For the past two weeks we have carried brief articles analyzing some of the daily, one-paneled cartoons, titled Non-Sequitur. The first one we critiqued, published on August 23rd, finds cartoonist Wiley Miller scoffing in the same vein as Pontius Pilate, who asked Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The implication clearly was that Truth does not exist or, if it does, is not knowable.
While it is the case that many people claim to have a corner on Truth (who do not), this problem does not negate the actual existence of Truth. Wiley is guilty here of the “hasty generalization.” Because he has found examples of some who claim to know Truth who (in actuality) do not, he has drawn the conclusion that it does not exist at all. This is a weak inductive fallacy and would be akin to an art critic deciding that, because he had seen seven forgeries of the Mona Lisa, the real painting must not exist.
We also pointed out that the alternative to Truth is chaos. An absence of a standard for morals and ethics means that everything is permissible. If not, why not? We notice that Wiley, for example, enjoys criticizing CEOs. By what standard did anyone working for Enron or some of the other companies do wrong? What makes stealing and fraud inappropriate? Oh, sure, we have laws against it, but those are man-made and subject to change. Laws against theft merely reflect an attitude of a culture at a particular time. We once had laws against homosexuality and abortion, too, but now it is legal to destroy human life in the womb. Holland has authorized euthanasia whether a patient has consented to it or not. In Germany once, Jews were legally killed.
What is odd is that we recognize mathematical, scientific, and historical truth–just not moral and ethical truth. Why not? Is the reason that the only objective source for morality is God? Many prefer chaos and confusion to that dreaded alternative. Some may feel comfortable with uncertainty and constantly fluctuating values, and, if that were the only choice, the only proven option, then we would have to deal with it. But if Truth exists, why ignore it and the stability it furnishes?
In the second “Non-Sequitur” we reviewed, the thesis was that man invented religion to justify war. Of course, it is assumed that man evolved and then invented religion to justify his actions. Put into the form of a statement, this point would read something like this: “Man arrived on this earth by evolution. Then he invented religion as a manipulative technique to justify war. Therefore religion is an imaginary and evil thing.”
Wiley is guilty here of Petitio Principii (circular reasoning). He assumes evolution is true so that he can then show how bad religion is. Another way of stating this point is, “Evolution is true; therefore, religion was invented by man and is therefore untrue and bad.” How do we know that religion is bad? “Because it is imaginary.” How do we know that it is imaginary? “Because evolution is true.” The fact is that the Bible is true, and evolution is imaginary and unproven. Men made up evolution as an alternative to God because they did not like His morality, and Thomas Huxley is on record as admitting so. But, if we begin with WileyÕs assumption of evolution, then he cannot complain about religion anyway, since it was a consequence of evolution.
September 10th
How interesting that, on the eve of the first anniversary of 9-11, Miller again inveighs against religion. No, he does not assault the religion of those who attacked the United States; such would probably not be politically correct. His main character on this day was a stodgy, elderly woman (not wearing a veil). The panel is split into two segments. The upper half is labeled: “What they Mean…” and the lower one reads: “…When they say….” In the top portion, the woman’s mouth is open so wide that her nose, glasses, and hair are collectively smaller by comparison. The author uses the word hell three times, but in place of the e, he has placed a skull. Since we are graphically challenged, we will replace the word with four blanks.
The woman in the “what they mean” section is shouting: To ____ with reality, to ____ with my ability to refute facts supporting your position and proving my dogma wrong, and to ____ WITH YOU!!” In the “when they say” portion underneath, she says in quite a normal voice: “I’ll pray for you.”
The first and most obvious question is, “How does Wiley know what people mean when they say, “I’ll pray for you”? Has he “evolved” beyond the rest of us to be able to discern motives? Surely, he cannot be claiming the spiritual gift of discernment. How does he know that such vituperative comments are seething under the surface of mild-mannered women? Perhaps he has psychologically projected these sentiments from himself to her.
How quick are so many to misapply Matthew 7:1-5 in telling Christians not to judge sinful acts. Seldom do they realize that Jesus is not speaking of someone’s deeds; He is prohibiting the judgment of people’s motives–especially when we are not in possession of all of the facts. This is precisely where Miller errs–by judging the motives of those who disagree with him.
Reality
The woman is portrayed in the cartoon as decrying reality. Apparently, the cartoonist thinks that religion cannot exist in the face of reality. Some religions cannot. Pronouncing cows as sacred and allowing people to starve is not very pragmatic. Spending considerable amounts of money to build idols and temples is not very useful, either. Neither is there any evidence for the validity of these religions. The Muslim religion was born of the sword and propagated by fear. Christianity, however, as taught in the Bible (not as practiced by some who call themselves Christian while violating its teachings), began with abundant evidence of its validity. It teaches people to rise above hatred–to love even their enemies (Matt. 5:43-44). It is non-violent–even in the face of persecution.
Furthermore, it recognizes reality and builds upon it. It explains the greatest questions man has ever asked: “What is man’s origin?” “What is man’s purpose in existence?” “What happens after death?” “Why do sin, suffering, and death exist?” “Which actions are right, and which ones are wrong?” “What should be my attitude toward myself and others?” These questions matter to most people, although some may be content to say, “I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t have any answers, and neither do you.” But, then, that would be an answer, would it not? Is that the “truth” that Wiley upholds?
“Yeah,” some would say. “Go ahead and believe in a bunch of miracles and fairy tales if you want to, but I’m sticking with what I can see and hear for myself.” Some do subscribe to empiricism, but it fails as a worldview, since it requires skepticism of anything not personally witnessed. This ideology actually does away with logic, since deduction operates in the mind on the basis of information received from others–rather than relying on one’s own senses. The fictional Sherlock Holmes would have never been able to solve a case. We could not rely on any history at all–even from eyewitnesses, since we would doubt their testimony. Is such a view realistic? We operate on the information of others constantly. Those in the first century bore witness of the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. The evidence convinced them and ultimately a great portion of the Roman Empire. We are grounded in reality.
Refutation and Proof
The woman in the cartoon is angry because she cannot refute the facts of her opponent, establish her position, or admit her dogma has been disproved. Such a predicament would be frustrating, but we are not the ones in that position. Maybe Wiley has captured here the reason that so many atheists are angry. Christian doctrine, as set forth in the New Testament, has been open to scrutiny time and again, and it still remains. Brother Thomas B. Warren successfully debated Dr. Antony G. N. Flew and Wallace I. Matson back in 1976 and 1978 respectively. We have willingly debated atheists over the centuries and will probably do so again. We are not the ones afraid of public discourse.
Actually, those who oppose God are the ones who may have an emotional, rather than logical, stake in the issue. Usually, they are upset because a loved one has died and they cannot accept the possibility that he might be in hell eternally. We all have ties to such people, and it is difficult. But the way we feel about something does not change the reality of the situation. Is it rational to say, “Uncle Joe is forever lost; therefore, I won’t be saved, either,” or “My grandmother will not be in heaven; therefore, I conclude that God does not exist”? These are emotional responses. Logic does not connect the premises with the conclusions.
May You Suffer
The woman in the cartoon is made to invite her antagonist to a fiery eternal abode, which would be an incongruous attitude, to say the least. If we understand the nature of hell, we would not want even our enemies to be sent there. The apostle Paul was about as exasperated as anyone could be with those who opposed the Gospel, yet he wished he could be accursed for them (Rom. 9:3). If we love and understand God and His will, we cannot hate anyone to the point of wishing him lost. Love demands doing what is in the best interests of others (1 Thess. 5:15) because Christ did so for us (1 Cor. 5:15).
But even if Christians were guilty of hate, the result of such animosity would not be yelling at others at the top of our lungs. We would say nothing, for without access to, explanation of, and encouragement toward the Truth, opponents very likely will enter into the place of torments with the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). In other words, if Christians possessed no love, they would withhold the one thing necessary for others–the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their ultimate separation from God would be preceded by our sounds of silence.
“God Says I’m Right About Everything”
In the lower portion of the cartoon, the woman is holding a sign with the words printed above. This idea is inverted. God does not proclaim us right; rather, we uphold Him. Naturally, anyone could claim that God is speaking through him; in fact, many do, but they are either liars or deceived. God, through the Holy Spirit, said that we have been given “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) and that “the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So, how do we know if we are right or not?
