explicit answer is given about that to which the 3,000 were added. All who had been baptized were “praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.”
The reader may not have noticed the discrepancy between the introductory paragraph and the wording of Point B. The introductory paragraph says a person should be baptized “and join a local church.” That is not what the Scriptures teach; they stated it correctly in point B when they said the 3,000 were “made members of the local church” (the only local church in existence, as a matter of fact). God makes those who are baptized members of the church. No one joins the church. But even if they did, there was no Baptist Church to join in Jerusalem. The only church in existence is the one that belonged to Jesus, which He promised to build (Matt. 16:18). The church does not belong to men; it belongs to Christ, Who is the Head over it (Eph. 1:22-23).
Acts 8:12-13; Acts 10:48
Point C cites the above passage after making this brief statement: “All believers in the local church were baptized.” However, if you read verse 12, it does not say the Samaritans were already saved. Instead, it describes their conversion: “But when they believed Philip as he preached on the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” They were not in the church first, but when they believed they were baptized, just as Jesus taught in Mark 16:16. Notice the text does not say, as the booklet does: 1) believe; 2) saved; 3) in the church; 4) baptized. Two and three are missing. When they believed, they were baptized.
The final verse on baptism that is cited is Acts 10:48. The accompanying sentence states: “Because baptism was expected after a person was saved, Peter commanded these new believers to be baptized.” The only trouble is that the text does not teach this error. Where does any verse in Acts 10 say that Cornelius and his family were saved prior to baptism?
Roman numeral II is titled The Meaning of Baptism. It begins with these words: “Baptism is symbolic,” and closes with: “Baptism is only proper when it follows conversion.” The first question is, “What Scripture says baptism is symbolic?” Where can we read that in the Bible? It is not there. The second question is: “Where does the Bible teach that baptism follows conversion instead of being part of conversion?” Baptist assumptions cannot take the place of Biblical evidence.
“Jesus speak,s to me personally and directs me .he choose me to tell all about his love . And with his holy spirit help i will.” Those are the actual words given in response to a seven-page letter showing what the Scriptures teach on this subject. No one has any idea what this person thinks Jesus is saying to him, but He certainly is not telling him how to write, or there would not be 6 obvious grammatical mistakes in only three sentences (not counting the failure to capitalize references to Deity). Since God knew the Hebrew and the Greek, He can surely handle modern English.
So how can the Christian challenge the claims of someone who asserts that God is speaking to him? One could rightly say that the individual who so alleges is obligated to offer proof, but it is doubtful that he will feel compelled to comply. One could point out that anyone can say God is speaking to him. Muhammad averred that Allah spoke to him. Joseph Smith said he translated plates (which no one ever saw) by God’s inspiration. Cult leaders declare all the time that God speaks to them. So have some mass murderers. Obviously, such claims have no validity.
There is only one way to inject any kind of objectivity into this situation—and that is for the person claiming Divine communication to write it down. David wrote down what God said to him in the Psalms, just as Solomon did in Proverbs. Moses wrote God’s covenant with Israel so that all generations coming afterward could keep His commandments (Deut. 10:12-13). Jesus and His apostles not only spoke the word of God orally; their words were recorded by Divine inspiration. Had they not been written down, we would not have the Golden Rule and hundreds of other bits of information that we need. We would not have Divine inspiration’s explanation of the way Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the New Testament.
Therefore, all of those who think that God is speaking directly to them (instead of through the Word that He gave us) owe to the world the wisdom that God has imparted to them. If it was important enough to tell one person, then it needs to be communicated to all of us. Isaiah and Jeremiah did not keep their prophecies to themselves—or their denunciations of the nations of the world. John did not keep his revelation to himself. And neither should anyone else. All of those claiming that God speaks to them must write down their meditations and prophecies so that we may all evaluate the “Divine” wisdom they allege they have received.
