The problem with a so-called “Christian” nation is that many so-called Christians disconnect themselves from the teachings of Christianity and the way they behave. One wonders, for example, how many “Christians” paid $125- $275 to go see the “Here Comes the Funny Tour” this past Monday night (Dec. 12, 2016). The four comics performing were Adam Sandler, David Spade, Rob Schneider, and Nick Swardson—some of whom once appeared regularly on Saturday Night Live.
So, what’s wrong with seeing comedians? Nothing, per se. About three decades ago this writer’s whole family went to see Jay Leno perform in Peoria. The humor was clean, and everyone was entertained (the price was not nearly so high back then, either). But it is sickening to see how this funfest is advertised. The Orlando Sentinel’s description on December 8th is that these men are “known for off-color, raunchy jokes” (A2). That’s the appeal? People don’t get enough of that in locker rooms and in some workplaces? They are willing to plunk down money to hear “professionals” use such terms?
Have we left the era of clean humor altogether in the past? Didn’t people laugh their heads off at Red Skeleton, Bob Hope, Jack Benny, Lucille Ball, George Goebel, Jackie Gleason, Bob Newhart, and many others whose humor did not need to rely on bathrooms or bedrooms to get laughs? What? Are we too “sophisticated” for that? Or have people just lowered their standards? Why do people suddenly erupt into applause when vulgar terminology is used? What’s the motivation behind that? Are they afraid of being called a “square”?
We teach little children, “O be careful, little ears, what you hear.” So what happens when they grow up? Faulty memories? Christianity teaches that we should not speak like these “comedians.” Paul wrote: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). Those who utter words of vulgarity violate this principle taught in the New Testament of Jesus; those who listen sin, also. A Christian cannot engage in either of these practices. Yet how many who speak corrupt language and listen to it with approval count themselves as Christians? Not Sandler—he’s Jewish. One’s actions must be consistent with that which he professes.
Coming soon at a church building near you will probably be a dance troupe—especially if you live near Cleveland, Tennessee. Newspapers love stories like this one. If fifteen people were baptized during a gospel meeting, they would probably not even include a whisper of it. But let someone brew beer while worshiping God, or serve non-alcoholic Pina coladas while doing Jamaican dances, and those will receive attention. The article about the dance troupe garnered a large layout in section E of the Times Free Press of Chattanooga on November 19, 2016.
Above the headline, across the top of the page (except for one column) is a photograph about 5 x 7, containing a scene from the story of Joseph. Underneath two lines of description of the story is found a large title in the following style:
The BIBLE
In DANCE
To the right of the title is a small picture (about 1½ x 2), that shows a cast member being made up. Below the title in a (2 x 2¾ inset) is one of the performers, who also teaches dance. The last scene on the page (just under 4 x 6 in size) shows more characters from the Troupe. A performance at Lee University was being advertised. The 45 dancers were performing “Dreamer: The Diary of Joseph” for free (E1). One wonders what kind of dancing is performed. The answer is that it is a mixture of different types—from ballet to hip hop, with even some tap dancing thrown in.
What is its purpose? “It is used to add beauty and emotion to a service” (E6). No doubt it may do exactly that, but the question few ever ask is, “Did God authorize it?” (Most people do not understand this principle, which shall be examined more fully later.) God certainly knew about the power of dance. It found a tremendous response in Herod—so much so that he promised half of his kingdom to Herodias’ daughter. John was beheaded as a result of the beauty and emotion she evoked.
The article focuses on Unity Dance Troupe, but it also mentions that dancing in worship has become more popular in recent years. This group does not dance the way Herodias’ daughter did, which most scholars have thought was in quite a seductive manner. The costumes of the Troupe are loose-fitting and not intended to draw attention to their bodies—but rather “keep their audience focused on the message they are trying to convey” (E6). A spokeswoman for the group says: “I think audiences see the heart and worship behind it and see the presentation of Bible stories in a new perspective” (E6). But again, the question must be asked: “Does God authorize it?”
The Old Testament
As one might expect, Miriam and the women of Israel are cited as justification for dancing in worship today. Not much is actually said in Exodus 15:20-21:
Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them: “Sing to the Lord, For He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and his rider He has thrown into the sea!”
It was a joyous occasion. Many believe that, after each section was sung by the men (Ex. 15:1-18), the women responded with this chorus. The text does not say what kind of dancing it was, nor is any specific motion mentioned in other similar verses, such as Judges 11:34 (Jephthah’s daughter); 21:21 (the daughters of Shiloh); 1 Samuel 18:6 (Israelite women upon David’s return); 21:11 (a reference to 18:6); 29:5 (another reference to 18:6)—or even Exodus 32:19, where there was dancing in connection with the golden calf. Nothing in the Hebrew word conveys the type of dancing referred to. It seems to be an expression of joy.
The Hebrew word cited above was Strong’s #4246. A related word [#4234], is also found several times (Ps. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4; Jer. 31:4, 13; Lam. 5:15). This Hebrew word simply describes a generic dance.
Two other words are used less frequently. One of those [#2342] Strong defines as “to twist, whirl, dance, writhe, tremble, be in anguish, be pained.” It is translated “dance” in Judges 21:21 and 23. Another word finds its way into Hebrew texts [#7540], and it refers to “skipping about, dancing, or leaping.” It is used in Job 21:11, Ecclesiastes 3:4, Isaiah 13:21, and 1 Chronicles 15:29.
The word describing David’s dancing is found only in 2 Samuel 6:14 and 16 [#3760], which means to whirl or dance. The only other Old Testament verse with dancing in it (not already mentioned) is 1 Samuel 30:16. The word used there [#2287] usually refers to holding a feast, but it also can include dancing.
These are all the words used in the Old Testament that are translated dancing. Generally, there is no negative connotation inherent in these words. Something evil might happen in connection with dancing, such as being associated with the golden calf, but that is incidental. Most of the dancing was individual and involved nothing more than expressions of joy, as with Miriam and the women, the daughters of Shiloh, David, and Jephthah’s daughter. As Solomon put it in Ecclesiastes 7:4: “There is a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.” The contrast in both cases is between sorrow and joy.
What, therefore have we seen about dance in the Old Testament? Many participated in it on certain occasions. But there are three notable points to observe from all these words and passages. First, none of these involved concepts that we find in modern ballroom dancing. None of the instances involved men and women as partners. Second, none of the dancing involved lascivious movements or unchaste handling of males and females. Third, none of these instances involved worshiping God. They were not done in either the tabernacle or the temple, nor were they conducted by the priests or the Levites.