We have the Word. Either what we teach agrees with it–or disagrees. If we are in agreement, we want to continue to teach what we have. If we find we are in error, then we ought to change. We have a history of putting our beliefs to the test. If we have not had a written or oral debate with a particular religious group (or a non-religious group), the reason is that they were unwilling or they are too new to have scheduled one.
As Proverbs says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Pr. 18:17). We are willing to examine our teachings. We do not tell others that we are right and they are wrong. We discuss the matter with them and let all see for themselves what the Scriptures teach. Honesty is the only correct approach to spiritual matters. We believe that we are preaching the Truth (1 Peter 4:11), but that does not prove we do so. The evidence comes from comparing views and seeing which position has merit.
Sometimes sequels are not as good as the original, but this book provides an excellent follow-up to the first of the series, Rock-Solid Faith: How To Build It, which was first published in the year 2000. Both books ought to be read by every child of God; the church would be the stronger for it.
The first two chapters (7-84) deal with defining and sustaining Biblical faith. For many years theologians and modernists have ignored the definitions and examples of faith that the Bible provides and have drawn the conclusion that faith is merely a “leap in the dark.” Some in the church have been affected by such thinking as well; therefore, these two chapters teach material that is crucial to the practice of New Testament Christianity. If brethren are led to believe that “there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God” (7) or that faith results from wishful thinking instead of being based on reason and evidence (9), then it is no wonder so many do not take matters seriously.
Why should members of the body of Christ be enthusiastic in their worship or zealous in their outreach if, after all, they might be mistaken about God’s existence? It is difficult to muster much excitement for something which is only possibly, instead of absolutely, true. Brother Thompson cites numerous quotations by those who hold such a view; then he discusses the relationship of faith and reason and faith and knowledge, also citing those who uphold the truth on this subject. One such quotation is from J. Greshem Machen, a distinguished Greek scholar, who also wrote accurately concerning faith:
If the growth of ignorance is lamentable in secular education, it is tenfold worse in the Christian religion and in the sphere of the Bible…. What is called faith after the subtraction of that element [knowledge–BT] is not faith at all…. All faith involves knowledge and issues in knowledge” (41).
To state it another way, that which does not issue in knowledge is not really faith; it is opinion. Abram did not leave Ur of the Chaldees based on opinion; Christians in the first century did not give their lives as a matter of preference. They knew that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God! And so can we. These chapters bring to light that Christians are being charged with ignorance; they provide ways in which we can effectively combat such popular but erroneous ideas.
The next two chapters (85-134) present a thorough analysis of what it means to be in the image and likeness of God. The first one explains that the two phrases from Genesis 1:26 are synonymous, the latter (after our likeness) being a restatement of the former (“Let Us make man in Our image”). After discussing some false theories as to what these phrases mean, the next question is: Did man’s fall and sin’s entrance into the world change the way God originally created us? This is an important question because many, such as Martin Luther (and to a lesser extent, Calvin), taught this doctrine. Several Scriptures, however, are examined which prove that, despite the existence of sin, we remain in the image of God. The second chapter on this subject presents ten ideas as to what imago Dei (“in the image of God”) means. These are worth serious reflection and consideration.
The fifth chapter (135-70) is titled “Knowing and Defeating the Enemy,” and it thoroughly examines the father of evil. Some of the questions treated in this section are: “Is Satan Real?” “Is Satan Deity?” “Was Satan Created ‘Evil’?” “Is Satan a Fallen Angel?” “When Did Satan Become Evil?” “Why Has God Allowed Satan to Continue to Exist?” “What Are SatanÕs Powers?”
The next five chapters are titled “The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul.” The first of these defines the words soul and spirit; then it provides examples of these usages in the Old and New Testaments. Brother Thompson presents this material in a very organized manner, thus making clear what tends to be a confusing subject. A helpful chart on page 185 puts a lot of this information on one page, and it serves to summarize the subject.
The second in this series is brief (189-200), but it covers one of the most important issues of this (or any) day: When does human life begin? Once again, science and the Scriptures harmonize regarding the matter. An argument based on James 2:26 is presented; we will not here quote the entire text, but it begins with: “If the body is alive…” Complete the sentence and ponder the implications of it–not only with respect to abortion but to euthanasia as well (192-93).
The third chapter relating to the destiny of the soul discusses the annihilation theory (see especially pages 208-20), a favorite doctrine of atheists and some brethren. This idea is connected to the one that insists that the fires of hell consume the spirit (annihilate it), which has been espoused by Edward Fudge, John Clayton, F. LaGard Smith, and Alan Pickering (210-11). Several Scriptures are presented which prove that such a position is false.
The fourth section in this series explains the necessity of punishment and what constitutes appropriate punishment. The fifth one focuses on the word hell: what it means, its origin, its usages in the New Testament, and its attributes. All five of these chapters are thorough and convincing. Besides providing fascinating reading the first time through, they will serve in the future as an excellent reference tool.
Chapter 11 is: “Abandoning Faith–Why Are We Losing Our Children?” This thoughtful analysis is a refreshing change from those who think our young people are not being entertained enough and that, if we just had more social activities, they would be faithful Christians. Brother Thompson boldly suggests in a subheading: “We Have Failed to Teach Our Children Spiritual Values” (269). He also points out that, despite their being some excellent teachers in the public schools, children are primarily taught humanism. Their thirty plus hours of indoctrination in the public schools cannot be offset by two Bible classes a week (271).
Just as parents must be informed about their children to offset detrimental influences, so must they first take care of themselves spiritually. Chapter twelve therefore concerns: “Abandoning Faith–Why Are We Losing Adults?” Four Scriptural reasons are cited: Although four pages (285-89) are devoted to the third reason, twelve are devoted to the fourth–suffering (290-301). The remainder of the chapter concerns “The Cost of Leaving the Faith.” Reading this material might prevent someone from dying spiritually.
The final few pages are primarily an exhortation: “Faithfully Teaching the Faith.” Included are some words of wisdom that provide the reader a valid means of distinguishing between a false teacher who espouses fatal error and a brother who teaches something falsely. (314-16).
This volume concludes with the “References” section (319-37), a “Subject Index” (339-49), a “Name Index” (351-56), and a “Scripture Index” (357-74). The first of these contains the list of all the sources cited in the book; the second will aid the reader in returning to a topic he desires to revisit; the third will assist in finding a quote by someone that the reader may want to use (many are included); and the last one will make it easy to find comments made in relation to the Word of God.
This excellent book may be ordered from Apologetics Press, Inc., 230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117-2752; their Web Site is . It may also be ordered from Valid Publications, Inc. The cost is $12.00.
BIBLES REVIEW: A REVIEW OF THE EDITOR’S BELIEFS (PART 1)
In April of 2000 a letter attacking the integrity of the Scriptures appeared in a publication. The complaint involved the two different genealogies given for Joseph in Matthew and in Luke. I immediately wrote a succinct response, but to my knowledge it was never published. In September the same individual, Elliott Lesser, took issue with someone else who had answered him. At that point I sent my remarks directly to him. Below is that letter, dated September 14, 2000.
Elliott Lesser’s assertion…concerning the genealogies of Christ that there is no proof that “Luke’s version pertained to Mary and Matthew to Joseph’s” is false. First of all, it is presumptuous and perhaps arrogant to think Christians throughout the first century were not as clever as Mr. Lesser and that no one therefore noticed the differences in the lists of names. Did it never occur to him that the followers of Jesus had a satisfactory explanation for the differences?
But beyond insulting the intelligence of believers who lived far closer than the critic to the time both of the establishment of Christianity and the recording of this information by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), the fact is that both genealogies fit the purpose of their authors. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience concerning their prophesied king and His kingdom; he would naturally refer to Joseph’s descent through the kings of Israel and Judah. Luke emphasized the humanity of Jesus in his gospel account of the Lord’s earthly life; so what could be more appropriate than to trace Jesus’ human parentage from His mother back to Adam, the first human being?
