When we think about the apostle Paul, the characteristic of humility may not be the first thing that comes to mind. True, he wrote one of the greatest passages in the New Testament on the subject, which begins with, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). He also admonished the Corinthian brethren not to be “puffed up on behalf of one against the other” (1 Cor. 4:6). In the next verse he asks who made them different and what did they have that they did not receive, the point being that if they received it, what did they have to boast about?
When Paul comes to mind, we are far more likely to recall the controversial soldier of the cross, engaged in preaching and defending the gospel, and we usually don’t think of warriors as humble men. Much of what this great man of God wrote was designed to rebuke sin, set forth truth, and vanquish the arguments of false teachers. In our current age, anyone who attempts to do the same thing is viewed by many as arrogant, combative, negative, legalistic, unloving, and lacking an irenic spirit. Certainly, he will be viewed as practically anything but humble.
Can a person be at the forefront of things while retaining spiritual qualities? Moses could. This great, God-appointed leader of Israel “was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Likewise, Paul, the outspoken apostle, was a humble man. His humility is demonstrated in at least three events in his life: his conversion, his submission in the face of controversy, and his admission of misjudgment. Let’s consider each of these.
Paul’s Conversion
As he is introduced in the book of Acts, Saul is a zealous Jew and a fanatical persecutor of Christians. He is a ringleader of the Jews who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58). He shut up in prison many of the saints, punished them in every synagogue, compelled them to blaspheme, and voted against them that they might be put to death (Acts 26:10-11). Verse 11 also records Paul saying that he was “exceedingly enraged” against Christians, persecuting them to foreign cities.
It was while Saul was engaged in this pursuit that the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:12-18). Imagine how thunderstruck Saul was! Evidence that he was 100% wrong in his view of Jesus and the church engulfed and overwhelmed him. Jesus had not informed him that he was a teensy bit off in his theological views; he was completely and thoroughly wrong. How would he respond?
He could have said, “I don’t care about that appearance on the road to Damascus; I was born a Jew, and I’ll die a Jew.” He did not reason, “Well, there’s no doubt about my having been wrong, but I cant change. What would my friends say? What would my family say? What would the chief priests and the Pharisees think? No, it’s just too much; I can’t give all that up.”
Lest someone think that Saul did not have those options, he states: “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19), which implies that disobedience was a choice.
Saul of Tarsus, persecutor extraordinaire, had some serious soul-searching to do. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. His new family would be the very ones he had tried to destroy. He had put in prison and put to death innocent souls.
Surely Saul had no choice but to admit his error. Oh, really? How many times have people studied the words of Jesus (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”–Mark 16:16) and concluded that faith was all they needed? How many have heard what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”–Acts 2:38) and said, “I don’t care what the Bible says; I feel my salvation right here in my heart”?
“But Jesus didn’t say it to them directly,” someone protests. So what? He said it directly to the apostles, and they recorded it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26). If Jesus were to say it to them personally, would it somehow be more valid? Truth is Truth, whether spoken or written (2Thess. 2:15). Saul could have rejected Jesus even after He appeared to him. What kept him from doing so was his respect for Truth and his conscience (Acts 23:1). What keeps many out of the kingdom of heaven is that they have no love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:15). Like the Pharisees, they prefer their religious traditions over the Word of God (Matt. 15:1-9).
Saul virtually had to put to death the old man to become a follower of Jesus. Saul died; the apostle Paul was born. His rebirth did not occur on the road to Damascus, however. Saul was not saved there. Nor was he saved as a result of fasting and praying for three days (Acts 9:9, 11). How do we know? A person cannot be saved and yet retain all of his sins; neither can he be born sinful. When Ananias comes to tell Paul what he “must” do (Acts 9:6), he asks him, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
Saul was no longer his old self; his relationship to God had changed. So had his relationship to mankind. His old religion was replaced by the new; he was, for all practical purposes, dead to his old “brethren.” He becomes the apostle Paul, debtor to all men (Rom. 1:14). He may have been born a Jew, but he will die a faithful Christian. How? He will become the faithful apostle Paul, loved by Christians throughout all generations because he was humble enough to admit that what he had been taught was no longer correct or valid. The Jewish system had been replaced.
How sad that many today refuse to consider that what they have been taught and what they have believed could be wrong. They could have salvation if they just had the humility Saul did (Matt. 5:3).
The Jerusalem Conference
As Paul began his missionary journeys, he began teaching New Testament doctrine, which included the fact that Jesus is Lord, the prophet about whom Moses wrote (Deut. 18:15-19), the new lawgiver. In fact, the old covenant was done away with; it was nailed to the cross. Circumcision was not a requirement for Gentiles when they became Christians; neither were Gentiles required to obey any of the laws from the Old Testament. While the Gentiles undoubtedly appreciated this fact, Jewish Christians could not understand it.
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
First of all, it should be observed that these “certain men” were brethren. Such may be inferred from the fact that they had access to the brethren in Antioch, who gave them a hearing. Such may also be determined from the letter written to the church in Antioch, in which it is stated that those who troubled the church there “went out from us” (Acts 15:24). BUT, what they were teaching had not been authorized by the apostles in Jerusalem. They had not such a doctrine themselves, nor had they given them any such commandment to others. In other words, these men were teaching and trying to bind their opinions on the church.
The book of Galatians bears witness to the problems created by these Judaizing teachers, who were not reluctant in the least to infiltrate churches with their error. Years later they were still a force. When Paul came to Jerusalem, James and all the elders informed him:
“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20).
Then, if the church persisted, he could have said, “Well, you go if you want, but it’s a waste of time. I already told you that Gentiles are not required to obey the law of Moses. That’s what they will say in Jerusalem, also, because there is one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. Furthermore, if you have so little confidence in me, why don’t you just find someone else to support? I’m resigning.” Instead Paul humbly submitted to the proposed solution.
Years later, when he returned to Jerusalem and it was suggested that he take a vow with four other men to demonstrate that he had not taught Jews to forsake the law of Moses (only that Gentiles were not subject to it), Paul humbly acquiesced (perhaps wrongfully so–Acts 21:21-24).
Again, a prouder man might have said, “Don’t you know I have preached the gospel in many parts of the world, laid my life on the line several times, and fought against this Judaizing mentality everywhere while you’ve been enjoying all the comforts of city dwelling? Furthermore, I have written letters to brethren in Galatia, Corinth, and Rome about circumcision, eating of meats, and so on. My position is clear; I’m not about to go along with this silly idea just to please a few addle-brained brethren.” Instead Paul acted out of humility.
A Change of Opinion
One of the hardest things for someone to do is to admit that he misjudged a person. Some people form first impressions and never change them, no matter what. Such an attitude does not allow for spiritual growth on the part of others (perhaps because there is none in that person’s life?).