The New Testament
But even if they had been authorized in worship, it would have been under a covenant that is no longer in effect. The Law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and it has been replaced by the New Testament of Jesus Christ. No one can go to the Old Testament and cite it as authority for what is practiced in New Testament worship. This is true as it pertains to dancing, the use of instrumental accompaniment when singing, using incense, or worshiping on the Sabbath day.
“But,” someone protests, “Psalm 150:4-5 says that we should praise God with the timbrel and the dance, with stringed instruments, with flutes, and with loud cymbals.” Yes, it does, but that was under the Old Testament. Paul states very clearly in Galatians 5:1-4 that anyone who tries to go back to the Old Testament to justify a religious practice (such as circumcision) must obey everything written there (including animal sacrifices)—and even then he would still only have succeeded in falling from grace. Notice that no one ever quotes a New Testament verse to justify dancing or the use of musical instruments.
The reason is that our system of worship does not authorize these practices. We must have authority from God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament for us to be certain that what we teach and practice is, in fact, pleasing to God (Col. 3:17). It is not necessary to have a command that says NOT to dance or use incense or use musical instruments to accompany singing. Where does God authorize it?
Are there any words in the New Testament that deal with dancing? Yes. One word [3769] is used in four verses. Two of them refer to a general statement the Lord made: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance” (Matt. 11:17, Luke 7:32). The other two instances both refer to the daughter of Herodias dancing for Herod and his friends (Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22). Notice that, as with the Old Testament verses, 1) none of these involve concepts that we find in modern ballroom dancing or instances of men and women dancing as partners; 2) none of the dancing involved lascivious movements or unchaste touching; 3) none of these instances involved worshiping God; and 4) none of them were done in connection with the church. So far as we know, Jesus did not dance, leap, or whirl before God, nor did any of His apostles.
One other Greek word is translated “dancing,” and it is found only in Luke 15:25 [5525]. It refers to a circle, a ring, round dancing. Nothing seems to be wrong with this kind of dancing. Many countries have various folk dances that do not resemble in the slightest intimate ballroom dancing, nor is there any inappropriate behavior. Those dancing in Luke 15:25 were rejoicing in the return of the prodigal son. Since the father in the story represents God the Father, this expression of happiness was evidently authorized. However, this event does not authorize dancing in worship to God. Nothing either in the Old or New Testaments does.
Social and Religious Acceptance Is Not Adequate
The newspaper article says that certain religious groups are accepting the Dance Troupe. The United Methodist Church has been okay with it for more than ten years; the Church of God has allowed performances there, also. Even the Baptists are into it (E6). The article found that amusing.
Who hasn’t heard jokes about Baptists and dancing—“Baptists think dancing is one of the seven deadly sins,” for example (E1)?
Now some are not only accepting it; they are involved in it. The article highlights Katie Ervin, who “joined a praise dancing club at age 9. Now a senior at Silverdale Baptist Academy, she began teaching praise dancing at age 15…” (E6).
However, a practice cannot be determined right or wrong by who accepts it. For centuries many religious groups rejected the use of instruments of music in worship, but now almost everyone accepts the practice. Yet those who opposed it had valid Scriptural reasons for doing so. For more than two hundred years, the people in the northern kingdom worshiped a golden calf as God in two different locations. They also had priests from just any tribe instead of from the Levites. They changed a feast day appointed by God (1 Kings 12:25-33). We don’t know how they felt about it when it was first done, but after a generation or so, it was accepted and never changed back. God took them into captivity because of the sins of Jeroboam, who made these changes (2 Kings 17:21). Passage of time does not change something wrong into something right.
Using a dance troupe is, at this time, something new and novel. It may well gain acceptance—especially if people find it meaningful. However, the acceptance of the practice will not be approved by God, who has not authorized it. If it prevails, it will be just one more thing that “Christians” have become enamored with. One wonders what kind of impact might be made upon this world if those professing to be Christians would spend as much time and study on being evangelistic. In other words, what if people studied to be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks a reason of the hope that is within us? What if we were ready with Scriptural answers to Biblical questions? Having that ability takes talent, study, and practice, too.
Okay, so dealing with celebrities is always dicey. First of all, they are not necessarily knowledgeable about social or political affairs just because they enjoy celebrity status. And who knows how solid a position they hold is. But having thrown in a caveat, it is worth listening to what America’s Got Talent host, Nick Cannon, said about Planned Parenthood when he averred that the organization promoted “population control.” He also said they practice “modern day eugenics” and that they are inflicting “real genocide” on the African American community (Fox News, November 29, 2016).
What makes this a newsworthy story is that hardly any well-known personality has spoken with such earnestness and accuracy about Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization, did believe in practicing eugenics, which is defined as “higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).” Less reproduction and sterilization is precisely what Sanger desired for the black population. One news article commented thus: “Cannon is absolutely correct. In New York City alone, more black babies are aborted than born alive.”
Planned Parenthood has always been about family planning—with an emphasis on having few or no children. The idea of planning a family is something that probably most couples do, but if the unexpected occurs, they do not usually decide in favor of abortion, which Planned Parenthood heartily recommends—and performs—for a fee. They are the largest abortion provider in the United States and have received money from the federal government for years— which hopefully will soon come to an end. Imagine—using the tax dollars of citizens to support this barbaric practice!
One news story said, “Cannon previously stated that he felt it was his duty to tell the truth.” They quote him as saying: “I come from a long line of community leaders and I’ve always thought that to who much is given, you’re responsible for that, much is required. So I use my platform to tell the truth at the end of the day,” he said, referring to Luke12:48. This is really impressive—a celebrity who can cite Scripture—and apply it correctly. If a few more would speak out—especially female celebrities—it might prove helpful in turning the tide against the pro-abortion propaganda.
Occasionally, loyalty is mentioned in a positive way—even in an age of “tell-all” books—but overall it seems not to be regarded as highly as it was in decades past. Its value is stated in a negative way in Proverbs 17:13: “Whoever rewards evil for good, evil will not depart from his house.” The meaning is that God expects a person to deal kindly in return to the one who has practiced kindness toward him. A person may have unselfishly helped another with his time or money; it is not appropriate for that kind-hearted soul who sowed generosity to reap abuse. The ungrateful person will suffer as a result of it.