Windows is a publication of the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas. The title of this article is an observation that the president of this institution has seen regarding modern practices—one with which he agrees. Older, easily identifiable religious denominations have been losing ground, and he is all for the new “street-level look” that is coming into view across the country. He refers to it as “evidence of the expanding visions of the church in our time.” (2).
In his article, “Preparing Leaders,” this same president praises the “church emerging in front of our very eyes” (9). As this reviewer began to consider the thoughts in this issue, an appropriate title suggested itself for all that is expressed in it: Gobbledygook. According to the dictionary, this term means: “unclear, often verbose, usually bureaucratic jargon.” In other words, the language is high-sounding and perhaps well-intentioned, but substance is lacking.
The seminary and its president are supportive of new expressions of worship that take place outside of church buildings, which seems to be the main thesis. One article talks about the “Nones” and the “Dones.” These individuals are “spiritually curious but institutionally suspicious” (10). To be more descriptive, the “Nones” have no religious affiliation (and perhaps never have had) and the “Dones,” referring to those who have left institutional churches. (Do they also have “clones”?) Others are included, such as those who
seek new, reforming visions for their expression. We meet in coffee shops and restaurants to talk about spirituality, life experiences, and the teachings of Jesus. This is sacred, convening ministry. It is certainly holy ground (10).
A better name for it would be shared ignorance. Does any of this remotely sound like what the Bible describes in the pages of the New Testament? Institutions like the Presbyterian Church left the teachings of the Bible when they became man-made institutions. Now they are in a culture that no longer is interested in those old, staid, and disappearing groups; so they are desperately trying to find a way to reach people. Instead, however, of returning to the Scriptures, they are following the tastes and dictates of the current culture in the name of relevancy.
The Church
Jesus established the church (Matt. 16:18), and brethren met without church buildings erected by great architects. Christians understood that the church consisted of those who were saved rather than referring to bricks and mortar. It is not wrong, however, to have a permanent meeting place, but the emphasis on the building itself seems to have displaced the idea that brethren could meet anywhere.
Worse than that was departing from God’s organization for the church. The Presbyterians and just about every other group made the church a man-made institution, which they controlled, rather than the blood bought body of Jesus Christ. The Lord, through His apostles, explained the structure of the church. Jesus is the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). Each individual congregation is subject to Him (as hinted by the fact that He personally had John write letters to seven of His churches in Revelation).
Within each congregation, however, qualified men are to lead that particular group of Christians. These are overseers (bishops), pastors (or shepherds), and older men in the faith (presbyters) (see Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Deacons serve under these men (1 Tim. 3:1-13). No one, however, serves over these men except the Lord.
In other words, no one is over a region like Seminole County, in which all the churches would be subject to him or them (if it were a council). No individual or group would be over a state or an entire nation. Each group of Christians would be self-contained, autonomous. No national councils, synods, conferences, or conventions would exist if God’s plan in the New Testament were followed. All visitors would find anywhere would be independent churches under elders.
Now people are no longer interested in these old denominations and their unscriptural ways, but their solution is to become “relevant” rather than go back to the Scriptures, drop their denominational (and therefore divisive) names, and find out what the Bible teaches about salvation and acceptable worship.
Some Flaws
Considering some of the things we have seen thus far in the various articles in Windows, they are flawed as well. What are the “expanding visions of the church in our time”? The church’s work is described in the New Testament. Brethren (when persecuted) went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:4). Perhaps old institutions are crumbling because they had a different pattern from what is presented in the Bible. They developed a professional clergy with degrees that qualified them for…what? Many Christians know more Scriptures than these “professionals” do. They may be skilled in procedures, in church doctrine, in their own hierarchies, in history, in musical programming, and in fundraising, but if they were skilled in the Word, they would not be professional clergymen in the first place (Matt. 23:8-10)! The only visions of the church that matter are the ones Christ has for His body of believers. The “church that is emerging in front of our very eyes” is not the church for which Christ died. Is there some reason to think that “Nones” and “Dones” are qualified to know about the church?