Concerning Luke 3:23, the text states that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph; then it continues by calling Jesus “the son of Heli.” In genealogies the word translated “son” can also mean “grandson.” There is no contradiction here. Furthermore, the Jewish Talmud mentions that “Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli.”
Although Mr. Lesser assures us that reconciliation of the two accounts is futile, it did not prove to be that difficult; a minimal amount of research was sufficient. Perhaps he would profit from Paul’s admonition not “to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4, NKJ).
Nothing I wrote here was out of the ordinary. Those who study the Word of God and write commentaries have known for centuries that the word translated “son” is also used of those more distantly removed. The two genealogies are not even considered a serious problem by most Bible students, since the explanation of them is so readily obtained and understood.
But Mr. Lesser refuses to understand even simple things. In his letter of reply (September 27th), he said, “To date, however, no one, not even you, has come up with a satisfactory explanation for the differences and/or their many biblical verse contradictions. You seem to be incapable of acknowledging that the gospels were written by humans and humans make mistakes, lie, and create myths. The assertion that the composers wrote under divine inspiration or guidance borders on blasphemy in light of all the contradictions, errors (biblical, historical, and scientific), as well as the terrible accusations against God which make Him to appear worse than a devil.”
The reader will immediately learn many things about Mr. Lesser from this one paragraph. First, when he says no one has come up with a satisfactory explanation, he means satisfactory to HIM. As the reader will see, Mr. Lesser has appointed himself sole judge and arbiter of what the Scriptures mean and what explanations are acceptable or not. The fact is, of course, that the Word will judge him (John 12:48). Undoubtedly, however, he would say we do not understand that verse, either.
Second, he assumes that, because HE thinks the Scriptures are full of mistakes, lies, and myths, everyone else should think so as well. None of us would be incapable of acknowledging that it was purely a human product–if it were. Lesser believes that his word should be accepted over the teaching of the Bible, which claims inspiration, and has been accepted as such for nearly two millennia–somewhat equivalent to a yapping dog thinking that his incessant barking will bring down the Great Wall of China.
Third, he says that calling attention to the fact that the writers of the Bible claimed inspiration is an assertion. What a person asserts may be true or false; he implies it is false. Everyone who has READ the Bible with the intent of understanding it knows that inspiration is claimed throughout by the writers. Paul wrote: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
In just these two verses Paul has endorsed the entire Old and New Testaments. Peter said that Paul wrote Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). These are all that are really needed, but as every serious Bible student knows, there are hundreds of passages that claim inspiration. Therefore, it is not my assertion–but the Bible’s claim.
Fourth, it is not blasphemous to bear witness of the Truth; it is blasphemy to OPPOSE the Truth. Jesus, for example, was adjured to say if He was the Son of God. When He acknowledged the fact, they accused Him of blasphemy (Mark 14:61-64). In similar vein, Mr. Lesser adjures people to tell him if the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. When they acknowledge that it is so, he accuses them of blasphemy.
Fifth, because Mr. Lesser does not understand the God of the Bible (his obvious animosity gets in the way), he accuses God of being worse than the devil. The man has a reality problem: he feels that HE should be able to define God’s characteristics and tell Him how He should do things, just as he imagines that HE knows how the Scriptures should be written and what they should say. He will never need to worry about being accused of humility.
The Current Situation
A few more exchanges occurred during this past year. On April 30th of this year I received a six-page letter (single-spaced) which included all manner of attacks on the Bible. In my reply I told Mr. Lesser that I really did not have time to spend on voluminous letters of this type–but that just once I would answer each point, just to show that it could be done. I spent between one and two hours answering it on seven separate days and put it in the mail. Within two weeks I had an 18-page letter, which informed me that some of my comments were being published in his publication, Bibles Review, although he had never asked my permission.
Therefore, it seems appropriate to discuss this correspondence openly, since Mr. Lesser has already opened the door to this venue. In my addressing him, I have occasionally thrown in a few barbs, such as that one of his charges was laughable. But his letter is almost solidly vituperative in nature. Below are a montage of his statements from the 18-page letter.
…you are gullible…You fail to understand…you are making a mockery of the biblical God… (2).
You fail to understand that you cannot prove inerrancy by resorting to name-calling, and ridiculing, belittling, and insulting those with whom you disagree. Of course, since you have no facts with which to define your position you have no alternative but to engage in personal attacks. [The reader may decide who is guilty of these charges, GWS.] You also fail to realize that using one biblical verse (one fairy tale) to prove another biblical verse (fairy tale), without showing that the first verse is accurate, is meaningless drivel (2). [Note that Lesser has high expectations of us–to demand that someone prove that a fairy tale is true, GWS.]
You failed to cite…. You failed to explain… You failed to explain… You failed to explain… You failed to explain… You failed to provide any evidence… You failed to support your allegation… You are ignorant… You failed to document your allegation… (2).
You are ignorant… You failed to offer any evidence… You failed to explain… You failed to explain… You failed to explain… You are ignorant… You are also ignorant about… You failed to specify… You failed to explain… You continue to fail to understand… (3).
You continue to show unbelievable ignorance of the gospels… You show your ignorance of Christian history… You are ignorant of Christian denominations… (4).
Of course, I don’t believe the gibberish you just spouted, and I don’t believe that you believe it either. I do find it interesting and amusing how you and your ilk that claim inerrancy twist, distort, and redo verses, which you realize, are clearly not inerrant (5).
If you had studied and learned biblical history and development, you would know how stupid your invented explanations are; and how ludicrous and hilariously senseless they are. I do understand that your mind is so made up that no facts will change it. …you have continually failed… You are also so arrogant that you think you know what the biblical God wants. Your feeble attempts to explain the contradictions are not only ludicrous, but hilariously senseless (notice how he repeats himself, GWS). You are the one who has failed… (5).
Clearly, you are ignorant of these verses… You failed to… Rather than accepting the verses for what they say, you twist them to fit your inerrancy absurdity. You also failed to prove… Among your other failures… If you were not ignorant… You failed… You showed your ignorance of… And, if you were not ignorant … (6).
If you were not so ignorant of Christian history and so filled with stupid prejudice… As usual you demonstrate your ignorance of the gospels, ACTS [sic], and some of the epistles. And you in your hatred… You failed to explain… You have failed to refute anything I have written… You failed to cite… You failed to explain… …your ignorance of it is incomprehensible. You show your ignorance of … You create quite an absurdity… (7).
You show more ignorance… You are also ignorant of… As I said above, you are ignorant of… You failed to explain… You failed to realize… You also failed to explain… Once more, you demonstrate your ignorance of the gospels… (8).
If my comments cause laughter, then yours would induce uncontrollable belly laughs for a year (Ooh, good comeback, GWS). You failed to explain… Your biblical ignorance is beyond comprehension. If you were not ignorant of biblical history and development… You are so obsessed… You finally admitted the truth: you are ignorant and stupid. You also show your hatred… If you spent more time studying about the Bible, instead of misinterpreting, distorting, and mistranslating biblical verses, you might learn something about your Bible. But, then you don’t want to learn that your Bible is fiction, not inspired and inerrant (9).
You failed to understand… If you knew history… You failed to explain… The Bible and you failed to explain… You also failed to prove… Incidentally, you failed to explain… You even failed… You have the habit of misquoting me; apparently you do not read very well, hence all of your errors about the biblical verses. You, meanwhile, failed to present… You again failed to realize… Your ridicule and insulting remarks prove that you are so ignorant of the Bible… If you had facts at your disposal… I have learned, however, from past experience that I cannot expect anything else from biblical ignoramuses like you (10).
You failed to document… You continue to show your abysmal ignorance of the Bible… You failed to explain… You again maliciously misquote me… You know you are lying when you say that… (11).
…this is indeed a peculiar statement coming from someone who is as ignorant of the Bible and devoid of humility as you. You have failed to explain… You, like your ilk, have to pick and choose your verses out of context… You failed to support your claim… It is your alibi that is absurd. You also make a fool out of God… (12).
You claim that one must believe the nonsense about the Bible being inspired and inerrant… There you go lying again. If you will lie about something so trivial… (13).