Several instances of this principle come to mind. David and his men had served as a wall to Nabal’s servants by night and day, according to one of his own servants (1 Sam. 25:16). David kept him safe, but did Nabal return even so much as an ounce of gratitude? No. He rebuffed and repudiated David outright and refused to donate any share of the harvest to his benefactor. His house would have suffered evil immediately had Abigail, Nabal the fool’s wise wife, not intervened. Due to her earnest efforts to keep her house from being harmed, only her husband died after God struck him.
David himself was not so fortunate when he rewarded faithfulness and loyalty with cruelty. Actually, David repaid both the goodness of God and the conscientious Uriah with evil. Uriah was such a faithful soldier that he refused, during a time of war, to return home and enjoy marital privileges while his fellow-soldiers were fighting for the kingdom. Therefore, David sent a message with Uriah to his commander, Joab, which turned out to be his own death sentence. David repaid evil for good because he desired Uriah’s wife. He also ignored the goodness of God who had given the king so much. Nathan, who rebuked David, said that by this action he despised the Lord. Although Proverbs 17:13 had not yet been written, Nathan informed David that the sword would never depart from his house (2 Sam. 12:8-10).
The history of David’s sons is indeed tragic. One (Amnon) forced himself upon his sister and was subsequently killed by their brother (Absalom). Then he eventually led a civil war against his own father David but was killed, much to the king’s sorrow. Another son (Adonijah) was put to death when Solomon began to reign because he wanted the kingdom for himself. Solomon observed firsthand the fulfillment of evil not departing from David’s house. Proverbs are sayings that are generally true; some exceptions might exist, but do we really want to take the chance on having to pay the price for disloyalty?
1 Corinthians 15 is known as the “resurrection” chapter in the New Testament (just as 1 Corinthians 13 is referred to as the “love” chapter). The reason for this designation is not that Jesus being raised from the dead occurred at that time; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all describe that event in the last chapters of their gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. Nor does Paul mention it because it was the first time it was ever preached; that occurred on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Paul deems it necessary to cover the subject thoroughly because the concept of a future Resurrection Day was being challenged.
Who would dare to challenge this doctrine? Was it some former Sadducees who could not part with what they formerly believed? Or had someone influenced brethren in Corinth that “the resurrection is already past” (2 Tim. 2:16-18). As a result of this teaching, Hymenaeus and Philetus were “overthrowing the faith of some.” Perhaps they (or someone in agreement with them) had been at Corinth. We do not know the source of the error, but some were definitely spreading it in this city. How does one go about proving that there is a future resurrection? Although Jesus had promised it, John had not yet recorded what the Lord said in John 5:28-29. Paul chose a logical way to deal with the false teaching.
The Gospel
He begins by reminding them of their obedience to the gospel. That gospel message includes certain facts: 1) Jesus died on the cross for our sins; 2) Jesus was buried in a tomb; 3) Jesus was raised up from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures. They had received that gospel, which includes the Lord’s resurrection, and they continued to stand in it. It would save them, also—unless they had believed in vain (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Although Paul does not mention it here, he notes in Romans 6:3-5 that repentance and baptism involve our imitation of what the Lord did: We die to sin (repentance) and join Him in His death. We are buried in water as He was buried in the tomb. We arise to walk in newness of life the way the Lord was also raised up in a new existence. So the very gospel of Jesus, which we believe, involves the doctrine of the resurrection.
Jesus Was Raised
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter preached that the resurrection was foretold by David in Psalm 16:8-11. He also added that Jesus was seen by the twelve after rising; they were all witnesses. Paul does not take the time to make the same Scriptural argument that Peter did, but he does list several occasions on which reliable witnesses saw Jesus after He arose. Paul lists six of them; a more complete list finds seventeen.
1. Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18: Mark 16:9-11).
2. Mary Magdalene rejoined the other women: the other Mary, Salome, Joanna, and other women
(Matt. 28:9-10).
3. Cephas (Simon Peter) (1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:34).
4. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:12-32).
5. The apostles without Thomas (John 20:19-23).
6. The apostles with Thomas (John 20:24-29; 1 Cor. 15:5).
7. 500 brethren at once (1 Cor. 15:6).
8. James (1 Cor. 15:7).
9. Peter and 6 others at the lake (John 21).
10. The eleven in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20).
11. At the ascension (Acts 1:3-11).
12. Stephen (Acts 7:55).
13. Paul near Damascus (1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9:3-6).
14. Paul in the temple (Acts 22:17-21).
15. Paul awaiting a hearing (Acts 23:11).
16. At Paul’s first defense (2 Timothy 4:17).
17. John on Patmos (Rev. 1:10-19).
The Flaw in the False Doctrine
Having established what the gospel is and that they had believed it, as well as listing various times Jesus was seen after He was raised up, Paul, in verse 12, asks a fundamental question of the church: “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” If no resurrection ever occurs, then Christ is not raised, either (v. 13). Then he provides several consequences that would result if Jesus did not actually come forth from the grave.
1. Our preaching is vain (14). No one would ever need to be evangelistic.
2. Your faith is vain (14, 17).
3. We are false witnesses (15). We are not just mistaken; we are all actual outright liars.
4. You are still in your sins (17).
5. Those who died in the faith have actually perished (18). They are not enjoying any reward.
6. If Christians only have hope now, we are to be pitied (19). Why? Because we lived and died based
on a lie. None of our expectations shall be met.
“Oh, but we never said any of those things,” one might imagine those in error as saying. “We don’t believe that. You’re not characterizing our position correctly.” That protest fails because everything Paul said was logical. If the dead rise not, then Jesus is not raised. If Jesus is not raised, these things Paul listed must follow. However, he says in verse 20; “But now Christ is risen from the dead….” From verses 21 to 28 Paul speaks on a related subject, but he returns to the list of reasons again in verse 29.
7. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” Some believe that the Corinthians were baptized for those who had already died before obeying the gospel, much as Mormons think today that they can be baptized for their dead ancestors. Whatever the text means, it cannot mean that because the emphasis is in the wrong place. If the theory were true, then Paul should have said, “What will happen to all those people for whom you were immersed?” Instead, he asks what will happened to the ones being baptized for them, which would be a matter of small consequence since all it cost them was their time and getting soaked. The real concern should have been with those who were dead and remained lost.