“Church” Growth?
Another article deals with “experiments in church growth.” According to an article on this subject, in the 21st century, the three pillars of church growth are: worship, discipleship, and dialogue” (12). These are all Biblical, depending on the way one defines the terms. For example, discipleship is what Christianity is all about. Jesus trained many to be His disciples, but the definition was not coming to worship and sitting in a pew an hour a week, which is the way old institutions have misrepresented it. A disciple was a learner and a follower (Luke 14:25-35).
Worship can be offered to God anytime and anywhere (as opposed to thinking one must have a church building for it to be “official”). But the church must meet on the first day of the week to offer up its collective worship to God. Paul certainly had dialogue—and debates—with Judaizing teachers, as well as pagan philosophers. But what do these people mean by these terms? What Windows means by dialogue can best be described in the following quotation.
We begin by sharing our respective names and belief systems. Tonight we are: an evangelical, a gothic agnostic, a pagan, a couple of mainline Protestants, a self-identifying dual Christian and Buddhist, one religious “seeker,” a Latter-Day Saint participant, and a imam as our special guest….
Tonight an agnostic is selflessly encouraging a young Christian struggling with how to faithfully interpret her Bible readings (12).
Say, what? Can anyone honestly have the faintest expectation that any truth will emerge from this hodge-podge of religious debris? This is not the dialogue we read about in the New Testament. Meetings such as these will not bring anyone to a knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is only religious opinion-sharing with no common ground or basis of authority.
These people are obviously desperate to get anything going—even if it resembles the Star Wars cantina segment filled with spiritually-odd persons. A Christian Buddhist! Really? Didn’t Jesus say, “No man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24)? And how, exactly, does an agnostic encourage someone in the faith? The really strange thing is that those involved in these programs don’t even see anything unusual.
Here’s the latest idea to reach people. Watch for this one to grow in popularity—a “drive-in prayer” ministry. At certain times a church member stands on a median as traffic drives by in front of the church building. He holds up a sign, asking people to come into the parking lot and pray with them. (At least they’re not asking for money.) They pray for their families, their jobs, for peace (or maybe for the traffic to abate?), and so on (9). This may be good public relations, but it is not evangelism, as defined in the New Testament.
No Biblical Message
The problem with this new approach to society is that it leaves them no distinctive message. The new leaders in the seminary are characterized by its president as being altruistic, passionate about social justice issues, tolerant, and enthusiastic about diversity (8-9). Is this supposed to be better than what Paul charged Timothy with, when he said, “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16)?
In fact, one gets the idea that doctrine is passé. The president noted that “they are not interested in perpetuating the divisive churchly arguments and prohibitions that my generation vigorously suited up for….” (8). Does that mean that they will not defend their own teachings? Good, since Calvinism is full of error! But the downside is that they are not interested in doctrine of any kind, which means they are not concerned about truth, which makes it hard to be a disciple of Jesus, since He linked the two concepts together (John 8:31-32).
The president affirms that these new seminary students are “led by the Spirit” (9). This must be some new kind of definition because in the Bible those “led by the Spirit” followed God’s will and taught His doctrine. The attitudes these young people possess and the activities they are engaged in bear no resemblance to what was done in the New Testament. Practically all “Christians” today claim to be “led by the Spirit” when in reality they are only following their feelings.
What is missing in this issue of Windows, which describes what is currently happening in religion are some crucial elements of Christianity. A few Scriptures were cited in its 21 pages—maybe two or three. This precedent by itself shows the lack of emphasis on the Word of God in favor of what feels good or what is the “in” thing. God gave us a book filled with principles which, if followed, will cause people to want to become Christians (Matt. 5:14-16).
Nothing was said with respect to fearing God and keeping His commandments. One will look in vain for a single reference to holy living or forsaking sins or repentance. Are people not interested in “dialoguing” about such matters? The sad fact is that many people want to go to heaven without being part of the church, without worshiping correctly, or forsaking sin.