Paul developed an unfavorable view of John Mark based on the fact that he left the evangelistic work they were doing. No reason is cited for his departure (Acts 13:13), but Paul was convinced that no reason could be sufficient. When they began to plan their second journey, Barnabas wanted to include John Mark, but Paul absolutely refused to take with them again one who “had not gone with them to the work.” The disagreement over this point was so sharp that the evangelistic team split up (Acts 15:37-41). Would Mark always be a spiritual ne’er-do-well in Paul’s eyes?
The young man was not some unknown quantity. It was to the house of John Mark’s mother, Mary, that Peter came when he was released from prison (Acts 12:12). He had been selected to accompany Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:25). Furthermore, he was Barnabas’ cousin (Col. 4:10). But he had left the work for what Paul considered to be an invalid reason.
Although Paul refused to give this brother another chance on that occasion, he did change his view of him. “Only Luke is with me,” Paul wrote in his final letter to Timothy. “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11). Less humble men would not have altered that previous opinion. “Why, ten years ago this brother wronged me (or made a mistake); that’s the reason I have such a low view of him.” Paul recognized that Mark had more than made up for his “leaving the work.” More conciliation and less confrontation among faithful brethren today would be a tremendous advantage for the kingdom of God.
Application
Today’s world does not exalt Truth; philosophers and educators teach young people that they cannot KNOW anything and that Truth does not exist. Their own presumptuousness does not dawn upon them; they label as arrogant those who know that Jesus died for the sins of the world and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This form of narrow-mindedness would be bad enough, but there is a worse injustice.
There are professors in “Christian” universities parroting their secular counterparts. There are too many preaching in once-faithful congregations of the Lord’s church who may preach some Biblical sermons–but never the whole counsel of God. These ridicule and badmouth faithful proclaimers of the Word of God (but not to their faces–they’re too cowardly for that). They will call them proud and unreasonable men (notwithstanding they are the ones who refuse to discuss matters). And while there may be some who are full of themselves and think more highly of themselves than they ought, most faithful gospel preachers are humble men.
The fact that Paul’s preaching of the gospel involved controversy did not make him a factious trouble-maker. The fact that he called attention to the differences between Truth and error did not make him arrogant. He proved his sincerity in laying down his life for His Lord; many preachers today would imitate that exact pattern (unlike the large-salaried hirelings among us). Humility is not inconsistent with being concerned about DOCTRINE. One can be committed to Christ, sound in the faith, and a lover of Truth–and be humble at the same time. Paul serves as a premiere illustration of this fact.
Time recently published an article entitled “Kids and Pot” by Lance Morrow (December 9, 1996). The article itself contains some useful information for today’s parents, such as the following.
Use of pot by young people rose 105% from 1992 to 1994, and gained 37% between 1994 and 1995. At the Phoenix House Foundation 10 years ago, 13% of adolescents sought treatment for marijuana; today that figure has jumped to 40% (28).
It has hardly discredited the substance that Head Boomer Bill Clinton, after stating four years ago that he hadn’t inhaled, told an MTV audience that he wishes he could have done so (29).
Could it be that the famous reluctance of the baby boomer to imagine himself as an adult has something to do with the weed he smoked when young? It is in the realm of the emotional development that marijuana does its damage (30).
Certainly these facts are disconcerting, but what accompanied the article was worse. Eight individuals were asked to comment on what to tell children about smoking marijuana. Some of those addressing this issue make valid points while others are wishy-washy. But the very first person whose advice is recorded is that of Joycelyn Elders, the former Surgeon General who has rarely (if ever) uttered an intelligent public comment.
Why would Time ask a woman whose son was convicted on drug charges what to say to children? Whatever she might say obviously failed in her own family. Anyone who reads her “advice” will understand why. She advocates making an appointment with one’s child (30). Is this approach needed in most families? Is everyone so busy that appointments must be scheduled so that family members can communicate?
After admonishing parents not to be judgmental (horrors-we wouldn’t want to convey the idea that certain types of behavior are morally wrong!), she tells them to take several deep breaths if they learn that their children are on or contemplating using drugs (30). This is an interesting treatment of the problem. Read the next sentence carefully.
Remember, your goal is not to change your child’s behavior because that is impossible (30).
Oh, really? That attitude would seem to make parents rather obsolete. Dr. Elders may not be aware that the Bible says, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of the child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Pr. 22:15). But to leave off the above quotation where we did would not be fair since there was more to it-although what follows appears to be a contradiction.
Your goal is to encourage and guide your child into changing his or her own behavior (30).
The distinction between the two statements apparently involves getting the child to change behaviors as a matter of his or her own choice-as opposed to doing so as a response to external constraints. Well, of course, that would be ideal. Parents ought always to reason with their children and explain why something is not in their best interests, but if all that fails (and appealing to someone’s good nature often does), then parents need to take stronger action.
Parental discipline must be applied to correct wrong behavior. The writer of Hebrews states some truths today’s parents would do well to heed.
And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (Heb. 12: 5-11).
Consider the following points from this text.
1. Children should be taught that discipline is in their best interests and that it is done out of love, just as God disciplines adults.
2. To fail to discipline is to fail to love.
3. The proper response to discipline (exercised fairly and judiciously) is one of respect.
4. No form of discipline is pleasant at the time; in fact, it may be largely unappreciated.
5. But when there is time to reflect upon its purpose and the love of the one administering it, it yields righteousness.
6. We are trained by loving discipline.
7. Appropriate behavior results. If more “boomers” followed Biblical principles, better children would result.
Nobody likes a doom-and-gloom prophet; so as cheerfully as I can do so, I’m predicting the downfall of America. It may not be this week; it may not be this century (big deal, with only four years left in it); it may not even be this generation (though it deserves it). But it could be any time.
Someone will surely reply, “What’s wrong? The economy is good.” Others may point to the number of people interested in religion. But material prosperity hardly rates as an index of spirituality, and most people claiming to be religious have no love of the Truth; doctrine has become (even among those once in the Lord’s church) a minor annoyance.
Since 1973 over 35 million babies have been put to death with the government’s and the Supreme Court’s approval. Just because most people have grown apathetic toward the subject doesn’t mean that God has lost interest. If He knows the number of hairs on our heads (and He does-Matt. 10:30), then He also knows how much innocent blood has been shed, by whom, and for what reason. The seven Supreme Court Justices who authorized this holocaust dwarf Hitler’s paltry 6 million Jews and make Herod seem like Mary Poppins.
And now comes court approval of homosexual marriages by a judge in Hawaii. America already experiences rampant fornication, adultery, and murder; now the sin that sank Sodom has slithered its way into official acceptance in at least one state. What more would it take to make a nation ripe for judgment? Public acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of God’s rejection.