Your prejudice and hatred… You also failed… You are either lying again or are ignorant… Unlike you, I prefer to deal with facts… …you have failed miserably to show… You are so obsessed with your hatred… (14). If you knew Bible history… What a shame, you don’t use your brain… You really should read your Bible (15).
If you had spent as much time studying Christian history… (17).
You are ignorant… I also do not care to deal with someone who, rather than presenting logical or reasonable arguments, resorts to lies, misquotes, and, who makes nonsensical statements that he cannot defend with evidence (18).
Believe it or not, there were several other comments of this type, but these should suffice to reveal Mr. Lesser’s attitude toward those who deign to disagree with him. He obviously lacks any graciousness whatsoever and cannot sincerely study a subject without becoming abusive. It is important to realize something about this approach: He is arguing from an emotional basis, not a logical one. Most people can stick to the issue without feeling the need to continually belittle someone else. Anyone who was present for the Warren-Flew or Warren-Matson debates (or who has read them) knows that these atheists were civil in their approach to brother Warren. They vigorously disagreed with him, but they did not walk to the platform each evening to spew out invective for the duration of their speeches. In Mr. Lesser, however, dwells an obvious intense hatred, which will always make him the lesser man in any discussion, verbal or written.
He places the letters, Ph. D., after his name, but he does not behave as a scholar. I have only a lowly M.A., but anyone entering graduate work takes a research course, in which the student is taught to DOCUMENT what he writes. In five letters, Lesser has yet to cite a single source adequately (one that provides a source and validates his claims). All of his assertions about what the Christian church teaches and what historians believe he could have just as easily made up off the top of his head. This is not an insult; it is a fact–one that he cannot deny. He has an obligation to show where he gets his historical and religious information; curiously, he never does so. A lack of documentation makes a “scholar” both shoddy and greatly suspect.
In Proverbs 8, as well as in many other passages of the book, wisdom is extolled. Consider the brief sampling below, in which wisdom is personified and speaks.
Listen, for I will speak of excellent things, and from the opening of my lips will come right things; for my mouth will speak truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; nothing crooked or perverse is in them (6-8).
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverse mouth I hate (13).
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently will find me. Riches and honor are with me, enduring riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver (17-19).
The first three verses cited above stress that genuine wisdom means moral excellence, which contrasts with verse 17, in which it is pointed out the unwise are filled with pride, walk in the evil way, and possess a perverse mouth. [What an appropriate description of Hollywood’s finest!] The third passage stresses the results of pursuing wisdom.
The first definition of philosophy given in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual wisdom and moral self-discipline” (985). Sounds rather lofty and noble, doesn’t it? Thinking, reasoning, and the pursuit of wisdom are just about lost arts in today’s society.
Moral excellence is not a phrase in everyone’s vocabulary, either. When people think of the concept of morality at all, it is usually in a subjective sense. In other words, the things I do and the way I live are moral; it’s only other people who do sinful things. If I cheat on my taxes or gyp an insurance company, that’s standard operating procedure. If my neighbor steals my power tools out of my garage, that’s immoral. If I have an affair with a young nymphet twenty years my junior, that’s merely a mid-life crisis. However, if someone sleeps with my wife, that’s adultery. And although I may skirt the truth a little, other people tell outright lies. What it all boils down to is that anything is moral if I think it’s moral; it doesn’t matter what others think.
With each individual being his own autonomous and subjective judge of right and wrong, there is very little consensus in society as to what is moral or immoral.
But the Word of God defines morality! How fortunate that it does for us who are living in a topsy-turvy age. What Isaiah described to Israel (about to go into captivity for her sins) is exactly what we see in our age.
Woe to those who call evil good,
and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)
Name the worst perversion imaginable, and someone will defend it and accuse you of being judgmental.
Actors and actresses make poor philosophers because: 1) They possess no moral excellence (with butfew [if any] exceptions); 2) Generally speaking, they are even more deficient in wisdom and philosophy than morality (this latter may account for the former). Three examples follow.
Goldie Hawn
Although she has starred in several hilarious comedies, her preferred lifestyle is immoral. According to The Dallas Morning News of December 16, 1996, she and Kurt Russell have been living together in “unmarried bliss” for 14 years (2A). The Bible, just to inject a note of reality into this surreal scene, says that fornication is sin. It appears in several lists of sins (concepts that most Hollywood types cannot seem to fathom; perhaps that’s why they don’t do any Biblical movies any more), such as Romans 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:11 & 6:9, Galatians 5:19, Colossian 3:5, and Revelation 21:8. Furthermore, the Word of God says, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).
What is Goldie’s “philosophy” that allows her to live in such a manner? She told Vanity Fair: “I don’t believe we own anybody. I don’t think Kurt sexually only has eyes for me. . . .” Of his being with other women, she comments that it would be “unnatural not to have those tendencies.” One can only wonder what a typical week for this couple is like.
She: “What’s your schedule like this week, sweetheart?”
He: “Let’s see. I’m having dinner with Genevieve on Tuesday and Sally on Thursday. How about you?”
She: “Karl is taking me to dinner on Wednesday.”
He: “Oh, that’s nice. I hope you have a good time.”
She: “Oh, by the way, I hope you haven’t made any plans for Saturday.”
He: “I’m sorry, my pet. I promised Colleen I’d take her dancing.”
She: “Oh, how could you? And on the fifteenth anniversary of our being happily unmarried!”
Kurt Russell was not without comment on their “open” relationship. Follow this logic: “Men are not supposed to see one woman and desire only one woman. . . . that’s just science. If the species doesn’t mutate, it will die.” Say what? Exactly what does promiscuous behavior have to do with mutating? No wonder these people make a career out of memorizing lines written by someone else; their brains don’t quite function properly.
Cuba Gooding, Jr.
Anyone who thinks it is shameful for human beings created in the image of God to conduct themselves in a way worse than animals and then try to justify their immoralities with “science” (all the while ignoring God’s placement of one man for one woman for life in the garden of Eden) might conclude that things can’t get any worse. [After all, if Adam and Eve could be monogamous for over 900 years, why can’t Goldie and Kurt (or anyone else) make it a paltry 50 years?] But it does get worse, as the following Dallas Morning News article from December 9, 1996, reveals.
Cuba Gooding Jr. has no trouble with nudity–on screen or off. Asked if he was embarrassed by having to strip down in Jerry Maguire, Mr. Gooding responds by dropping his pants. “As you can see, it doesn’t bother me a bit,” Mr. Gooding told the Daily News for a printed story Sunday. “We all came into this world naked, so what’s the big deal?” (2A).
Notice that the two conditions mentioned at the outset of this article have been met. The man displays no moral excellence, and he couldn’t think his way out of a maze with no dead ends. But at least he is an honest degenerate. So many “stars” perform in the nude and then act so modest in public–as though anyone in the world who cared to see them couldn’t buy a videotape and ogle to their heart’s content. Mr. Gooding is having none of that hypocrisy.
Of course, there are these laws we have about indecent exposure, but, hey! we all came into the world naked; so what’s the big deal? While this “philosophy” may work well at a nudist colony (and on movie theater screens), it doesn’t work very well in public.
Furthermore, there’s an important fact this Hollywood luminary has overlooked–we also came into this world innocent, just as Adam and Eve were created. The newborn do not understand nakedness or shame; children, teenagers, and adults usually exhibit great modesty, blushing at the mere thought of impropriety. People can only get over such feelings by searing their consciences to the point where nudity no longer bothers them. [Psychiatrists call this process losing one’s inhibitions. How about that? Modesty and inhibitions have become synonyms.]
But perhaps Mr. Gooding’s lapse of common sense can be explained. While doing somersaults off of the trampoline during rehearsal, he landed on his head. Even though he was wearing a helmet, he said it made him feel really numb. That could explain his subsequent reasoning skills (or lack of them). Not only is it disturbing that such people are “loose” in society; even worse is the publicity they receive. Why would a newspaper even publish such ludicrous behavior as if such an attitude is acceptable?