Comment
A copy of this magazine was sent to me by the Preaching Brother (P.B.) in another state, who has shared some really interesting materials. The magazine was delivered to him by mistake; so he took a look at it before sending it back on its way. He commented that the contents explain “why religions are failing and why they are literally mixing so much they are losing their old identities for new ones.” He believes that if this trend continues, they will become “one massive group of confused people.” Amen.
On November 9, 2008, Spiritual Perspectives printed the article, “The Day Journalism Died.” This conclusion was reached after watching how major news sources treated both candidates in that election. Fair journalism is still dead, and most of the polls are pretty sick after being exorbitantly off. But this article is not about the warped election coverage for which The New York Times apologized, the fact that there was collusion between CNN and Clinton campaign regarding Presidential debate questions, or other signs of a prejudiced press. Americans now see through attempts to discredit and disparage individuals they do not like.
Instead, the idea here is to show how reports of various events can be manipulated. The study of logic is quite helpful so that people can recognize ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and other means that are used to keep from getting at the truth. But Bob Kohn, in his book on Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted, explores the subtleties used to slant the news. He does not take issue with the opinion pieces of the New York paper; he objects to slanting what is supposed to be the news portion.
Justice cannot be done to the book’s 321 pages and to all the techniques used. A few will have to suffice in order to make a spiritual application. Kohn’s book was published in 2003; preceding it were Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, which demonstrated the prejudice of his colleagues at CBS (published in 2001), and Ann Coulter’s Slander (2002). Probably a great deal has been written since these landmark books as well.
One would think that public media would want to be fair and employ both liberals and conservatives to have a fair exchange of ideas. Yet virtually no Republicans work for National Public Radio or The New York Times (25). What kind of healthy discussion can one expect from one-sided institutions? (By the way, most college campuses are the same.) The Fox News Channel may not be perfectly “fair and balanced,” but they employ several liberals who are not bashful about challenging conservative thought. Compared to CNN, MSNBC, and other news networks, they shine as beacons of impartiality.
The New York Times once held lofty goals. In 1896, for example, their goal was: “To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved” (27). In 1924 The Detroit News believed that a journalist’s “views, his personal feelings and his friendships should have nothing to do with what he writes in a story” (28). Textbooks in Journalism even taught that a news article should “give no opinions” (28). “Those were the days, my friend,” as Mary Hopkin might sing. A more modern textbook provides the new philosophy: “Rule Number 1: There are no rules….”
Headlines and lead paragraphs usually describe the gist of the story that follows. USA Today had a good opening to the news of USA troops capturing Baghdad. (April 10, 2003). They wrote:
Saddam Hussein’s government lost control of Iraq’s capital Wednesday as U.S. forces extended their reach deep into the city. Jubilant crowds tore down a 20-foot statue of the Iraqi leader and dragged its head through the streets in a scene reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (273).
This is a fair description of what occurred. Other newspapers reported similarly. The Los Angeles Times went so far as to record that crowds were dancing in the streets and calling out: “Victory! We are free! Thank you, President Bush!” (275). So what did The New York Times have to say? “Much of Baghdad tumbled into America’s hands today as Saddam Hussein’s image was pulled down from pedestals and portraiture in the city.” Seriously? Our forces did not apparently defeat Saddam Hussein; Baghdad just tumbled into America’s hands. Why, how fortunate we were there when it fell! Although the sentence mentions the statue of Hussein being pulled down, nothing indicates that the citizens of Iraq were involved in it or how happy they were to be rid of an evil tyrant (273)!
Most newspapers tend to be on the liberal side of things, but most of the major ones had the proper emphasis with this story. They described within the first two sentences: “Cheering, dancing Iraqis swarmed city streets”; “Exuberant defiance created an indelible image of liberation”; “Cheering Iraqis…yanked the monument to the ground”; etc. (274-75). However, the Times opened with no references to the ecstatic mood of the Iraqi people. After the opening sentence, all they could think of was to pour cold water on the celebration by saying: “But American and British commanders said the war in Iraq, including the battle for Baghdad, was not over and faced critical days ahead” (273).