According to The Dallas Morning News (12-4-96):
A judge in Hawaii ruled Tuesday [December 3rd, gws] that the state may not forbid same-sex marriages, the first legal decision in American history allowing men to marry men and women to marry women (1A).
This decision should not come as a surprise to those who have noticed the media attention given to the subject of homosexuality during the past five years. The public had been treated to a dozen news stories every six months: AIDS quilts, Tom Hanks starring as a suffering homosexual with AIDS, constant castigations of those opposed to homosexuality in Ann Landers and Dear Abby, etc., ad infinitum. On Thanksgiving Day, no less, amidst stories of being grateful for our blessings, The Dallas Morning News had the effrontery to publish an article entitled “Coming Out Wasn’t Easy For Chastity Bono” (4C). It seems Americans can not even celebrate a family-oriented, God-directed holiday without homosexuality being flaunted.
If the state’s appeal of the judge’s ruling is denied (which may take a year), homosexuals will be able to marry legally in one state, and (despite the outrage of many) how long will it take for other states to follow suit so that those protesting the perversion become the minority? Most religious denominations will not fight it, having given up the battle for morality long ago. In fact, some of them will be at the forefront, shouting “homophobe” at Christians daring to challenge THE LAW. [Isn’t it ironic that those engaged in various immoralities flaunt and defy “the law” until it is changed? Then they greedily seek refuge in it.]
No “Compelling” Government Interest
According to the December 4th article:
Tuesday’s ruling was based on the Hawaii Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, which is broader than that in the federal Constitution. The state Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that under the state constitution, only a “compelling” government interest could justify barring same-sex marriages (27A). In his 46-page opinion, Judge Chang rejected the arguments relating to the dangers of homosexuals’ raising children, accepting the view that “the sexual orientation of parents does not automatically disqualify them from being good, fit, loving, or successful parents” (27A).
This kind of tripe results from rejecting the Bible and substituting it with the “wisdom” of man. Anyone with even a smattering of Biblical knowledge would dismiss efforts to legalize homosexual “marriage” on the basis of Genesis 19 and Romans 1. But this “Christian” nation, built upon Biblical principles, has forsaken its heritage. Not content with punching holes in the wall and the roof, humanists are now busily jackhammering away at the foundation.
Judge Chang, how do you suppose that Sodom got to be so thoroughly perverted? Certainly, it was not an attitude of intolerance that led to its universal practice. No doubt, at some point in its history, Sodomites arrived at the same erroneous conclusion you have-that sexual preference does not affect parenting skills.
BUT IT DOES!! In the first place, why should homosexual couples be allowed to have children? They have chosen a sexual lifestyle that eliminates the possibility of having children; let them reap what they have sown, and let children be adopted by heterosexual couples who are physically unable (not by their own choice) to have them.
But suppose a homosexual “couple” has children from a previous heterosexual marriage, through artificial insemination, or adoption. Can they be fit parents? Oh, they can provide for them materially, but what kind of influence can they be toward their moral or spiritual nurturing? Despite some desperate attempts to nullify the plain teachings of the Scriptures about the SIN of homosexuality, most people recognize that the Bible condemns the practice as vile and unnatural. Those who refuse to repent must reject the Bible, which serves as the only basis for all morality. The evolutionist cannot condemn homosexuality merely because the idea disgusts him; he has no absolute standard. Only the authoritative Word of God shows that homosexuality is absolutely wrong. Now, if these children will be taught to distrust the Bible, there will be no absolute moral standard, and the state will reap a bitter harvest.
Is There Any Solution?
Of course, national repentance is always helpful; consider what it did for Nineveh. The problem in America is that it is extremely doubtful that everyone, from the greatest to the least, will repent. Probably the best we can do is to elect officials who will reverse the trend (see Judge Bork’s book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah). But enacting responsible laws (although an admirable goal) will not necessarily solve the problem. People’s minds must also be changed. Josiah led one of the greatest of all restorations. The laws were changed, the idols were destroyed, true religion was exalted. But after his death, the country immediately reverted to its former corruptions.
When Judah was taken into captivity, God cited as a reason the evils of a king prior to Josiah-Manasseh.
God sent Nebuchadnezzar against Judah to destroy it. Surely at the commandment of the Lord this came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also because of the innocent blood that he had shed; for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon (2 Kings 24:3-4).
Does anyone think that Manasseh destroyed over 35 million souls? It’s time to shed the cocoon of spiritual apathy and recognize the facts-it may already be too late to save America! Even a shift back toward morality and decency may not be enough to stave off judgment (although it might postpone it for awhile).
The only thing that can prevent the end of America (as we know it) is a national repentance, followed by genuine and sustained righteousness. Anything less than that will not work. For America to remain unpunished flies in the face of all recorded history-especially Biblical history. To whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48). Surely, America is weighed in the balance-and found wanting. If deliverance is to arise, it must come at the hands of zealous, evangelistic Christians, who preach the gospel to the lost, which brings about salvation and an improved morality.
The following letter by L. E. Roseman of Grand Prairie appeared in The Dallas Morning News on November 9, 1996 (30A).
Please let me speak for those of us who have had abortions-and never ever had regrets! Yes, I’ve had two such experiences. The reasons are my own. No one owns my body, but God and me. And, yes, I am and was, in “his care” (still am!).
I never have felt guilt-nor lost one night’s sleep over my decisions. Thank God I had a choice-even though I had to go to a quack doctor (wasn’t legal then) and nearly died from it (or could have).
Someone should tell this individual that a lack of sensitivity and a clear conscience are not equals. There are many people who perform equally heinous acts who never waste time accusing themselves of wrongdoing. What about the two Delaware teenagers who delivered her baby and then killed it? The headline in the Denton Record-Chronicle says “‘Good Kids’ Face Murder Charge” (5A, 11-19-96). Good kids? Have we sunk so low in society that we now call those who have just murdered an innocent, helpless child “good”?
But perhaps they were just confused. Maybe they reasoned that “we could have aborted this baby just a few months ago; what’s the difference between born and unborn?” Or maybe they thought, “We could have obtained a partial birth abortion just a few days ago; what’s the difference in a couple of days? After all, if babies are killed in the womb and during the birth process, nobody should care if we wait until after the birth to kill the unwanted child.” Whatever their thinking (or lack of it), they certainly saw nothing wrong in their actions. They may regret, however, being found out.
November’s Reader’s Digest contains an article entitled “Ticket to a Murder,” in which there can be no doubt as to the “no regrets” philosophy. Four young men entered a convenience store and brutally beat one woman to death; the other one lived to identify them. After being convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death Michael Hayward commented: “If I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t change anything. Her life, or any other person’s life, means nothing to me” (36).
The fact that somebody may experience “no regrets” over a sin, a crime, even a heinous crime, proves nothing. The Bible speaks about those who have “seared their consciences” (1 Tim. 4:2) and are “past feeling” (Eph. 4:19). Not feeling any sense of remorse for one’s actions in no way means that those actions were correct. Many people excuse themselves for their actions because otherwise they could not cope with themselves.