Ellen Degeneres
For several months many have anxiously waited to see if the character she plays on ABC’s Ellen would come out and admit to being a homosexual. According to The Dallas Morning News (which seems to take delight in reporting sleazy stories) of January 16, 1997, she made the admission while taping an episode of the show, although it will not be shown.
In the third take, she belted out, “So here’s what I have to say. . . . And by the way, I’m gay. It’s OK. . . . I’m gay, I’m gay, I’m gay.” Her antics were met with wild applause from the studio audience” (2A).
She and the studio audience remind one of the question that Jeremiah asked, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? NO! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush” (Jer. 6:15a). Is it not bad enough that so many people don’t care if the perverted lifestyle of homosexuals has become acceptable? But was there not one person in the audience with enough shame not to applaud? Was there not even one with enough courage to walk out?
Imagine! We have become so ungodly that the mere mention of perversion brings applause!
Perhaps Hollywood and its “sophisticated” fans should be told of another gathering in which they will individually face the holy God of the universe. On that day, there will not be anyone rejoicing to shout that they are homosexuals. If anything, they will be looking for a place to hide. But everything will be confessed (2 Cor. 5:10). Men glorify the flesh and wallow in fleshly lusts like a sow in the mire, but in that day the light of truth and God’s glory shall shine.
The contrast of God’s holiness to man’s sinfulness will be apparent, and all will bear the responsibility of their actions. And when someone confesses the shameful acts of homosexuality, or public nudity, or a lifetime of sexual indulgence, no dim-witted, evil-thinking crowd of sycophants will be applauding.
Wisdom is lacking in the public market place. Moral excellence has all but disappeared. And people’s rationalization for their sins has become ridiculous. Most of the movies that are made today should carry the U rating: Unfit for human consumption, Unbearable to have to endure, and Ugly and Ungodly to behold.
Television fares no better. One newspaper cartoon suggested G for garbage, R for revolting, and NC for naughty cable. Another editorial cartoon suggests that the ratings problem for television be solved by hitting the “off” button. Any time the temptation strikes to watch some program, remember that the fear of the Lord is to “hate evil” and to steer clear of the arrogance of the Hollywood elite, with their perverse mouths.
Twenty-four long years ago the Supreme Court enacted abortion rights legislation. They called it reaching a decision, but how can you “interpret” something our constitution never dealt with? The answer is that you find a clause that contains the word privacy, and, voila!, that sentence must mean that a woman is able to exercise the right of privacy over her own body.
If this is not the exact situation of what happened in Roe vs. Wade all those years ago, it’s close enough to communicate the silliness of the logic of the “decision.” Since that time there have been some occasional arguments advanced trying to soothe people’s consciences, uh, I mean, trying to explain the validity of the practice. Seldom (try never) has an apologist emerged that could say anything more intelligible than, “A woman has a right to her own body.” It is rarely pointed out that if she had exercised that right properly, she would not be considering an abortion in 99+% of the cases.
The pro-choice crowd has no intelligent spokeswoman, but they don’t need valid arguments because they have the law, the liberal media, and emotion on their side. The Supreme Court effectively wiped out the laws of 46 states which made abortion illegal. The media have for years on this cold, anniversary date shown three seconds’ footage of frozen marchers and a brief clip of a speaker; then (out of their extreme sense of “fairness”) they interview one of the twelve brave feminists in a warm room somewhere meeting to “protect the liberties of all women.” When it looks as if any restriction will be placed upon abortion “rights,” they run to their closets and start waving coathangers frantically.
In other words, when it appears that the majority is on your side, you don’t have to prove anything. Over the years one feminist strategy has been to present this as a woman’s issue which is being opposed by MEN whose highest goal in life is to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Now does that notion make even a little bit of sense? Even among those who are pro-life, the vast majority of them have only two or three children. Some pro-life couples have more, like the Catholic woman we knew in Peoria who had given birth to 18! I never saw her barefoot, but she had to have spent several years in pregnancy. Anyway, she was opposed to abortion (birth control, too, apparently).
Not only do a large percentage of women oppose abortion, a tremendous number of men support it. Now that’s not hard to figure, is it? If you were a young pup enjoying the sexual revolution, and the woman who’d been sharing your fantasies suddenly announced she was pregnant, what would you do (besides swallow your bubble gum)? This free-and-easy lifestyle is thunderously threatened! But then she says, “I think I’d better have an abortion; we’re not ready to be parents.” “Whew!” he thinks, having already estimated what a child is going to cost him from infancy through college graduation. “Yeah, I guess you’re right,” he acquiesces. He is so thrilled at not having to bear the consequences of his actions that he offers to pay for it. It’s a bargain for him. Then he gets to continue to act irresponsibly. Wouldn’t you think this entire sordid sequence of thoughts would dawn on at least one major feminist? Why hasn’t even one of them advocated keeping the child and making the male chauvinist pay?
The “Fetus”
Some people enjoy playing semantic games; one invented by feminists is to call the unborn child a “fetus,” which is so nondescript and not nearly so personal as “baby.” Until the feminist movement began to influence society (with the help of the media), when did a doctor ever say, “Good morning, Mrs. Gray, how are you and the fetus doing”? When did a wife ever tell her husband, “Honey, I felt the fetus move today”?
Nobody in her right mind would deny that the “fetus” is a human being. Not only have pictures of the developing child been available (long before Roe vs. Wade), but now surgical procedures are being performed two to three months before birth to correct the baby’s health problems. Biblically, there has never been a question of the child’s humanity. Consider Mary and Elizabeth.
When Mary was informed that she was chosen to bear Jesus (Luke 13:31), she was also told that her cousin Elizabeth had conceived a son in her old age (Luke 1:36). Mary went to visit her and stayed from the sixth month to the ninth month, but she departed before John was born (Luke 1:36, 39, 56). Notice that Elizabeth’s son “leaped in her womb” when Mary greeted her (Luke 1:41). He didn’t just wiggle a little; he leaped. The Greek word, consistently translated “leaped,” is used only three times in the New Testament: Luke 1:41 & 44; Luke 6:23 is quoted below.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven,
For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
The leaping of Luke 6:23, which is enjoined upon men, is the same done by the “babe” in the other two verses. According to Kittel the Septuagint also uses it in Joel 1:17 (our v. 18) of “calves tearing at their stalls in fear” (7:401). In the New Testament, however, the leap is one of joy.
The second thing about Luke 1:41 and 44 is that the Greek word translated “babe,” referring to the child in his sixth month of development is the same word that is used of Jesus after his birth in Luke 2:12 and 16. In other words, God makes no distinction; a “babe” or a “child” is such whether in or out of the womb. God did not use a neutral word for the child in the womb and then assign him human status after birth; the “fetus” is always regarded as a human being.
Guess who agrees with this assessment? If you chose Margaret Sanger, “the mother of the modern-day birth control movement and the founder of Planned Parenthood,” you got it right. William D. Watkins, in his book, The New Absolutes, lists several quotations from the founder of the agency that performs the most abortions annually (and that recommends many more).
On the status of the fetus, Sanger wrote, “No new life begins unless there is conception. From this beginning grows the embryo which in time becomes a child.” Abortion kills life. Birth control “prevents the beginning of life” (79).
Whether or not Sanger would agree with her organization today is speculation. The fact is, however, that she stated it correctly in 1934. She also called abortion “repulsive,” “cruel, wicked, and heartless,” “abnormal, often dangerous” and “an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn” (78-79).
Selfishness and Guilt
Watkins’ book contains several quotations from women who have been honest enough to admit that they wanted their abortions for purely selfish reasons.
“There was no question about this pregnancy. I really don’t want the hassle. I don’t want to be bothered with a baby, and that’s the cold, hard truth” 157).
“I had three abortions in five years. . . . I have to say that I had my abortions for convenience. The reasons were selfish” (157).
Of course, feminists disguise this motivation by emphasizing a woman’s “rights,” all the while denying the child, a separate human entity, any rights whatsoever. Groups such as Planned Parenthood also fail to warn women that they may be plagued with guilt. And while some women claim not to experience any, others are engulfed and consumed by it.