8. Why did the apostles stand in jeopardy of losing their lives constantly (30-32a)? Paul continually put his life on the line every day in order to preach the gospel amidst strong opposition—prompted by Satan—who does not want anyone to be saved. Paul had even fought with wild beasts in Ephesus. Either this is literal or figurative. No record exists of a literal confrontation—even in the list of sufferings in his second epistle. How is it figurative?
Paul spent three years in Ephesus and wrote this letter to the Corinthians from there (1 Cor. 16:8-9). It was there that the gospel spread all over Asia Minor (Acts 19:8-10). Not only did he face the usual Jewish opposition, he also accumulated critics such as Demetrius and the silversmiths who caused an uproar because they made their living from making shrines honoring a local, revered goddess. Many citizens were no longer buying them; Paul’s preaching was threatening their livelihood. Another clue was that he admonished Christians there to put on the whole armor of God and to be ready for spiritual conflicts (Eph. 6:10-17). This may have been an ongoing struggle. Why fight all these battles if the dead do not rise? Just because it’s fun?
9. Christians might as well adopt the philosophy of the heathen: “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” In other words, let’s just give ourselves over to physical pleasure. None will exist after death, if the dead do not rise. All that we are ever going to have is in this life; so grab whatever is available. Such a philosophy is not conducive to morality; it would lead to stealing, adultery, maybe even murder. If there is no pleasure after death, there can be no punishment, either. A material world yields these results.
A Valid Principle
As a result of the truths that Paul has presented, he concludes with an oft-quoted verse: “Do not be deceived: evil company corrupts good habits.” The King James has: “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” What are the words used in the text? The word for “evil company” appears once as a noun [Strong, 3657]—homilia, from which we obtain homily. It is from homilos [3658], “all who travel” (Rev. 18:17). Homileo [3656], the verb, also derives from homilos (Luke 24:14-15, “talked together, communed”); Acts 20:11, “Paul talked a long while”; and Acts 24:26, Felix “conversed” with Paul. The word, then, includes companions, but usually they are engaged in a discussion.
Paul is talking about listening to false teachers—their evil communications—or as MacKnight put it, “profane discourses”—which is precisely what some in Corinth were doing, and it made this chapter on the resurrection necessary. When anyone communes with false teachers, those men exercise influence over him. First, they teach false doctrine, which, second, frequently leads to immorality, as Paul had just shown. If there is no resurrection, we may as well indulge ourselves in physical pleasures, for we are just going to die anyway. Their evil speech was corrupting good morals.
The word for “morals” is eethos [2239], and it appears only here, but it derives from ethos [1485], which is usually translated “custom” or “manner.” The good manners, morals, or customs, which brethren had been taught were in danger of being overthrown by the false doctrine that no future resurrection will occur.
The alternative, presented in verse 34, is to awake to righteousness. Some did not have the knowledge of God (that they once did); like the Galatians, they had removed themselves from it by listening to false teachers. The Greek word for “not having knowledge” is the one from which we obtain the word agnostic. This was shameful. One must listen to the right person. Whenever anyone starts contradicting God, he is not the right person to heed. When he begins to challenge the resurrection, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity, brethren should refuse to listen to him.
Mockery
Advocates of the heresy in Corinth were mocking the idea of the resurrection by asking difficult questions, such as, “How are the dead raised up? And with what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). Paul answers that what is sown is different from what is raised. Below is a correct contrast of the two.
Earthly (40) – Heavenly
Corruption (42) – Incorruption
Weak (43) – Powerful
Natural (44) – Spiritual
Mortal (53) – Immortal
Mocking the resurrection is mocking God. Paul concludes the chapter by showing that the resurrection is a vital Christian doctrine because it teaches that Christians can conquer death—through Christ. The Hadean world cannot retain its hold over Christians; Jesus gives us the victory over it. Jesus is our living hope (1 Peter 1:3-5). Paul closes with a final charge—to the Christian. Because the resurrection is true, Followers of Jesus should be steadfast and immoveable—always abounding in the work of the Lord (58). Materialism is not our guide nor earthly pleasure our goal. We are saved to serve God, as well as mankind.
A few decades ago the Herald of Truth was a weekly television program, and occasionally those who produced the program would send out contact information to churches located near an individual who had sent in a request for material. Members of the congregation meeting nearby that individual would then call on the person to see if the information had been received and to determine if they had any questions or needed additional material.
Another brother and I went to call on a lady who had requested a sermon. She invited us in, and we visited for a few minutes. She had received what she had requested and was not interested in anything else. In the course of our brief visit, she let us know that she enjoyed watching religious TV shows on Sunday morning while sipping wine but that she was not really interested in getting out and visiting any churches in the area. We talked afterward about whether to try to follow up further with her; the other brother commented, “No. She doesn’t want to get out or be involved with others. She’s content to sit at home and watch religious programming while getting soused.”
Now, there is an alternative for those who enjoy imbibing but want a more social and religious context. A church is being formed to accommodate just such individuals. On the front page of last Sunday’s Orlando Sentinel (Nov. 20, 2016) is the headline of an article (“Lutheran Church Founders Brew Faith” (A1). It tells the story of a couple of men who decided to brew their own beer in a garage, but in the process a church bubbled up. The beer lovers who met each week began conversations about God; then people started asking for prayers and sharing meals. Before they knew it, they had the makings of a “church” group.
In light of a recent survey, we should scarcely be surprised. When asked what people could not live without, heading the list at about 45% of those responding was WIFI; alcohol came in third. Imagine! Air conditioning and hot showers did not even make the top three. What is amazing is that so much of the population thinks that they could not do without alcohol. Why? Many of us have done without it our entire lifetimes. We don’t miss it, crave it, or need it to have a good time—or to help us worship God.
But the two founders, according to the newspaper article, are receiving approval for a “church” from a religious denomination.
Now, thanks to backing from the Florida-Bahamas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the two Lutherans are refining plans to open a brewery/church in downtown Orlando. They say it’ll be a place where a taproom and beer vats can coexist with an altar and sanctuary (A1).
Can we anticipate seeing a future Headline: “Fight Breaks Out In Church”? It’s possible. But the quoted paragraph is bizarre on more than one level. Look at what it says about denominationalism—something never authorized in the Scriptures. Is there really a Florida-Bahamas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Does that statment imply a Synod for the other 49 states? And this is just one branch of the Lutheran Church. Do all the others have Synods, also? Does every religious denomination have “official” organizations like these? If so, just imagine how many of them exist all over the United States.