The letter-writer has deluded herself in thinking that God approves of her actions. Her approach apparently is, “If I feel good about what I did, then God will, too.” The only way we know what God thinks is to go by the standard that He sets forth in the Bible. We cannot subjectively decide that He approves of whatever we decide to do. “You thought that I was altogether like you” (Ps. 50:21).
God regards the unborn child as a baby (Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12, 16). She killed a human being made in the image of God. She did not just have a part of her body removed; she took the life of a body within her-but separate from hers (in many fundamental ways).
The first prerequisite of forgiveness (certainly a condition of being in God’s care) is repentance. Before a person can repent, however, he (or she) must recognize that she has sinned. This woman has never acknowledged that point. She murdered two of her own children by abortion, has never felt any guilt, and continues to be proud of what she did. Without recognition of wrongdoing, there can be no repentance; without repentance, there can be no forgiveness; without forgiveness there can be no reconciliation to God. This person is therefore lost.
Furthermore, she has no respect for authority-neither God’s nor man’s. The Bible does not authorize abortion; yet she had one. She admits that it was illegal (prior to January 22, 1973); yet she did it anyway. She is obviously a law unto herself and would have fit in well with the time of the judges, in which “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
Guilt is not determined by the way we feel about something (on an objective basis); guilt is objectively determined when we violate one of God’s holy laws. Paul once said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1). That included the time during which he persecuted Christians, of which he later wrote that he was “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man” (1 Tim. 1:13).
The point is that Paul was guilty of objective, moral evil. But he did not feel that he was; in fact, he thought he was serving God in persecuting Christians. He lived, therefore, in “all good conscience,” like the woman who wrote the lines quoted above. Jesus had to capture Paul’s attention in an earth-shattering way and make sure that he understood his error. He did, and he repented. All we can do today is to explain the truth to people. They may continue to harden their hearts, but that is not our decision to make for them. Love will give them such an opportunity.
It is often reported that 94% (or so) of the American people believe in God. At first glance such a fact might be considered encouraging-until the realization dawns that so many people have their own definitions and concepts of God. Many who claim to believe in God have seldom opened the Bible; they have merely formed their views from conversations and reading (mostly secular).
Jesus and the Holy Spirit fare no better than the Father in being understood: the Holy Spirit (Author of the bestselling Book of all time) is frequently misquoted and misunderstood, while Jesus (about Whom He wrote) is likewise characterized in ways totally foreign to the New Testament.
For example, on the Wednesday of our recent lectureship (November 13), a letter to the editor of the Denton Record-Chronicle was published which contained several misconceptions about Jesus. Since such misinformation frequently finds its way into print, it is important occasionally to refute such erroneous ideas. The name appearing at the end of the letter is that of J. L. Penton. All statements will be given in their context.
However, it is crystal clear that Jesus was a nonconformist. It was Jesus who ate with sinners and tax collectors, Jesus who talked to the Samaritan woman at the well-a shocking thing to do at that time. In fact it was Jesus flaunting with the mores of his society which led to his crucifixion (8A).
To say that Jesus was a nonconformist is true-but only partially true. Why was He a nonconformist: just to be different and to draw attention to Himself?
Jesus was a nonconformist because He distinguished between traditions of men and the Truth of God. He, for example, never violated the Sabbath day; in fact, He stated unequivocally that no one had the right to “break one of the least of these commandments” or to teach anyone else to do so (Matt. 5:19). Yet both He and His disciples were accused of such because He violated their traditions (John 5:16-18; Matt. 12:1-14). Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy in setting man-made traditions above the commandments of God (Matt. 15:1-9).
In other words, Jesus did not challenge society’s customs merely to be controversial: He ate with tax collectors and sinners because they were sick spiritually and in need of a physician; He talked with the woman at the well for the same reason-she was a soul in need of salvation. And although the spiritual leaders of the Jews did want to kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath day (a violation of their traditions, not God’s law), they crucified Him out of envy. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, “the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, ‘What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation'” (John 11:47-48). Even Pilate knew that “because of envy they had delivered Him” (Matt. 27:18).
Traditions of men that Jesus would challenge today would be unauthorized holidays such as Christmas and Easter, sprinkling babies (or adults, for that matter), and offering fellowship to those not in fellowship with God (Matt. 15:12-14; 1 John 1:7; 2 John 9-11).
Jesus and Homosexuality
Jesus, it seems, was concerned with only one thing: that people love and help one another. Jesus would not rant and rave about homosexuals. He would be concerned about the fact that we have so many poor in this country of plenty (8A).
On what basis would anybody conclude that Jesus was concerned about “only one thing”? He came preaching the gospel of the kingdom, which included the message, “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). He also affirmed: “I am come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Jesus further explained: “For this cause was I born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37). The apostle John adds: “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
The fact is that Jesus came for several purposes-not “only one thing.” It is true that He did teach that people ought to love one another; He called it the second greatest commandment. It stands right behind one that most people have forgotten-loving God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds (which means devoting ourselves to learning and living His teachings-Matt. 22:37). He also taught the disciples that they should love one another as He had taught them (John 13:34-35). And he taught an oft-repeated lesson about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). But teaching about love and helpfulness was not His only goal.
And, while He showed compassion on the poor, He did comment that we would always have them with us (Matt. 26:11). Although physical food is necessary for survival, spiritual food is profitable for eternity (Job 23:12; John 6:26-27). Jesus thought preaching the gospel to the poor was worthy enough to tell John when he wanted to know if Jesus was the Christ (Matt. 11:5).
How does the writer know that Jesus would not speak about homosexuality? Jesus spent most of His time preaching to Jews who did not practice this perversion. But Jesus upheld the law of Moses, which commanded that homosexuals be put to death (Lev. 20:13). This sin is included in the word translated “fornication” (Matt. 19:9). The observant Bible reader will notice that Jesus never shied away from any moral or ethical problem: certainly His teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3-9) was unpopular, yet He boldly articulated the Truth on the matter without apology of any kind.
If the writer is insinuating that Jesus would not speak about current issues of morality and would only stick to the subjects of love and helping the poor, he really does not know the Jesus of the New Testament. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to condemn homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-28).
Abortion and Medicine
He would abhor abortion, he would also sorrow at the fact that so many sick people cannot get medical attention because they do not have insurance (8A).
Mr. Penton is correct about Jesus’ view of abortion, but he does not give the basis for his reasoning. No doubt, the feminists would challenge him on this one, and rightly so. After all, he just insinuated that social and moral issues were not nearly so important as people loving one another. And if Jesus would not “rant and rave” about homosexuality, why would He “rant and rave” about this moral issue?