Distortion
One way to distort matters is to quote those who agree with the newspaper’s position—but refrain from mentioning anyone’s name. Sometimes confirmation for a “fact” comes from unnamed sources, administration officials, or someone equally invisible. Apparently the need to document what is stated is alleviated by an obscure reference to: “experts feel,” “critics believe, “observers say,” or, “It is widely thought…” (127). As Iraq fell, the Times reported that 170,000 artifacts were stolen from the National Museum. They further stated that the loss was “likely to be reckoned as one of the greatest cultural disasters in Middle Eastern history” (278). One Muslim archaeologist was cited. What did the truth turn out to be? Only 25 were lost. “Likely”?
One would never know that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999) says: “Anonymity should not become a cloak for attacks on people, institutions or policies” (140). Even when studies are cited, one must be careful about how the study was conducted, but how much worse is it when an article simply reports that “studies say”?
Sometimes stories are purposely slanted. The Times decided on August 15, 2001 to do a story about refugees seeking asylum here in the United States—about how their requests were being overlooked. The story said that a “Republican-backed” law, aimed at fighting illegal immigration was to be blamed. However, the paper failed to mention that the law was also backed by Democrats, since it passed the House 370-37. Furthermore, Bill Clinton had signed the legislation into law (161). So what was the point of saying that this was a “Republican-backed” law, if not to indicate that all the blame should be lodged against them?
When a Republican used various means to ensure having a debate on a certain bill, the Times said he was using parliamentary tricks. When a Democrat did the same thing, he was commended for using time-honored procedures (176). Surely, no one would call this favoritism, would they?
The Times has also been known to fudge facts to gin up support for their causes. On March 21, 2003 they reported 5,000 people were chanting, “Peace Now,” in New York’s Times Square. That sounds like a significant number of protesters. According to the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Sun, however, there were actually only 200-300 people present (243).
Examples of the ways a newspaper can slant the news abound in this book, which shows that, as much as possible, citizens should fact check what they read, hear, or see—whether they share the ideology of the source or not. Fake news can infiltrate those on both the right and the left. Everyone should be cautious.
Biblical Application
If there’s one thing we have learned over the years, it is that cults and other religious groups can take Scriptures out of context to make an argument or advance their theology. A few weeks ago, another member and I met with a Baptist couple. It was a fair discussion in terms of both of us being able to speak and make a case. But at a certain point in the discussion, he asked if he could share with us the way in which he studies with people. So he began by reading several passages that dealt with the subject of faith, such as Hebrews 11:6; John 8:24, Ephesians 2:8-9. Finally, I said to him, “We believe these same passages and use them. Are you going somewhere with this?” He said, “None of these mention baptism. Salvation is by faith only, and these passages prove it.” I pointed out they don’t mention repentance, either. Is it not essential to salvation?
However, a better answer might have been to use the same technique that he did. Here are some Scriptures that could be used.
Acts 2:38: Neither the words grace nor faith are found anywhere in this text, although forgiveness of sins is. Does this prove that faith is not necessary?
Acts 10:47-48: Nothing is said about faith or repentance in this text. Are they irrelevant?
Acts 22:16: Ananias didn’t tell Paul to believe or repent; therefore, they are not necessary in order to be saved.
Romans 6:3-6: Faith is not mentioned, but baptism, as a burial, is.
1 Corinthians 12:13: Baptism is certainly necessary to get into the body of Christ, but faith is not mentioned.
1 Peter 3:21: How much clearer can it be? Baptism saves us. We have no need of faith or repentance.
Of course, this argument is absurd. Nobody believes that baptism, by itself, can save anyone (although those who practice infant “baptism” must think so). We recognize that faith, repentance, and baptism are all essential to salvation. Just because repentance is not mentioned in every account of salvation does not mean that some were exempt from it. Just because faith is not mentioned each time baptism is does not prove that faith is useless. To argue this way would be to purposely slant the evidence to establish a theological position. It would be reprehensible.