Lest someone fail to take the story seriously, there are beer kegs in one of the founders’ garage labeled, Castle Beer, produced by the Castle Church Brewing Community (A11). We have also noted in time past that some “church” groups have been meeting in taverns, but this goes way beyond that idea. Some say they are trying “to shed a holier-than-thou image” (A1). This effort should accomplish that goal; however, it will do nothing to cause people not to associate “Christians” with hypocrisy. Their motto—“brewing community, fermenting love” apparently is working. The support of beer-bibbers has reached 375. Currently they are meeting in homes “to study the Bible over craft beer” (A11).
The Concept
Most people instinctively know this mixture of the profane and the sacred is a bad idea. “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits’” (1 Cor. 15:33). Alcohol is not like caffeine that people get in coffee or soft drinks; it exercises a more dangerous influence on people. The first thing it does is affect the brain, loosening inhibitions and sound judgment. Solomon clearly wrote that people should not even look upon wine—let alone consume it (Pr. 23:31). The wine of which he spoke was not far different in alcoholic content than beer. Many beers (especially the Lite versions) are in the 4% range; others fluctuate between 6% and 8%. A few reach as high as 10% to 12%. Wines without today’s fortifications average, through natural fermentation about 10% and could reach 12%. To take something intoxicating and mix it with the Word of God is a profane move.
Although God does not approve of holier-than-thou attitudes (consider the Pharisee and the publican in Luke 18:9-14), He does expect genuine holiness. In fact, one of the Scriptures that will probably never be mentioned favorably at the Castle Church is Titus 2:12. God’s grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men, “teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age.” How many associate drinking beer with this description? And if people consume alcohol during worship, what about the rest of the day?
The Goal
Just when a person might think that this situation could not get any weirder, it does. The co-founders say that alcohol is not their focus. Really? Was it not already stated that the whole thing began while brewing beer in a garage? According to the news story, however, their “goal is to knock down the barriers separating many churches from their neighbors.” Wow! Who would have thought that beer could accomplish something that the Word of God could not? But, wait for it, guess what the missing ingredient is in this “evangelistic” approach?
If anyone answered, “Doctrine,” that is correct. One of the co-founders (who once “pastored” a Lutheran church) is quoted as saying, “We’re not gathered around a belief system. We’re gathered around a dinner invite.” They believe that “breweries and beer create natural contexts for friendships to form and attract people who might never set foot in a traditional church,” the other co-founder said (A11). Well, this idea has been expressed before with respect to the Cowboy churches. With thinking such as this, why should we not expect Golf Course Clubhouse Services, Bowling Alley Worship assemblies, and Bikini at the Beach churches? People drink beer at all of those places, and they get entertainment as well. Why not combine all the things that people like to do?
The whole concept of “a traditional church” is wrong to begin with. Yes, we need to have a place to gather, but worship is about God—not us. Some groups have the idea that only professionals can be in control of worship. Therefore, the average member is not involved except to read a text together or to repeat something already written out. In worship, as God desires it, all are involved with the singing, and everyone is supposed to be attentive to each prayer and gospel message, as well as the Lord’s Supper. Some lead; all participate. Each one gives as he has been prospered. Worship is offered to God, but it has a benefit to each member, as well. It is not some formal ritual that members go through; it is communion with our God, and we ought to be sober when offering it. We do not know if alcohol played a part in the sin of Nadab and Abihu, but in Leviticus 10:9, God told Aaron: “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die.” God does not approve of combining the sacred with the profane.
As for the style of evangelism advocated, it is certainly appropriate to get together with others over dinner (minus the beer). Sometimes, Christians only think in terms of inviting someone to worship, which is all right, but it may not be the best way to reach him. A study of the Word, perhaps before or after a meal, in the friendly confines of a home, may yield better results. It is often the case that some have an aversion to entering a church building, but once they have studied the Bible and learned what God‘s will is for them, it does not remain a problem.
The “Testimonial”
No religious article would be complete without a testimonial. A former Catholic who stopped attending “Mass” as a child has taken a shine (not the moon variety) to this new group’s casual system of Bible study. At first he was skeptical but was encouraged to just try it out. His bartender girlfriend told him, “We’re not going to outcast you because you don’t think the way we do” (A11). Hmm. How different from what Paul told the Corinthians about being united in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Is it really that loose—that it does not matter what someone believes? Then this “church” is more of an exercise in friendship than in trying to please God because the Lord has always had teachings that His adherents are commanded to follow.
Under the beer umbrella of fellowship, one person could believe that people are saved by “faith only” while others might think that repentance and baptism are necessary. One could advocate that we are born totally depraved while others believe that children arrive in the world innocent. Some may say that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation while others disagree. So all of these views are permissible? Why not just call it the Church of Whatever?
The boyfriend not only liked the way the group did things, he was “impressed” that the leader “didn’t pretend he had all the answers, and the atmosphere was inquiring and nonjudgmental” (A11). Are people so easily satisfied to be with a religious outfit that doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t care what its adherents think? Are people willing to glory in ignorance—and fermented ignorance at that?
Luther’s Legacy
According to the article, Lutheranism and beer go hand in hand because Martin Luther himself “had a documented fondness for ale. His beer mug was even inscribed with the Lord’s prayer so he could commune with God while tossing one back, according to religious historian Jon Pahl” (A11). This professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary reasons that “everything on earth is a gift to humanity and, when used responsibly, enhances our happiness” (A11). Really? Does that include whiskey and vodka? How about marijuana, heroin, and cocaine? How does one use responsibly that which—first and foremost—dulls one’s self-control?
Well-known religious figure, John MacArthur (a diedin-the-wool Calvinist) had the good sense to point out: “The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse are too wellknown, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze” (A11). He is one who is definitely against the mixing of alcohol and evangelism. Jesus did not need alcohol to make His message more palatable, and the multitudes never thought to ask for any. It is easy to see which most people are more fond of—God or alcohol. How many would attend “worship” if it was going to be a “dry” service? That answer says a lot about people’s priorities.
Periodically, as folks are reading through the Scriptures, they see a word or phrase that they haven’t heard much; so they quickly adopt it and begin using it. Some denominational people (and perhaps some brethren?) have taken a fancy to calling themselves ambassadors, since Paul uses the word in two verses. However, a careful reading will discover that he is speaking of himself and the other apostles—not all Christians.