Actually, since the Jews did not practice either abortion or infanticide, Jesus was relatively silent on these subjects, but both practices contradict the whole tenor of the Bible and the sanctity of human life.
That Jesus had compassion upon the physical maladies of people is obvious from the fact that He healed them, but it should also be remembered that He did not heal them for that reason alone (He could still do so from heaven); the miracles of healing bore witness to His Deity (Mark 16:20; John 20:30-31; Heb. 2:1-4).
“The Sermon on the Mount”
In essence, the meek, the poor, the hungry, the sick, the oppressed and prisoners: They would be the ones who would get his attention which is so well expressed in his “Sermon on the Mount” (8A).
Certainly, Jesus cares about all of these. But we dare not forget that Jesus spent a great deal of time preaching and training His disciples. Jesus never spent His time getting prisoners released or fighting against oppressors, except by teaching the truth concerning the way people ought to treat one another. If He had come to defeat oppressors, He would have led a rebellion against the Roman Empire (which is exactly what the Jews wanted Him to do).
Speaking of the “Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus taught about attitudes and influence, against anger, lust, and lying, against hypocritical religion, about the necessity of trusting in God, about material things not being our first priority, against being judgmental, about watching out for false teachers, and about the importance of obedience to God in all things (Matt. 7:21-27). Which of these subject areas shows that Jesus would give His attention exclusively to the poor and oppressed?
In this text Jesus states the sad truth that the majority of people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14); from this emphasis alone it is clear that Jesus is more concerned about people’s spiritual welfare than their physical status. That is the reason obedience is so important.
“He Gave His Life”
The commandment “Love one another” would be much more important than labels such as liberal or conservative. He was neither in my opinion. He loved mankind. He gave His life.
It is interesting that “liberals” are usually the ones who find fault with labels. When Governor Dukakis was running for president in 1988, he was labeled a “liberal” by virtue of his membership in the ACLU (which would certainly so qualify anyone). When he protested the designation, the joke was circulated that when he was born, the doctor told his mother, “It’s a boy,” whereupon young Michael spoke up: “Please, no labels.”
The fact is that all people categorize others. Some are not very careful; they do so hastily and incorrectly (Matt. 7:1-5). Some become self-righteous in their labeling of others, such as the Pharisees who didn’t think it proper to associate with tax collectors and other assorted sinners (Matt. 9:9-13, Luke 7:36-50). Caution must be exercised.
Jesus labeled some as hypocrites (Matt. 23), blind (Matt. 15:14), and serpents (Matt. 23:33). Generally, religious conservatives are those who are regarded as holding to the Word of God (and the morality and doctrine it teaches); liberals go beyond what is written; they would allow divorce for every cause, homosexuality, fornication, abortion, women preachers, and anything else they set their minds to, because they do not believe that God means what He says. [That is not to say that every liberal believes in every one of the things mentioned above; many are inconsistent in their views or are only “liberal” in one viewpoint.] Jesus was completely conservative when it came to keeping the law of God and teaching others to do likewise (Matt. 5:19; 1 Peter 2:2).
The letter writer concludes by citing Jesus’ love for mankind-even to the point of giving His life, which is true. But there is nothing in his letter to indicate the fact that Jesus gave His life for a spiritual, rather than, a physical purpose. Perhaps he did not mean that Jesus died to raise mankind’s standard of living, but such appears to be the focus of his entire letter.
Jesus does love us-and He gave His life that we might be saved from our sins. Dear reader, what is your perception of God? Of Christ? Of the Holy Spirit? And where did you get those ideas? From friends? From conversation? From your own mind? Or from the Bible?
Only the Word of God explains the Truth concerning all spiritual matters. No one can know God or understand what the mission of Jesus was unless he opens the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit and devotes himself to understanding them (Heb. 11:6). May we all have hearts that desire to learn and to practice the teachings of God; may we all strive to enter in at the narrow gate.
A few weeks ago, when I finished the book reviewed in last week’s bulletin, I knew some other people would be interested in its contents. One of those was Bronwen McClish. Within a few days she had revealed to me some interesting and valuable information. I asked her to put in writing what happened; the following words are hers.
When Gary introduced me to Brave New Schools by saying, “This book will really scare you,” I was skeptical. After all, I thought to myself, I had read similar works-such as Child Abuse in the Classroom by Phyllis Schlafly and The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom-and, while alarming, they weren’t actually SCARY.
However, I read Brave New Schools, and the more I read, the more frightened I became. As the single parent of a 10-year-old daughter, I prayed fervently that I would be given wisdom and courage to fight this “New World Order” in the schools when I encountered it. (I thought junior high would likely be the first time I did.)
The very day I finished reading Brave New Schools Paige came home from school and informed me that in Social Studies this six weeks the subject was the Mayan civilization. She and her classmates had made “pretend” sacrifices to the Mayan rain god (in a game) in order to appease him!! To say that I was horrified was a gross understatement. I gathered my scattered wits and explained (as calmly as possible) that as Christians, we don’t “play at” worshipping idols because God is the ONLY God, and even “pretending” to worship a false god is tantamount to mocking the Almighty.
After that misunderstanding was straightened out, I talked to my parents and Gary, confirming my original impulse that a parent-teacher conference was imperative. I practiced what I was going to say to Paige’s teacher, who heretofore had been wonderful. My mother went to the conference with me, and we both dreaded it.
When I stated that, as a Christian, I was VERY concerned about the idea of children even pretending to make a sacrifice to a so-called “rain god,” and that I did not want Paige doing this activity or anything similar in scope, the teacher apologized and stated that this particular unit study on Mayan culture had “sneaked up” on her. She said she had tried to make it as harmless as possible and to emphasize that it was “just pretend.”
My mother pointed out that if children were encouraged to play games of this sort and take an active role in pagan “sacrifices,” they might well come to equate a Mayan rain god with the Creator of the universe.
Paige’s teacher agreed and again apologized. She stated that “the curriculum was full of this sort of thing!” She added that she is usually aware of and omits the New Age slant, “but sometimes it just slips by me, like this did.” She was very sympathetic to my concerns (and my mother’s) and assured us that she would try very hard not to let anything like this happen again.
This teacher is a faithful member of an Evangelical denomination; after talking extensively with her, my mother and I were reassured that she is wise to the New Age cloak of “diversity” and “multi-culturalism.”
We were lucky this time, this year, with this teacher. But there is no sense of complacency-only growing concern and alarm for my child’s education in the Brave New Schools.
–Bronwen McClish
Although one wonders how this teacher can be wise to “multi-culturalism” and let pagan sacrifices “slip by,” at least this teacher was open to discussion on this matter. She did not take refuge in the common excuse of, “Well, nobody’s ever complained about it before.”