“I chose to abort my baby in January of 1980. I was seventeen years old. The tremendous guilt and sense of loss since then have, at times, been insurmountable. I tried, for nearly five years, to justify my decision to abort. “I was too young,” “I was going to college in the fall,” “Where would I be now if I had a baby,” etc. I came up with all the really good excuses–but none of them eased the turmoil that was inside me” (158).
Another woman tells of how she tried to compensate for the pain she felt after her abortion by anesthetizing herself with drugs and alcohol; another planned her own suicide (158). Some have probably succeeded. Another woman’s response was becoming “the strongest pro-choice supporter you could find. It was my way of making sure that what I had done was right. . . . You have to keep telling everyone that you did the right thing” (159).
Abortion advocates continue to hold the upper hand despite not having a single logical argument or the endorsement of their founding “mother.” The media will continue to side with the feminists; more innocent “babes” will die. And, according to Biblical teaching, abortion is still murder.
Max Lucado is an inventive guy. Too inventive. Sometimes his musings reflect an ignorance of the Scriptures, and sometimes he ventures into the realm of blasphemy. The quotation about Sarai and Abraham above (See “Max Lucado Marked”) shows his ignorance of the Bible. Abraham did laugh (Gen. 17:17), but it was on an occasion prior to the one under discussion above. Sarah (as she is called in the text) was not toothless or wrinkled. If she was, the rest of the women of Gerar must have been worse than “pitted prunes.” Or maybe her Mary Kay did a bang-up job. But when Abraham traveled to Gerar and said that she was his sister, she was attractive enough that Abimelech took her home–for sexual purposes (Gen. 20:1-6). She was only 89 at the time and didn’t die for nearly 40 more years (Gen. 23:1).
What was funny to her was not that anyone would desire her, but that she would have a child when she was past the age of childbearing. For Isaac to be born Sarah’s “time of life” had to be returned to her (Gen. 18:14). Would not most women today think it peculiar to have a child when it was not possible? That is the reason the question is asked, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14).
Perhaps Max could avoid problems like these if he spent more time reading what the Bible says instead of fantasizing about what it does NOT say.
Erring on factual information is bad enough; but he is way out of line in assigning motives to people. Some will think that the article on the front page of this week’s bulletin is cruel and unkind. But it is no different and no worse than what he does to Bible personalities.
Consider the following paragraphs from When God Whispers Your Name. The first one begins chapter 8 (“Gabriel’s Questions”); the second one follows shortly.
Gabriel must have scratched his head at this one. He wasn’t one to question God-given missions. Sending fire and dividing seas were all in an eternity’s work for this angel. When God sent, Gabriel went (55).
Why not compose “Max’s Questions”? Max, where does the Bible teach that Gabriel was involved in dividing the Red Sea? And in what passage did he send down fire? Even the paraphrases you use don’t say that. But even worse is the following elaboration.
So Gabriel scratched his head. What happened to the good old days? The Sodom and Gomorrah stuff. Flooding the globe. Flaming swords. That’s the action he liked (56).
This is poetic license gone to seed! Imagine the audacity of someone portraying a worthy angel of God as a warmongering, destructive fanatic! Lucado owes both God and Gabriel an apology for treating them in such a disrespectful fashion. The very idea of a holy angel getting excited about destroying sinners! Would not the angelic host share the attitude expressed by God when He says: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11)?
Surely, some of Max’s devotees know enough Bible to object to his loose, inaccurate handling of the Scriptures. If so, it’s time they spoke up and told him to quit assigning motives to the heroes and heroines of the faith and judging the motives of angels.
It is a fact that many churches of Christ use books written by Max Lucado in their Bible study classes. Let me share with you why this greatly concerns me and why it should greatly concern you as well. In the introduction to Mr. Lucado’s book When God Whispers Your Name, he says that because of the reader’s cautiousness, he has a mandate to be loyal to the scriptures (4). He also states: “I’m not for watering down the truth or compromising the gospel” (54).
After such a proclamation, I was troubled when I read chapter 22 from his book entitled, A Gentle Thunder: Hearing God Through The Storm. On page 144 he quotes part of John 15:16 from the New Century Version of the Bible. Mr. Lucado writes, “‘I gave you this work,’ he explained, ‘to go and produce fruit, fruit that will last.'” Then on page 146 he makes this contradictory statement.
You can’t force fruit. That’s why nowhere in this text does Jesus tell you to go out and bear fruit. Go ahead, look. I did. It ain’t there. Then what does he command us to do? Read John 15 for yourself: “Remain in me. . .” (v.4). “Remain in the vine. . .” (v.4). “If any remain in me and I remain in them, they produce much fruit” (V.5). “Remain in me. . .” (v.6). “Remain in me. . .” (v.7). “Remain in my love. . .” (v.9). “Remain in my love. . .” (v.10).
How can Mr. Lucado quote a Bible commandment from Jesus and two pages later claim that such a commandment “ain’t there”? He mentions verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 from John 15. How did he miss verse 8 where Jesus says, “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples”? It is clear that we are commanded to bear fruit.
You may think this to be simply a mistake, but I believe the reason he wants to ignore the commandment to bear fruit is because it places some responsibility on us as Christians. That is the clear impression from many portions of his books. For instance, in chapter 25 of his book, When God Whispers Your Name, Mr. Lucado writes: “The holiness of God highlights the sin of man. Then what do we do? If it is true that ‘Anyone whose life is not holy will never see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14), where do we turn?” (183). Then he quotes and comments on Exodus 33:21-23.
“There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes that place, I will take away my hand, and you will see my back. But my face must not be seen.” Did you see what Moses was to do? Neither did I. Did you note who did the work? So did I. God did! God is active!
Mr. Lucado correctly points out that only those that are holy will see the Lord. Moses was deemed holy as revealed in Exodus 33:17, when God tells him “thou hast found grace in my sight.” But how did Moses find that grace? It was because he obeyed God by doing his part to deliver his people out of Egypt (Ex. 33:12). Moses did ask to see God’s glory (Ex. 33:18), but he clearly did more than “just ask.” Just read the entire book of Exodus to discover how much Moses did. As Christians, is “just asking” all we must do in order to see God? Hebrews 12:14 does say we must be holy, but verse 15 says in order to remain holy we must be diligent so that we don’t fall from God’s grace. Also, if we want to receive, we must not ask amiss (James 4:3). In order to not ask amiss, don’t we need to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9)? Mr. Lucado tries to subdue our responsibility. By the way, why was Moses not allowed to enter the promised land? It was his punishment for disobeying God (Numbers 20:7-12).
In chapter 3 of the same book Mr. Lucado says:
So, what do you think? What does God do when we are in a bind? If Moses and Jehoshaphat are any indication, that question can be answered with one word: Fights. He fights for us. He steps into the ring and points us to our corner and takes over. “Remain calm; the Lord will fight for you” (Exod. 14:14). Our job is to trust. Just trust. Not direct. Or question. Or yank the steering wheel out of his hands. Our job is to pray and wait. Nothing more is necessary. Nothing more is needed” (161).
If we do nothing, why did Paul say in 2 Timothy 4:7, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith? Does it sound like all Paul did was “just trust”? It sounds to me that he understood he had a role in his own salvation. However, he did trust God. In verse 8, Paul tells us why. “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day.” Paul trusted that if he fought and kept the faith, then he would reap the reward of salvation. Also, in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul says, “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain: but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Paul is saying it is our responsibility to work hard so that the blessing of God’s grace for us is not wasted or ineffectual. The Christian has the obligation to “keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21).
The final example I want to share of Mr. Lucado’s negligence concerning the Bible (though there are many more to choose from) is from The Applause of Heaven. He refers to the time God tells Abraham that Sarah will have a son. He describes the scene as follows.
They laugh at the lunacy of it all. Abraham looks over at Sarai–toothless and snoring in her rocker, head back and mouth wide open, as fruitful as a pitted prune and just as wrinkled. And he cracks up. He tries to contain it, but he can’t. He has always been a sucker for a good joke. Sarai is just as amused. When she hears the news, a cackle escapes before she can contain it. She mumbles something about her husband’s needing a lot more than what he’s got and then laughs again. They laugh because that is what you do when someone says he can do the impossible. They laugh a little at God, and a lot with God–for God is laughing, too. Then with the smile still on his face, he gets busy doing what he does best–the unbelievable (38).