In the Greek are six related words. The root word is presbuteros [Strong #4245], which is used 67 times in the New Testament and translated “elders,” referring to one’s age or the men who oversee the work of the church. The Greek contains a variation, presbutees [4246], which is used three times of aged men, and presbutis [4247], used once for aged women. Presbuterion [4244], appearing three times, also refers to a presbytery or group of men.
This root word is found in two other words, however. Luke uses Presbia [4242] twice—once in 14:32 and once in 19:14. The former refers to a group of men that the King James calls “an ambassage” and the New King James “a delegation.” The latter verse is translated “message” and “delegation” respectively. The delegation consisted of representatives of those who sent them.
The final Greek word under consideration is presbuo [4243], which is translated “ambassadors” in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Ephesians 6:20. In Ephesians, it is clear that Paul is speaking of himself as an apostle (an official representative of Christ). The one in 2 Corinthians is not as easy to discern, but it does refer to the apostles. Paul writes that God had committed to them the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). Christians still try to reconcile men to God through the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Verse 20 then says: “Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” The apostles stood in the place of Jesus; what they did was by His direct authority. Are Christians today apostles—selected by and specifically sent out by Jesus? No. Neither can we be ambassadors in that regard. We are, however, sent by God’s providence; further we do represent Jesus (if we teach and practice the truth). We do not have the authority of the apostles, however, and cannot be ambassadors or apostles in that sense.
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God were pleading through us:
we implore you on Christ’s behalf,
be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
“…Pray for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may
open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,
for which I am an ambassador in chains…”(Eph. 6:19-20).
Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things.
These words come from the song, “My Favorite Things” (The Sound of Music). We probably could all make a list of things that we delight in, but how often do people ask, “What makes God happy?” The Bible provides an answer to that question.
The first verse that comes to mind is John 3:16, which is amazing, and it prompts the question, “Why does God love us so much—especially when we are rebellious, disobedient, and sinful?” Deuteronomy 10:15 teaches that God “delighted only in your fathers, to love them….” Why? They all were imperfect. Perhaps He loves us for what we can become if we devote ourselves to Him. He demonstrated His love toward us, however, while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8). He made the first move toward reconciliation—sending Jesus to die on the cross for our sins.
While God loves (shown by His actions), nevertheless, all shall not be saved because all do not respond to His love and grace. While God offers salvation universally, only few return that love properly. These He especially loves and ultimately saves. Jesus confided to the apostles: “For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God” (John 16:27). This thought echoes what the psalmist wrote: “Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he has known My name” (Ps. 91:14).
From these two verses, we must recognize that God loves those who love Him and believe in Him. Again, Jesus told His apostles, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love” (John 15:10). Jesus included a condition there that the “once saved, always saved” crowd will never see or admit: Abiding in God’s love is conditional; it involves keeping God’s commandments.
Faith, love, and obedience have always been part of the requirements to receive God’s love and salvation. “Therefore know that the Lord God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Deut. 7:9). When Nehemiah prayed to God about the rebuilding of the wall, he cited parts of this very verse (Neh. 1:5). Daniel also makes reference to it (9:4). God respected Daniel and his requests. He was told, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard…” (10:12). Faith, love, humility, and obedience are a few of God’s favorite things.
Yes, as Paul wrote, God “is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us” (Eph. 2:4). In the sense of doing what is best for every individual, God loves everyone and has shown it, but those He especially loves and will save are those who respond to Him in a positive way, who make an effort to be like Him. David wrote: “For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright” (Ps. 11:7; cf. Ps. 33:5).
An Old Testament passage that sums up much of what has been said is Deuteronomy 10:12-13:
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
Not only are doing these things for our good, but they prompt God to love us in return. David expressed God’s love of humility in a negative way when he wrote: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise” (Ps. 51:17). The opposite of God not despising these things is embracing them. Humility impresses God; He loves it. Samuel had to make that point to the haughty King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22:
“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”
Many have the idea that they can give offerings to God in place of their love and obedience. God is interested in what we give Him. The Scriptures tell us that “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). But the higher priority is obeying Him in all things. Some even think that giving will atone for the evil deeds, but it does not. “The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but He loves him who follows righteousness” (Pr. 15:9).
An inspired apostle states that the opposite is true in 1 John 3:10: “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” The second qualification is of equal consideration to the first. If one does not love his brother, he does not love God, either (1 John 4:20-21, also 4:7-8). God cannot love the one who remains in a state of hatred (prejudice), loves wickedness, maintains arrogance, or flouts the Law of God.
God’s love that made salvation available is permanent. However, God’s love that will forgive sins and take people to heaven is conditional. He loves the humble, the righteous, the loving, and the obedient.
Jim Croce, from South Philadelphia had only a few hits, although they have endured since he was killed in a plane crash in Louisiana on September 20, 1973. His songs were fairly simple and occasionally contained some thoughtful expressions, such as these words from “Time in A Bottle,” a song not intended for release as a single but which became number 1 after his death: “But there never seems to be enough time to do the things you want to do once you find them. I’ve looked around enough to know that you’re the one I want to go through time with.”
He wrote those words when his wife was pregnant with their son. He wrote another song for her after they had experienced a spat over finances. After brooding alone for a while, he wrote these words: “Yeah, I know it’s kinda strange. Every time I’m near you I just run out of things to say. I know you’d understand. Every time I tried to tell you the words just came out wrong. So I’ll have to say I love you in a song.”
However, his first song, “You Don’t Mess Around With Jim,” had an entirely different focus: It had to do with a pool hustler named Big Jim Walker that was so good that it was advised: “You don’t tug on superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger. And you don’t mess around with Jim.” In the song he gets his comeuppance and his replacement becomes the next guy nobody messes with.
Some of today’s recording “artists” might have taken a cue from the words of the song, if not the style of music. First of all, those who are at the summit of their success will eventually be toppled and replaced before too long (the message of the song). There is One, however, to Whom that will never happen. God never seeks re-election; no other king will ever take Jesus’ place. Some other Head of the church is not waiting in the wings. The reason is that God is all-powerful, and no one can mount a serious challenge to His authority. If there is Anyone you should not want to mess around with, it is the Lord. So, how is it that many of today’s entertainers have shown themselves to be crude, vulgar, and irreverent? Is that wise?