But here we have teachers who are being given this multi-cultural stuff to teach. Not all of them will have the scruples to delete some of the objectionable activities out of the program. While it might be of interest to study Indian civilizations, there can be no justification for offering sacrifices to the rain god. Certainly these ideas should not be taught from the perspective that what they did was valid. Their sacrifices did not bring rain or bountiful harvests; much of what they practiced involved superstition, and it should be presented that way.
Regardless of what the curriculum includes (and some of them are getting pretty bad), the teacher has the final determination in how to present the material to her class. She may teach the information as an ancient curiosity or with the idea that some of these things might work. The danger is that superstitions might be placed on a par with truth and evidence. And if parents do object, she might vindictively tell the class, “We were going to practice pretend sacrifices and make a dreamcatcher, but unfortunately some ‘Christian’ parents won’t let us.” Imagine the fourth or fifth graders going, “Aww,” and thinking how bad Christianity must be to keep all the “fun” stuff out of school.
More parents will undoubtedly be facing the same situation that Bronwen described; they too need to speak the courage of their convictions. Private schools and home-schooling are viable options for many, but not all. Conscientious parents will monitor what their children are learning, realizing that their offspring are their responsibility, not the NEA’s.
Berit Kjos has researched well the information she presents in Brave New Schools, a 308-page book published just last year. Because some of the material she presents is so incredible (although well-documented), let’s look first at some thoughts from her introduction.
When my oldest son entered the public school system over two decades ago, our local elementary school seemed safe and friendly. A fatherly principal welcomed him, and friendly teachers used the same teaching techniques that had taught me to read and multiply long ago: phonics, drills, memorization. . . . How could I suspect that these proven teaching methods were about to be replaced by classroom experiments using children as guinea pigs for social engineering? I had no way of knowing that truth, facts, logic, and history would soon be replaced by an unrelenting emphasis on myths, feelings, imagination, and politically correct stories (7).
Public schools are not what they used to be; they have changed in a number of ways in the past thirty years. The author of Brave New Schools recounts some of the recent innovations and the philosophy behind them. Her chapter titles are listed below.
1. “New Beliefs for a Global Village”
2. “The International Agenda”
3. “A New Way of Thinking”
4. “Establishing Global Spirituality”
5. “Saving the Earth”
6. “Serving a Greater Whole”
7. “Silencing the Opposition”
8. “What You Can Do”
The first chapter begins with a scene that is becoming more and more familiar in classrooms around the nation. Imagine you are there to observe (15).
“Come to the medicine wheel!” The teacher’s cheery voice beckoned the Iowa fourth graders to a fun Native American ritual. “And wear your medicine bags.”
Jonathan grabbed his little brown pouch and hurried to his place. His favorite teacher made school so exciting! She brought Indian beliefs about nature into all the subjects-science, history, art, reading. She even helped the class start The Medicine Wheel Publishing Company to make writing more fun.
She taught Jonathan to make his own medicine bag-a deerskin pouch filled with special things, such as a red stone that symbolized his place on the medicine wheel astrology chart. This magic pouch would empower him in times of need, such as when taking tests. Jonathan wanted to show it to his parents, but his teacher said no. He didn’t know why.
Sitting cross-legged in the circle, the class chanted a song to honor the earth: The Earth is our Mother. . . .”
The reader may well wonder at this point, “Exactly what class is this, and why are parents not to know about their children’s school activities?” Although it might possibly fall into the category of history, it sounds more like multi-culturalism, in which everyone’s beliefs and ideas are rated as equal.
A few months ago I inadvertently tuned into Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. The “clergyman” school teacher was attempting to baptize the Indian boys he was teaching, much to the anger of at least one Indian parent, who shoved him down at least twice (which action no one protested). In fact, the show’s hero and heroine considered it an outrage that he taught the Indian children the Word of God, period. “Don’t try to make them something they’re not.” [There’s a great line. All people are sinners; the very purpose of preaching is to change people.]
But the situation was resolved by the end of the program. All the Indians sat in a circle and shared their traditions of how the world began. Even the teacher/minister was invited to participate (such magnanimity!). He joined the group: “I was taught that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
By this action the Bible is relegated to being just another man-made tradition, equivalent to the oral traditions of the Indians. This is the way that multi-culturalism works in the classroom. Everybody’s ideas and theories are given credence equal to the Truth. In other words, there is no such thing as Truth, right or wrong, good or evil, or any other absolutes.
Coincidentally (?), many schools have added studies in Indian lore to their grade school curricula. Some parents are beginning to wonder, “How can public schools promote Native American rituals but censure Christianity (22)?”
Many classrooms have added a little New Age flavor with their use of dreamcatchers, which are magical spider webs inside a sacred circle. If there is an amber crystal in the center, it means proper spiritual alignment with the energy of the universe (23). Isn’t it marvelous? Our nation’s young people may not be able to read, write, or do simple arithmetic problems, but they will probably be able to chant and perform incantations.
Parents need to begin scrutinizing their students’ textbooks and teachers closely; some members of Pearl Street have already discovered things similar to these in the schools in this area. [Of course, a great deal depends on the individual classroom teacher-what materials she decides to use, what she decides to emphasize.] More information will be provided next week.
Robert Muller and Alice Bailey
The author of this book visited Arlington, Texas a few years ago to see the original Robert Muller school. The director asked her, “Are you familiar with Alice Bailey?”
“Yes,” I nodded, well aware of the occult messages she channeled from her favorite spirit guide. “Didn’t she write books full of messages she received from the Tibetan Master, Djwhal Khul?”
Then she was given several of Alice Bailey’s books to look through, including Education in the New Age. Then she read from the Robert Muller World Core Curriculum Manual.
“The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teaching set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul. . .” (41-42).
Some might wonder, “So what?” The point is that Robert Muller’s World Core Curriculum is being recommended to various school systems and is being used by some in one form or another. And the core teachings of it come from Alice A. Bailey, a prominent and prolific New Age writer earlier in this century.
In other words, the moving force behind some of the new educational approaches is not a desire to teach the facts which students need to know; it’s to teach them about evolution, reverencing animal life on the same level as human life, reverencing Gaia (the ancient Earth goddess), emphasizing oneness on earth and a one-world government. The plan of these systems, to state it even more plainly, is to teach values-values that are contradictory to Christianity and what most parents believe.
“The New Paradigm”
This book contains several helpful charts such as the one on page 58 which compares the old and new paradigms (educational models) for teaching. The old system emphasized content, but the new one encourages being open to every kind of idea. The old paradigm graded performance; now the emphasis is upon having a healthy self-image (hence the apathy about correct answers in Outcome Based Education [OBE]). The old educational philosophy stressed analytical, linear thinking; the new one leans more toward intuitive strategies. Consider the writing assignment below given to tenth-graders.