What happened to Mr. Lucado’s mandate to be loyal to the Scriptures? God’s response, after Sarah laughs, is found in Genesis 18:13-15, “And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.”
Does it sound like God was amused? If anything, it was insulting, for he asks, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” Sarah obviously didn’t think God found it amusing because she denied laughing, “for she was afraid.” Then God let her know he caught her in a lie, “No; but you did laugh.” And where did Mr. Lucado get the idea that Abraham laughed at God?
Such inaccurate and inappropriate treatment of the Scriptures should make any Christian that fears and loves God concerned. We should pray for men like Max Lucado that they will repent. We also have the responsibility to “mark” them for they serve their “own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple [innocent],” as shown in Romans 16:17-18.
A few weeks ago in the early morning hours, between unconsciousness and dawn, I had a vision. Of Max Lucado. He was meditating diligently over what to write in his next denominationally-endorsed, best-selling book.
The first problem was finding a catchy title. Readers respond to creativeness. Should it evoke wondrous anticipation (When God Whispers Your Name) or describe God in seemingly conflicting terms (Gentle Thunder)? For a moment, Demanding Grace appealed to him as a title, but then he remembered that he didn’t believe there were any conditions placed upon grace. Which is what made him so popular in the first place.
“Oh, well,” he sighed, “I don’t really need to have a title or a theme yet. Maybe it’ll come to me after I write a few chapters.” He pulled out a file filled with illustrations that he had accumulated since he completed his last book. Some were anecdotal stories involving his kids. Others were Bible stories he had made modern equivalents out of. Hey! There’s a thought. “If I do this often enough, some day I can publish the Modern Equivalent Bible. It would be a little like the Cotton Patch, only better, since I’m writing it.”
Then he pulled out his “testimonial” file. These consisted of comments from people who had abundantly praised him for his words of wisdom at workshops or who had written letters to share with him some of their difficult struggles. Or to thank him for helping them to overcome them. As he shuffled through some of these, one in particular caught his attention. It was written in “graceful” handwriting. By one who’d seen the light.
“Brother Lucado, I used to be so legalistic, but after reading your books, I feel truly liberated. How could I have been so deluded to think that obedience had anything to do with my salvation? For years I told my denominational brethren that they needed to be baptized to have forgiveness of sins. they needed to be baptized to have forgiveness of sins. Needless to say, they didn’t like me very much. But now that I’ve discovered that Acts 2:38 doesn’t matter any more and that we’re all guests on board the same Fellow-Ship, I’m really enjoying Christianity. After all, if they say God is their Father, that’s good enough for me. Oh, and guess what? All those people who used to hide when they saw me coming like me now. This is so much better than being rejected all the time. It feels good to have so many brethren now. Thanks so much for opening my eyes.”
Letters like these sure compensated for the petty criticisms he received from his legalistic detractors. “I suppose every age must be cursed with a few Pharisees,” he chuckled to himself. Then he made a note to fit into this book a few choice words about Pharisees.
After several minutes of sorting through the files, MA$ had jotted down some notes. “That ought to do for an outline–20 chapters with 20 simple points. Best to stick to the formula. No need to confuse the reader with logical arguments or cumbersome details that might stretch their mental capabilities. Why give them filet mignon when they can only handle strained applesauce?”
Then came the hardest part of all–reading the Bible to find Scriptures to fit the stories. Fortunately, intense study was not necessary for simple points.
(In connection to this article, please read, “Poetic License Gone To Seed”.)
William D. Watkins must have spent months or years compiling the material in his book, The New Absolutes, published just a few months ago. Most of the chapters average between 50 and 100 endnotes. Although some things may be alluded to, most of the time the reader will find a direct quotation.
Although the book is extremely current (referring to events as recent as last summer), it also provides source material that should be of help for years to come. One excellent feature is the “Index of Proper Names,” which will enable the reader to quickly find any individual discussed or quoted from.
The book’s 319 pages are packed with powerful information presented in a very readable style (it’s difficult to put down!), beginning with the author’s discussion with a classmate who claimed to be God. The dedication is of interest in that it sets the tone for the book:
To Dr. James Slinger
The first person to give me sound philosophical reasons to believe in absolute truth and universal moral prescriptions.
While the book compares relativism with moral absolutes, it is not a book of theory but rather one that is thoroughly practical. Part One, “Reality in the Balance,” introduces the subject by listing some quotes most people have heard, some of which are listed below.
“What’s true for you may not be true for me.”
“One person’s art is another person’s pornography.”
“There are no objective morals, just differing opinions.”
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
“If it feels right, do it” (21).
All of these phrases and slogans are designed to promote moral relativism. While it is true that we all have many preferences based on personal taste, such scarcely proves that nothing can be morally and objectively true–regardless of man’s personal opinions. There are mathematical, scientific, and spiritual truths which are true no matter what someone’s personal opinion of them is.
Water is composed of two hydrogen elements and one oxygen even if someone “feels” that there should be two parts oxygen to one part hydrogen. Using the common number base of ten, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 even if somebody thinks that’s not fair. Those who obey the gospel from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18) shall be saved (Mark 16:16), and those who refuse to do so shall suffer eternal condemnation whether or not anybody agrees with God on the matter.
The author demonstrates the importance of this subject by pointing out that, according to a Barna survey, even among those who fancy themselves as conservative evangelicals, who believe that “the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches”–even among these, 42% reject the concept of absolute truth (27). What a frightening (not to mention contradictory) thought!
Moral relativism may be defined by the last verse in the book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25). In other words, we submit to laws and government only if we feel like it. James Patterson and Peter Kim, authors of the book, The Day America Told the Truth, commented on the results of their survey:
We are the law unto ourselves. We have made ourselves authority over church and God. We have made ourselves the clear authority over the government. We have made ourselves the authority over laws and the police (29).
Although we might not be surprised at this attitude toward civil law (in spite of the fact that the Bible clearly teaches us to respect and abide by it–1 Peter 2:13-17), 84% of people surveyed said “they would violate the established rules of their religion” (29). One would think that we, not Jesus, were going to judge ourselves on Judgment Day (John 5:27 & 12:48). Most of us, apparently, think we have a perfect right to sit in judgment of God and His Divine teachings; from whence comes this presumptuous ability? We feel empowered by the philosophy of this age; as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. observed: “Relativism is the American way” (29).
Although the leaders of moral relativism preach that there are no absolutes, they have merely replaced Biblical truths with secular speculations. The author devotes a chapter to each of the ten “new absolutes.” The first of these is: “Religion is the bane of public life; so for the public good it should be banned from the public square.”
Attention is devoted in this chapter to the ACLU and the distortion of the First Amendment. With nearly fanatical pursuit, ACLU lawyers and sympathetic courts have accomplished the following feats.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s creation of a public school district that benefited a Hasidic Jewish community’s attempt to provide quality education for two hundred handicapped and learning disabled children (51).
Twenty-four pro-life Christians were arrested and imprisoned in Atlanta, Georgia, because they were praying on a public sidewalk near an abortion facility (51).
. . . in Texas, a fifty-seven-year-old grandmother “was handcuffed, strip-searched, and thrown in an unheated jail cell for the ‘crime’ of passing out religious tracts on the public roadway across from a high school” (52).
. . . a “federal court saw that ‘nothing could be more dangerous’ than an adolescent seeing the football captain, the student body president, or ‘the leading actress in a dramatic production participating in communal prayer meetings in the captive audience setting of a school'” (52).
The judge threw out the case because of this incident. He held that “‘consulting a Bible during jury deliberations breaches the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution'” (52).
Six students in Illinois were arrested, detained in squad cars, and threatened with mace all because they prayed around their school’s flagpole as part of an annual national event called “See you at the flagpole” (54).
When this case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, “the attorney for the school board and the State of New York admitted that the board would allow communists, atheists, and agnostics in their school auditorium after school hours to address family issues and even to proselytize against religion but that they would not allow even a single minister to debate a room full of atheists in front of an atheist audience” (55).