The fact that some “artists” use vulgar language is by itself enough to antagonize God Who opposes anything that could be classified as corrupt communication (Eph. 4:29). Rap artists especially are known for their use of vile language, which could be construed as a “tug.” But what Jay Z has written goes way beyond that.
He is married to Beyoncé, a former member of Destiny’s Child, who has grown up to become Destiny’s Witch. Beyoncé herself said, “I have someone else that takes over when it’s time for me to work and when I’m on stage, this alter ego that I’ve created that kind of protects me and who I really am.” Who is she, really? According to her November 15, 2008 album, she has another name; that title was: I Am… Sasha Fierce. The hugely successful album sold 8 million copies worldwide. “So?” some of her fans might want to know. “What’s wrong with having an alter ego?” Well, nothing in particular. I’m known to a few people as, “Phil.” Whereas I got that identity by accident, she selected specifically her other self. As the paragraph below reveals, her choice was intentional; she associates herself with the author of a book on witchcraft.
The Book of Shadows, written by Sasha Fierce, is a collection of wiccan spells, pagan spells, black and white magic spells. The author of this book is a well-known Indian spiritualist healer. He had a lot of practice to use different spells for treatment with the help of spirits. Sasha Fierce is a great specialist in the study of the spirit world. In his book he has collected the most efficient and easy spells. In his Book of Shadows there are detailed descriptions of love spells, candle magic, earth magic, different rituals….
So, she did not make up the name but borrowed it from an already-existing source. And it says something about what she has become. She and husband Jay Z are infamous for a song she does called “Partition,” the subject of which is the two of them having sex in the back of a limousine. The MetroLyrics are nothing like those of “Time in a Bottle.”
But to return to husband Jay Z, he has a song called, “Dirt Off Your Shoulder,” that he did at a certain candidate’s rally about two weeks ago. Most of the words could not be printed, and the Metro-Lyrics below are highly offensive.
I probably owe it to y’all, proud to be locked by the force
Tryin’ to hustle some things that go with the Porsche
Feelin’ no remorse, feelin’ like my hand was forced
Middle finger to the Lord… (all quotes from Internet).
Seriously? This masquerades for entertainment these days? It’s bad enough that they write and perform these scummy words, but people pay for it?
At least one writer ties Beyoncé to Jezebel. Noting how that, as Sasha Fierce, she puts paint on her eyes and adorns her head, the writer compared what she does to the description in 2 Kings 9:30. Hmm. Maybe, but what would be the point? Jezebel was cast down from the window, trampled underfoot by horses, and eaten by dogs. Is that worth being very powerful and famous while alive?
And those who blaspheme God? Some of them have managed to stay around awhile. Ahab, in his wickedness, managed to reign 22 years, and Jezebel lasted about ten years longer. But they still paid a price for their insolence and rebellion against God. Ahab was even told by a prophet of God that he would be put to death if he went into battle, but since Micaiah always spoke evil of him, he paid no attention. He even had a great plan. He would go in disguise, and Jehoshaphat would wear kingly robes. It was a great plan, but born of human wisdom, it failed. Jehoshaphat nearly was killed due to his foolishness, but an archer shot an arrow “at random,” which proved that Ahab was not as invincible as he thought. He died.
Apparently, some athletes and entertainers feel the same way as they ride the crest of their popularity and believe their own press clippings. But God can humble anyone—any time He chooses to do so. When Pashhur, the chief governor in the house of the Lord, heard some of Jeremiah’s prophecies, he put him in the stocks. He released him the next day, but Jeremiah told him he would henceforth be called Magor-Missabib, “terror on every side.” The man who dared imprison God’s prophet and restrict his preaching would, along with his family, be taken to Babylon to die (Jer. 20:1-4).
When Micaiah prophesied of Ahab’s death, he was impiously struck by Zedekiah, a false prophet. Micaiah told him that he would one day be going into an inner chamber to hide (1 Kings 22:22-25). God does not always pay people back for their sins immediately, as He did with Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) or Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). He may grant 10 or 20 years before taking action. He may even wait until the Day of Judgment. But everyone will give an account for what they have never repented of (2 Cor. 5:10).
Jay Z and Beyoncé should not count on their popularity with their fans to shield them from the righteous judgment of God. They are vulgar and have no respect for either God or man. It would make most people extremely nervous to make an obscene gesture to God. Exactly who does he think he is? Can a mere mortal actually be so deluded as to think he has power over His Creator? Or that he will escape punishment? It would be hard to have a greater ego than that. In the final analysis, high exalted opinions of oneself will not avail; neither will flashing their illuminati symbols (such as the triangle) at awards’ ceremonies protect them. They should have learned from Jim Croce that it’s not wise to tug on Superman’s cape.
As if the devil needed any help, he now has at least one evangelistic disciple named Lilith Starr. If that is her real name, it would be an interesting irony. Lilith, according to some Jewish mythology was created attached to Adam’s side. God separated her, but she did not want to be his wife—being way too independent for something like that. Apparently, according to the myth, God created Eve as a replacement. The name Lucifer, which some mistake as a name for the devil, means “light bearer, morning star.” Is she a star like Lucifer? Further irony is that she is married to a man, whose surname is Black, and he introduced her to the Satanic Bible, written by Anton LaVey, which challenges the precepts of the Bible, including The Golden Rule.
Starr is the founder of the Satanic Temple in Seattle, and she is trying to counter Christianity by forming after school Satanic clubs. Her biography is called, The Happy Satanist. She has composed Seven Tenets by which to live, which are analyzed below.
First Tenet
“One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” It only took until the second word for her to blunder. Without God, there is no should; there is no ought. Perhaps Lilith thinks that no one will notice and just take her word for it, but why should one do anything? Such implies right and wrong—some kind of moral standard to which people ought to conform. If God exists and He sets moral standards, then should makes sense. But if God does not exist, then morality becomes purely subjective, and ought cannot thrive.
Is abortion, for example, right or wrong? If we read the Bible, then we know that the life in the womb is called by the same Greek word (brephos) as life out of the womb (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). But if we do not accept the Holy Scriptures and God does not exist, then we do not know if abortion is right or wrong. Some atheists oppose it for medical and scientific reasons; Christians oppose it for those plus Biblical reasons. However, other atheists accept the practice. No basis for morality or should exist apart from the Scriptures.