But why is it not equally reprehensible for people to quote passages which only mention faith—but exclude repentance and baptism? In the first place, most of the verses used are summary verses and not even dealing with an actual account of salvation. Consider Hebrews 11:6. It is in the “faith” chapter. The whole point of the chapter is to observe what faith can accomplish. All of the examples are from the Old Testament and have nothing to do with the salvation that is offered in the New. They do teach that faith is an essential quality to have in order to please God, but the text does not declare that it is all that is needed. The Bible student ought to remember that Hebrews 5:9 says that salvation is granted to all that obey Jesus.
John 1:12-13 and 3:16, as well as other passages also stress the need of faith; nobody is trying to invalidate these precious words. But none of these verses is: 1) dealing with a specific instance of someone being saved from sin (like those on Pentecost, in Samaria, and various other locations; 2) claiming that faith is all that is necessary. Those who try to use these verses in this way, whether intentional or not, are slanting the Scriptures just as the Times does its news stories—and for the same reason—to push their agenda. “Faith only” is not New Testament teaching; people try to prove it to establish their own theology. People need complete honesty in order to be saved.
Some have expressed confusion over what should be said when a person is baptized. All who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God know that It does not and cannot contradict Itself, yet for some reason they think they must choose between being baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) and being “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38)—as though one of these is right and one of them is wrong. Very simply put, the first was uttered by Jesus, and the second by an apostle of the Lord, speaking through inspiration. Matthew who recorded the first one and Luke, who recorded the second, were both writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Who would not have allowed them to conflict with each other.
Since all Scriptures harmonize, therefore, we ought to ask ourselves what each verse means. The Greek preposition in Matthew 28:19 is actually eis and should be translated “into,” as the American Standard rendered it. Other translations use “into” in other verses, such as 1 Corinthians 10:2 and Galatians 3:27—but not here—which is a strange inconsistency. Vine says that the name (into which sinners are baptized) implies all that name stands for—“of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that name covers” (782). In other words, it means we are submitting to His authority in all things—not only in being baptized but in the way we adopt His character, also.
Notice that name is singular, thus showing the unity of the three personalities of the Godhead. How ironic, then, that a few cite this verse to “prove” that baptism should be repeated three times—once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit. No one in the New Testament was immersed three times. They were baptized into the name of Deity.
In Acts 2:38, “in the name of Jesus” simply means by His authority, as it does in most passages where we find “in the name of the Lord” (Deut. 18:22; Jer. 44:6; Col. 3:17). This phrase does not mean that Jesus is the only one in the Godhead (as some think), which would contradict Matthew 28:19. Jesus baptized when He was teaching (John 4:1-2), and baptism does join us with His death; so it is by His authority. However, the Lord said that all He taught and did was authorized by the Father. The verse in Matthew is broader, but baptism is both in His name and into His name. Either is proper. The important thing is that a person knows the reason for being baptized.
Seventh-Day Adventists follow the teaching of Ellen G. White. They seem to defend everything she wrote whether she agreed with the Scriptures or not. She was in error on many things—not the least of which was insisting that worship be on the Sabbath day because it was part of the Law of Moses—even though the New Testament says that the Law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and that we are under the new covenant of Jesus (Heb. 8:6-7). But much more information is available on this subject in other articles.
The point is that even on their advertising brochures one of their local groups quotes from her. The sixpanel brochure has a front cover that identifies itself as Solomon Porch Advent Ministries, complete with name, address, telephone, and website. The first two inside columns serve as a worship program; the third one lists announcements. The fifth page identifies what the Solomon’s Porch Church is, and the last one contains a quotation from Ellen G. White, a portion of which is cited below.