These are just a smattering of some of the lunacies being “justified” by the first amendment. The author then presents a historical perspective of what the founding fathers really believed; he shows how their actions were consistent with those beliefs.
The second absolute of the modern era is: “Human life, which begins and ends when certain individuals or groups decide it does, is valuable as long as it is wanted” (65). The author spotlights some of the individuals who have brought us to our current “low” view of life: Thomas Malthus (69-73), Charles Darwin (73-77), and Margaret Sanger (77-83). The summaries are brief yet packed with information–and pertinent to understanding how we arrived at moral relativism.
The third new absolute is: “Marriage is a human contract made between any two people, and either party can terminate it for any reason” (89). Knowing that the philosophy of marriage had changed somewhat, the author was shocked to find out that in his daughter’s class at school only two children did NOT have parents who had divorced–and the other teenager’s father had died a year earlier (89).
Many useful facts and statistics are included, some of which are that the average length of first marriages is eight years,the average length of second marriages is six years (93), and the divorce rate is about 50% higher for those who live together first than for those who do not (94).
“Family is any grouping of two or more people with or without children” is the fourth new absolute. This new definition is obviously intended to include homosexuals. The author provides an historical look at family life in Rome and shows how Christianity changed the pagan concepts of the family. In the past thirty years, however, we have sadly degenerated to that which was rightly left behind.
“Love the One You’re With,” the name of the 1970 Stephen Stills’ hit, was selected as the title of the chapter dealing with the fifth new absolute: “Sexual intercourse is permissible regardless of marital status” (113). Many of the statistics presented reflect about what we would think of American sexuality, but some are surprising, such as a 1990 study in which 40% of girls said they were NOT virgins by the ninth grade (121). Imagine the forces that must be at work to cause nearly half of all young girls to engage in sexual activity by the age of 14! We have certainly come a long way since 1890 when fornication was prosecuted as a crime (119).
This chapter also contains an overview of the career of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who has made such profound statements as “we can’t legislate morals” (127) and “it’s time to teach them [teenagers] what to do in the backseat” (124). When her sex education policies and programs were instituted in Arkansas, teen pregnancy rose 15%, cases of syphilis “skyrocketed 130 percent, and HIV infection went up even higher to 150 percent” (125). However, it wasn’t her fault; she blamed “poverty and ignorance and the Bible-belt mentality” (126). Fortunately, she is no longer “fixing” America.
The sixth new absolute is “All forms and combinations of sexual activity are moral as long as they occur between consenting parties” (131). A special profile of Alfred Kinsey is included, along with his “contributions” to our current sexually-deviant society (133-40). Lest anyone think that perverted sexual relations will not affect most of society, the author relates that in Boston some high schools “give official recognition to students from their campuses who march in the annual Boston Gay Pride parade,” and in New York there is a Harvey Milk High School that “provides ‘support and service’ for homosexual and bisexual youth” (145).
Worse yet is the movement seeking to decriminalize pedophilia. Dr. John Money, professor emeritus of no less an institution than Johns Hopkins University, thinks that ten-year-old boys ought to be allowed to develop erotic relationships with older men (148). A magazine devoted to this purpose, called Paedika, although published in the Netherlands, includes a number of professors from American universities on its editorial board (270). If we ever descend to such a sleazy level, the paganization of America will be just about complete.
New absolute #7 is: “Women are oppressed by men and must liberate themselves by controlling their own bodies and therefore their destinies” (149). This chapter includes some fascinating perspectives about abortion and a case study of Gloria Steinem (160-65). One of Catharine MacKinnon’s outrageous statements is also cited: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishablilty of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment” (167). If they are all the same, it kind of makes a person wonder why she elected to become married.
The new absolute regarding race is: “All human beings are created equal and should therefore be treated with dignity and respect, but people of color should receive preferential treatment” (171). A history of slavery is given and explained (but not defended). The author also shows some of the forces that have led to the disintegration of black families. Tragically, “almost seven out of every ten black births are illegitimate,” “more black males are in prison than in college,” and “ninety-three percent of black murder victims were killed by blacks in cases where there was a single offender and a single victim” (188). Not too many decades ago black families were stable; this information is thought-provoking.
The ninth new absolute is: “Non-Western societies and other oppressed peoples and their heritage should be studied and valued above Western civilization” (193). Also known as multi-culturalism, the thrust of this movement is to rewrite history, downplay famous heroes of the past, and replace them with studies about women and minorities. One textbook produced for 5th-6th graders focuses on a ten-year-old Japanese girl who dies painfully from radiation as a result of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; nothing is said about Pearl Harbor or the Bataan death march (203).
The final new absolute considered is: “Only those viewpoints deemed politically correct should be tolerated and encouraged to prevail” (207). Basically, this view allows for the expression of all ideas–except Christian ones. Included in the chapter are discussion of the media’s claim that racial hatred was causing the burning of black churches last summer (214-18), efforts of homosexuals to find someone to persecute them (218-20), and the judicial activism of the Supreme Court (220-22).
The final two chapters of the book provide hope that things will change for the better. The basic idea is that the politically-correct new absolutes will fall from their own weight–that sooner or later people will recognize that lawlessness doesn’t work. It is, of course, possible for a nation to repent (Nineveh, for example), but some (such as Sodom) degenerate toward destruction.
Ten forms of immorality are common to the downfall of several nations; Carle Zimmerman wrote of these in Family and Civilization, published in 1947. Among the ten are “quick, easy, no-fault divorces” and “common acceptance of all forms of sex perversions” (236-37). These two alone give us a fair estimation of where we are. But notice this positive observation: “Zimmerman points out that after the Roman Empire fell, the outside force that restored social and family order was the Christian church” (239).
The endnotes frequently contain additional, helpful information and source material. This book can probably be found in most “Christian” bookstores. It costs about $20 and is easily worth such an amount. The author is the founding editor of Liberty, Life and Family Journal.
Usually around the holidays newspapers and magazines carry articles about a common affliction suffered by many during this time of year–depression. Many experience this emotional state because they are lonely. Perhaps they have lost a lifelong mate, or their children no longer live nearby. Reflecting on past years of enjoyment and excitement only serves to intensify the problem.
To make matters worse, it has now been discovered that those who battle frequent bouts of depression are “four times more likely than others to have a heart attack” (Denton Record-Chronicle, 12-18-96, 15A). Great! One more thing to worry about and become depressed over!
The apostle Paul was once deserted. After many years of faithful service (which included enduring physical attacks and mental anguish), he found himself on trial with no one to support him.
“At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be laid to their charge” (2 Tim. 4:16).
Well, we have no mention of whether this trial occurred during the holidays or not, but since the apostles didn’t celebrate Christmas, it certainly wasn’t a factor in adding to Paul’s isolation. The apostle who labored so diligently to build up others, who emphasized so much hospitality and fellowship and love, was alone. Those who feel alone during the holidays know the feeling will pass, and soon things will return to normal. Paul, however, was on trial for his life. And he stood alone!
How did he do it? If there were ever a cause to feel depressed, it would be the precise situation he was faced with. One would expect the enemies of Christianity to persecute him–and possibly decide to take his life. But to endure such an injustice without the aid of any brethren to offer comfort and support seems excessive.
Paul remained steadfast because “the Lord stood with me and strengthened me” (2 Tim. 4:17). Regardless of what happens here on earth–no matter how disappointed we might be in human beings, God is with us. We have not believed in vain. The same Lord who is our Shepherd and accompanies us through the valley of the shadow of death is also near through trials and periods of loneliness. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:1).
Did Jesus feel deserted in his hour of need? His disciples could not even stay awake while He agonized in Gethsemane. They fled at His capture. No one defended Him at His trial. What incredible loneliness He must have felt on the cross–totally deserted in the midst of a multitude.
God cannot be unsympathetic with those who feel alone. Paul also understood people being thoughtless at the very time they should exercise the most concern. But he knew God had not forgotten him. Neither does the Lord overlook or lose sight of even the least of those who have obeyed the gospel, who belong to Jesus. Our knowledge of this fact should fortify us and cause us to pray, as it has been expressed in song: “In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me!”