You’re going to consult an oracle. It will tell you that you’re going to kill your best friend. This is destined to happen, and there is absolutely no way out. You will commit this murder. What will you do before this event occurs? Describe how you felt leading up to it. How did you actually kill your best friend? (55).
What kind of composition course is this? Apparently, it is one that goes beyond even “values clarification.”
Potpourri
Below are just a few of this book’s many quotes or comments that serve to alert parents concerning things currently happening in some of our nation’s schools.
Dr. Shirley McCune, addressing the 1989 Governors’ Conference on Education: The revolution. . .in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children (53).
Benjamin Bloom (“the father of Outcome Based Education”): the purpose of education and schools is to change the thoughts, feelings, and actions of students (66).
A father, looking at his child’s homework, discovered: . . .cutting down trees is the moral equivalent of genocide. . . (115).
Reaction to The Giver (the 1994 Newbery Medal winner): Stunned, Laura stared at her teacher. Would they really kill a baby if it didn’t weigh enough? The horrible image of the tiny infant, murdered and thrown down a chute like a piece of garbage, made her sick (135-36).
This is just a smattering of the objectionable materials and philosophies now being introduced to the public schools. Parents need to be informed about these matters; many children have become quite frightened and disturbed over such frightening ideas.
What has happened to the concept of bringing students in and teaching them the fundamental facts and skills they need to function adequately in the modern world? Teachers should not be asked to advance “politically correct” philosophies. Certainly, they have no right to teach values different from those of the parents, much less to do it surreptitiously. Many in the educational hierarchy obviously have an agenda to pursue rather than education goals to accomplish. Teachers have more important work to do than playing psychological games with their students. When teachers and textbooks return to an emphasis on fundamentals, perhaps high school graduates might know that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves (an apparently inconsequential fact which some history textbooks already omit).
The author also discusses the Certificate of Mastery (CIM), which may in some states soon replace the diploma and the new grading scale: A, B, and I.P. (In Progress) (214-25). Indexes include a “Chronology of Events” in the field of education and a “Glossary of Educational Terms.” The book provides many helpful hints in dealing with teachers and school systems. The author repeatedly mentions that a favorite ploy used on parents who complain about the curriculum is to tell them, “Nobody else has complained about it.” This book is well worth whatever it costs and can probably be obtained at just about any book store (Harvest House).
No, Adam never had to wonder
What rock that man crawled out from under.
Man ne’er evolved from slime and thunder;
That “science” is a modern blunder.
If Adam could be resurrected,
And if a scientist infected
With fever to defend his “science,”
Strange words might come from such alliance.
The scientist prepares for battling
By scanning notes and saber-rattling.
He’s educated-knows his monkeys-
He must defeat “creation” flunkies.
Now Adam is brought back from slumber
And soon we’ll know who’s smarter, dumber.
Restored to him’s the peak of fitness;
His edge is that he’s an eye-witness.
“Before I speak on evolution,
It may help bring a quick solution
If you will give your head a nod
To let me know you trust in God.”
Well, Adam never hesitated.
He nodded while the prof’s teeth grated.
“It always strikes me awfully odd
When anyone believes in God.
Why, all should know God is a myth.
(This is so hard to put up with.)
Forsake this ancient superstition!
Don’t hold yourself up to derision.”
Then Adam said, “I’ve news for you, sir.
You’re incorrect, you truth abuser.
I’ve scarcely seen a tongue that’s looser.
What’s more, you are a poor deducer.
It just so happens I’ve some knowledge
(Although I’ve never been to college).
I lived six thousand years ago
And was brought back to tell you so.
That’s right. I lived at the beginning
And breathed when first the earth start’d spinning.
And furthermore, God lives. It’s true.
I know God made me. Why don’t you?”
“Six thousand years! You’ve got your gall.
You’re much too young for Neanderthal.
You don’t fool me, supposed sage.
You missed by far the whole Stone Age.
Why, you are merely an imposter.
We don’t belong on the same roster.
You speak as though the earth is young;
It’s you that has a lying tongue.
We’ve proven that the earth is old-
A billion years or so, I’m told.
You’re younger than the Hun Attila;
So if you’re Adam, I’m Godzilla.”
“Dear prof, you do so greatly err.
How can you argue? I was there.
Before the woman, sin, or nation,
Yes, I was part of God’s creation.
Your dating techniques are erroneous;
Your attitude is quite felonious.
You must prize truth and be more humble
Ere everlastingly you stumble.
I ought to know about man’s sin;
I helped to bring the whole mess in.
I see your sin; it does not hide.
It’s clearly arrogance (or pride).”
“Enough! I’ll stand no more of this,
Fictitious man from Genesis.
To talk to you’s a waste of time.
You’re out of date. You’re stupid. I’m . . .”
When suddenly up overhead
A bright cloud came and words were said.
“Professor, you will find this odd,
But you now hear the voice of God.
And everything that Adam told you
Is true; I really ought to scold you.
But if you now seek absolution,
You must renounce your evolution.”
“No, never!” cried the poor professor.
(Was he possessed or the possessor?)
“There’s not one word you said that’s true,
For first, I don’t believe in you.
And secondly, I have no yearning
To cast off academic learning.
We all have studied years of science.
On God we can have no reliance.”
Now Adam God returned to rest.
As for the prof, He’d done His best.
How can a man against all sense
Deny the plainest evidence?
It’s not the proof or arguments
That win or else fail to convince.
What matters is the inward part
And the condition of the heart.
Remember, when you hear God’s word,
It’s not a fable that you’ve heard.
Don’t let the devil be deceptive;
Be certain that your heart’s receptive.
Splashy headlines appeared in the nation’s newspapers last week about the “validity” of evolution. “Pope Calls Evolution ‘More Than Theory,'” reads the one that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on October 25th.
Apparently, many are unaware that this story could scarcely qualify as even a newsworthy item. As the article states, the Catholic Church “has long assumed the credibility of evolution and taught it in Catholic schools” (1A).
Such is, of course, one of the problems with the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever the pope decides is true becomes “the truth”-even if it contradicts what earlier popes, councils, or the Bible itself teaches. John Paul II has been having some health problems and may go the way of all flesh soon. If his successor were to decide (in the face of public opinion) that birth control is acceptable (which it is) or that abortion is not murder after all (which it is), then official church dogma would be changed, and what was recently wrong would suddenly be permitted.
For the time being, on the issue of evolution, the pope is trying to create (no pun intended) a middle ground between atheism and theism, between naturalism and supernaturalism. It is a nonexistent realm that, like Never-never-Land, sounds good, but in reality it does not exist. What could sound loftier than to say, “God created man, but he did it through evolution”? Presumably, the evolutionists are happy, and those who abide in the truth of the Bible are satisfied. Isn’t it wonderful how we can all get along so easily?