There is too much formality in our religious services. The Lord would have his ministers who preach the word energized by His Holy Spirit; and the people who hear should not sit in drowsy indifference, or stare vacantly about, making no responses to what is said.
The gist of the entire paragraph is that people should be involved in worship, occasionally saying, “Amen,” when it is warranted. She goes so far as to say that the “spirit of the world has paralyzed” worshipers and that the “truths of God’s word are spoken to leaden ears and hard, unimpressible hearts,” which is quite an indictment. We agree that for worship to be in spirit and in truth, all must participate in each of the various aspects of worship.
The puzzle is what she means in the paragraph cited above when she says ministers should be “energized by His Holy Spirit.” So what is supposed to happen? The Holy Spirit revealed God’s Word, and it is a message of eternal life. What is supposed to make it better than that? Was Paul not energized by the Holy Spirit when he preached directly by inspiration? Even so, Eutychus fell asleep (Acts 20:9). The problem was not with Paul, the Holy Spirit, or the Word. Eutychus simply “was overcome by sleep.”
Surely, he did not intend to fall asleep; he was undoubtedly eager to hear what Paul had to say, but a combination of various factors probably led to what occurred. He may have been up since dawn, worked all day, and it was way past his usual time for sleep. Paul did speak until midnight. He could also have been ill, and his body needed rest. We don’t know what all entered into it, but it was not the fault of God’s Holy Word.
Would Eutychus have remained awake if he had been saying an occasional, “Amen”? Not necessarily. When someone is tired, he can say, “Amen,” and still fall asleep between the next two syllables. Today, we might avoid this embarrassment if we made sure that we were well-rested before coming to worship (although this is an ideal situation that is not always possible).
So, if a person could fall asleep while an apostle inspired of the Holy Spirit spoke, what does Ellen G. White mean by ministers “energized” by the Holy Spirit? Did she expect them to shout periodically or wave their arms in the air? Was she advocating that they leap around the podium like the prophets of Baal did around their altar? All of these might keep people awake, but they are not proof of being energized by the Spirit.
Did she mean what some people have since talked about—that the Bible is basically a dead letter, and it needs to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit who inspired it in the first place. At first glance, some think that such a notion makes sense, but if what the Spirit initially inspired has become dead, then what will happen when it is illuminated the second time? Will additional illuminations need to follow every time it begins to become dead again?
Or maybe White just means that a minister should preach with enthusiasm. Brethren have made the same observation, however—totally unrelated to the Holy Spirit. As one black brother said years ago: “Either put some fire into the sermon, or throw the sermon into the fire.” Just because someone does not “appear” to be as enthusiastic as someone else does not mean he is deficient. Different individuals express themselves in different ways.
The same is true if people think White is talking about conviction. A number of different preaching styles might be observed, and every one of them could be coming from a person of conviction, yet seldom might any two of them express themselves identically. In fact, some who seem very enthusiastic and “full of the Holy Spirit” may have no convictions at all. Everything they do might be for show or to garner financial support, as some do from a TV audience.
The only person who is really “energized” by the Holy Spirit is the one who preaches what the Spirit inspired in the Word. One obtains convictions and enthusiasm from knowing the Word of God, and that condition results only from studying and meditating upon Holy Writ. No one today receives knowledge directly from God; it comes through diligent study and application of that which edifies and builds up. For that reason Paul commended the Word of God (Acts 20:32). Only the Scriptures will make a person wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15) and cause him to teach or preach the truth. Relying on the word of men (or women) results in error.