“Okay,” Lilith might answer, “so we just let people make up their own minds.” Should we hold the same view toward murder, or does that comprise a “should not” in the mind of Miss Starr? Shall we simply let everyone decide if he wants to murder others or not (without penalty)? What about child sacrifices? Suppose Baal worship were resuscitated—or that of other Old Testament deities worshiped in Canaan, Moab, and Ammon? Should adherents be allowed to sacrifice their children after they are born as the law now allows them to do so prior to birth? Miss Starr’s Seven Tenets offer no basis for should.
The rest of the first tenet is rather ambiguous; it mentions being empathetic towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” What does that mean? More importantly, where does Miss Starr think that we got reason? The animals do not possess it; they operate primarily on instincts. What distinguished man from animals is the ability to think, reason, and evaluate. He possesses those qualities because he was created in God’s image. How does Lilith account for logic?
Second Tenet
“The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.” God has written more on justice than anyone. He has also included the penalties for injustice. This tenet makes no mention of what “ought” to happen to those who violate it? Nothing? Is it just a suggestion then? Why “should” people observe it?
Third Tenet
“One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” Does that mean that if a person decides to destroy it, it is all right? It is interesting that Lilith Starr tried to kick the addiction of nitrous oxide for several years before succeeding. She apparently was tired of harming her body. Should people be allowed to use drugs which harm their bodies? Many in this day and age would probably say, “Yes, it’s nobody’s business.” But when innocent children are born with addictions, and family members must mourn the loss of someone killed by a drunk driver, it becomes society’s problem. This tenet would also seem to authorize abortion, the killing of a unique human being.
Fourth Tenet
“The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.” There’s that word should again. Why should people respect one single thing about a fellow human being? Everyone cannot be free in an urban society. Having to stop at red lights and observe speed limits encroaches on freedom. Some say, “Why should I have to temper my driving to suit others. I’ll go 60 in a 40-mile zone if I feel like it.” It is obvious some share this attitude by the way they drive. Does Miss Starr rejoice when someone zips around her, cutting her off? Does she happily say to herself, “I respect his freedom to offend me”? And if some dolt rear-ends her, will she congratulate him on his rudeness?
All members of society are poorer when everyone operates on the basis of selfishness. No world exists in which everyone gets to be as nasty as they are inclined to be. Jesus’ plea for meekness was uttered in a world where getting one’s way was already practiced.
Fifth Tenet
“Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.” That is precisely what evolution does. It ignores scientific evidence in order to establish a theory which has never been proven. That theory, by the way, is the one that implies a godless universe—one in which there is no sense of ought. If this existence is all there is, then what prevents anyone from trying to gain riches and power at the expense of others. The world has seen the results of such a philosophy in Adolph Hitler, as well as the philosophy of Japan prior to and during World War II. Is anyone taught any more about the rape of Nanking? Such atrocities exist because the God of the Bible, Who teaches love, kindness, and respect for others, is ignored.
Joseph Stalin did not believe in God. He also did not believe in should. He reportedly killed more than 20 million people. Apparently, he did not think he “should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” He was, however, big on the freedom to offend.
Sixth Tenet
“People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.” People are fallible is probably the most truthful statement Lilith makes. Unfortunately, atheists have nothing to compel them to rectify anything. For them, no objective right or wrong exists. And jails and prisons are full of those who don’t care if they harm others and have no intention of rectifying anything. They steal, cause bodily harm, and even murder others. What Starr calls making a mistake is a lifestyle choice for some.
Seventh Tenet
“Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.” Starr is so naïve that she makes Pollyanna look like Black Bart. Why should anyone care a fig about inspiring nobility in others? Jesus and the apostles do if one carefully considers their teachings, but she has ruled them out. The people who most inspire others are the ones who live according to Christian principles—something she has ruled out.
All in all, what help do these seven tenets provide for others. They are the product of Starr’s mind. Robert Owen had his 12 jewels; how did those work out? How did the atheistic community of Liberal, Missouri pan out? When God and His objective morality are removed from human beings, no motivation for goodness exists, along with no penalty for badness. Her Seven Tenets can be reduced to: “It’s better to be nice on occasion than nasty. Give it a try.”
Starr’s Goals
Just because her Seven Tenets can be easily reduced to shambles does not mean that she is not in earnest. She says with a conviction that Christians ought to possess about the truth:
“But in reality we are a very serious religion, with our own shared narrative, culture and symbols, a code of ethics—our Seven Tenets—and worship in the form of activism” (Orlando Sentinel, October 20, 2016: A10).
She already has applied for chapters of her After School Satan Club in Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and others. If there is one thing that would help those towns to improve…. She desires a chapter in Salt Lake City. Really?
One sentence in the newspaper article states that: “Christians may have the force of heaven behind them, but the Satanists have the U.S. Supreme Court.” Unfortunately, the part about the Supreme Court is true. (Heaven has always been behind the righteous but does not prohibit the free will of evildoers. Just ask Abel. However, God will punish those who persecute Christians, along with all unbelievers, on His Day of Judgment.) In 2001 one court ruled that schools cannot discriminate against the kind of speech offered at afterschool clubs. The Supreme Court is not always known for its wisdom.
However, the Satanic Temple is not all bad. Their web site says they do not believe in a “personal Satan”—just one more thing about which they are wrong. They also claim not to advocate evil. Why not? Nothing is stopping them. Besides, how do we know they are telling the truth? Obviously, if they told the school, “We are going to advocate rebelling against teachers and boycotting homework,” they might be denied permission to meet. Can anyone honestly explain what motive a Satanist would have for telling the truth? Hmm.
Lilith Starr says that Satanism has made her happy— something apparently her English degree from Harvard failed to do. Her Master’s in Journalism from Stanford did not help, either. She admits that her battle with depression led to “eventually losing her marriage [the first one, GWS] her house, her job and her friends due to an addiction to nitrous oxide.” Now she is able to laugh without gaseous assistance.
Her club has 78 members, and she claims to be fighting against “the religious overreach that is just out of control right now across the nation.” Now, that is funny. Yes, young people are so enthusiastic about Jesus that drugs are no longer a problem, and gangs have all but disappeared. Not. What is she thinking? Does she really think that a Satanic alternative to God is going to raise the morality of the nation and make better young people? It is too bad that her time and energy could not be used in such a way that young people are motivated to do good in their respective communities.