This event actually occurred, although four decades have elapsed since it happened. Names and places are omitted, however, to protect the participants. Some men of the congregation had an opportunity to attend a song leading class with a nearby church hosted by brethren. A few men decided to take advantage of the opportunity and felt that they profited immensely. They all returned with bright, shiny pitch pipes to use in order to be certain that each song began on the right note. Not everyone was convinced that these contraptions would make that much of a difference, but no one protested—until the day when its use caused a tiny problem. The brother directing this portion of the worship announced the song, and the congregation began to sing when suddenly the song leader had an uncontrollable urge to cough. He had been taught, as most people have, that it is not polite to cough without covering one’s mouth. The only problem was that he did not have a free hand. He was holding the songbook in one hand and the pitch pipe in the other. Reacting quickly, he used that hand to cover his mouth. BEEP! BEEP! The preacher, sitting near him, held out his hand and motioned to him. So, he reluctantly and sheepishly surrendered his pitch pipe, never to receive it back.
[This article was published by a church in another part of the state of Florida. It has been copied and adapted (and who knows what else) from a February, 2008 issue of Homiletics. Coincidently, it shows that clean humor exists. The full title is: How to Sleep Through a Sermon Without the Preacher Noticing.]
We all know how taxing it is to get up early on a Sunday morning. Most folks arise early Monday through Friday because they need to work for a living. If Saturday is a day off, some will be up early (maybe before dawn) to go fishing or otherwise prepare for a day of recreation. That only leaves Sunday to sleep in and really enjoy oneself. Couldn’t worship wait just a little while? There should be time for a leisurely awakening (sometime around 11:00 A.M., let’s say). After getting ready and eating breakfast out, there is plenty of time left in the day to remember God—well, say, after a judicious nap. We could all meet around 4:00 P.M., and everyone would be happy, but, no, we are accustomed to meeting at nine or ten in the morning. One can scarcely blame those who need additional rest after rising early enough to be present. So, here are some tips on how to sleep during the sermon without getting caught.
First, never fall asleep flat on the pew. To avoid this embarrassment, it is actually better to sit in a crowded pew, shoulder to shoulder, with worshipers on your left and on your right. Otherwise, you might slide into a prone position, and that’s really noticeable. Read Acts 20:9 and learn from it. A guy named Eutychus was sitting in a window while Paul was preaching, and he toppled three stories to the ground below. He was “taken up dead,” but fortunately the apostle Paul was able to intervene and restore his life. Our aim here is not to be judgmental or “preachy,” but bad things can happen when you snooze without taking the proper safeguards. Besides, your preacher is no apostle Paul. Trust me.
Second, when you sleep, don’t fall completely asleep; just take power naps instead. If you fall completely asleep, your sleep apnea may kick in, and that would make you conspicuous. It’s far better to just half-sleep and remain vaguely aware of your surroundings. It helps to use a Bible to prop your chin up—or lean against your head. You can close your eyes as long as the Bible is in view. That way the preacher will probably think you’re praying. Also, you’ll be ready if the preacher asks you to lead the closing prayer.
Third, have a friend be a watcher. Sit with someone who is sympathetic to your cause. Your spouse might not be the right person for this. A spouse tends to poke you, which in turn may cause you to shout suddenly, attracting attention to yourself. No, you need a friend who will give you a gentle nudge if the preacher seems to be looking in your direction a lot. Make sure that a Bible is open on your lap or is prominently in view. In those moments when you are barely conscious, turn a few pages, rustling them loudly, so that people will think you are following along. Occasionally, your friend can rouse you so that you can say a quick, “Amen,” and then get right back to your nap.
Fourth, do not sit on the back pew. Believe it or not, this is the first place preachers look for sermon slackers. If you sit in the first few rows, you can actually get more sleep because normally preachers are looking right over you. You might think this ploy doesn’t work, but try it. You should come away well rested.
Fifth, make it a point not to sleep through the entire sermon. After all, the preacher probably has something you really need to hear. But once you’ve heard it, you have no further obligation to stay awake. Also, if you remain awake for at least part of the message, you can then refer to it on your way out, when you’re telling him how much you enjoyed the service. You can shake his hand and say, “Wonderful sermon, preacher! I especially enjoyed the part where….”
These tips have proven helpful to an awful lot of folks. Just make sure they don’t fall into the wrong hands.