The problem is that the number of scientists that will make allowances for God to have created the universe could probably be packed into an old phone booth. How many “science” textbooks even take the trouble to mention God in a footnote? Does anyone doubt that Carl Sagan is at this very moment sending a letter to the pope commending him on his great insight?
On the religion side of the issue, although one can find some liberal theologians willing to walk the middle ground, they are probably the same ones who would deny Biblical miracles, period-along with the Deity of the Lord Jesus. Any others remaining in this category (but not described thus far) are probably confused and don’t realize that the integrity of the Bible and of Jesus Himself is on the line. The following comments may help us to see the matter more clearly.
If Evolution Is True…
Then Genesis 1 Is False. Evolution requires millions, perhaps billions, of years. The Bible does not grant that much time. Notice there was the first day (1:5), the second day (1:8), the third day (1:13), the fourth day (1:19), the fifth day (1:23), the sixth day (1:31), and the seventh day (2:1-3). Someone will surely point out that sometimes a day in the Bible is not a literal 24-hour day (2 Peter 3:8). That is true, but can any day that is part of a literal week-and that possesses an evening and a morning-be a symbolic day? If so, where is even one instance of a metaphoric day so precisely defined to be found within the pages of Holy Writ? There are none. How much clearer could God have made it?
Then the Book of Exodus Is in Error. Not only is the book (and therefore Moses, its author) wrong, but God who spoke the ten commandments at Mount Sinai is also mistaken. Notice His reasoning behind the fourth commandment.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Ex. 20:8-11).
Now how difficult would it have been for God to say, “The truth is I created the primordial soup and let you all evolve”? If someone did not know the definition of evolve, God could simply have told them, “You went through all the stages of the animals as you ascended to the highest order of man.”
But God did not tell Israel such totally unverifiable nonsense. He told them instead that He had created everything in six days and gave no hint of an evolutionary process. The Sabbath day is even based on that literal week of creation.
Then the Descriptions of Creation Are False. God never gives any indication that any animal evolved from some other animal or that man evolved from any animal. God created great sea creatures and every winged bird on the same day. One could not have evolved from the other; they would barely have had time to “morph” (Gen. 1:21).
Notice that Genesis 2 is very specific about the origin of man and woman.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Gen. 2:7).
And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. The rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man (Gen. 2:21-22).
Man and woman did not evolve from apes or any other animals. Man specifically came from the dust of the ground, which eliminates evolution. Eve came specifically from the man’s rib, which eliminates evolution. Now how much plainer could it be? Even if someone were to argue that these things were somehow metaphorically intended, what would the metaphor represent? Nothing in the text even remotely would imply that somehow these descriptions were intended to depict some facet of evolution.
Then the Apostle Paul Was Mistaken. He wrote, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). Notice that, while this statement is completely harmonious with the Genesis account, it contradicts evolution. How can one gender “evolve” without the other? Paul knew nothing of any evolutionary process.
Then Jesus Himself Erred or Deceived People. He said in Matthew 19:4, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them ‘male and female?'” If man (according to evolution dogma) has been upon the earth only 50,000 out of 20 billion years, then Adam and Eve could hardly be said to have been “at the beginning” (Gen. 1).
The Bible Is Right
To accept evolution one must doubt the integrity of both the Bible and Jesus. What makes the theory so desirable that some who profess to be Christians are willing to give these teachings up? What proof for evolution is there? Those who hold to its hypothesis have had abundant opportunities for nearly 140 years to set out a case with irrefutable evidence. But despite a few claims periodically found in the newspapers which one usually never hears of again (unless it is to demonstrate that some claim was a hoax), no one to this day has any solid evidence. In fact, many evolutionists have had the intellectual honesty to admit that they don’t know how to prove their case.
Evolution will never be proven true because man did not arrive on this planet in the way the theory’s adherents describe. The Bible is right; the Bible declares Truth. God has not lied to us; He will not some day reveal that creation didn’t really occur the way it is recorded in Genesis. We may remain confident of its accuracy regardless of what “scientists” and “popes” may say.
Satan has introduced hundreds of ideas to get mankind to depart from the Truth. He has convinced some that the Bible is not the Word of God and that God does not exist. He has allowed others to believe that the Bible is of God, but that it is too difficult to understand. Still others he has convinced that only some parts of the Bible are true.
People don’t mind admitting that some parts of the Bible are lofty and noble so long as the less savory portions may be ignored. And if some scientific “theory” arises which contradicts the Scriptures, then they must immediately give place to the latest “discovery.” Never mind that these new ideas may later be shown to be inaccurate and inadequate. Truly, man’s “wisdom” cannot even approach God’s “foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:25). Heaven and earth (with all its philosophies and empty deceits-Col. 2:8) shall pass away, but the Word of the Lord, which by the gospel is preached to us, endures forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
On Monday, October 14th, Dub McClish and I drove up to Burkburnett for the first of the two-night, above-mentioned debate. Steve Wiggins was affirming that “The Bible Teaches That The First Day of the Week Is The Day of Worship Required for God’s People in the Christian Age.” Bill Sharon, a Seventh Day Baptist, took the view that the Sabbath day is still binding as the day of worship in the Christian age.
Steve was well-prepared with more material than he would be able to use; his opponent was reminiscent of Antony Flew, who read previously-prepared lectures, paying scant attention to the arguments brother Warren presented in their debate here in Denton in 1976. These comments are not made to denigrate Mr. Sharon; they simply state what was obvious to all who were in attendance. Much of what he said was not relevant to the discussion, and he failed to answer any of the arguments Steve set forth.
Brother Wiggins began by defining his proposition and then explaining what he was not affirming. So that his opponent would not misconstrue what he was teaching, Steve began by saying that he was NOT affirming that: 1) the first day of the week is the “Christian” Sabbath; 2) the Sabbath was never enjoined on God’s people; 3) the Old Testament is useless for God’s people; 4) Jesus did not keep the Sabbath; 5) the apostles did not use the temple/synagogue on the Sabbath as an opportunity to preach the gospel. These are all doctrines that people sometimes assume are being affirmed; Sharon thought so despite the disclaimers presented in the very first speech.
Wiggins specifically affirmed that the first day of the week is the day God stipulated for worship in the Christian age. After showing that Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18-20), that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all Truth (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13), and that Christians continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, he pointed out that Christians never assembled on the Sabbath day for worship under apostolic direction in the New Testament. But Christians did assemble on the first day of the week for worship under apostolic direction (Acts 20:7).
He rounded out his first speech with a careful and thoughtful analysis of Acts 20:6-7, demonstrating that Paul stayed there an entire week so that he could meet with the brethren on the first day of the week, which is the only day the disciples came together. He also tied in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, which is the day Paul instructed brethren in Corinth and in Galatia to set aside a contribution.
Mr. Sharon said very little by way of response. He got off to a very slow start in saying anything relative to the debate; finally he made several pronouncements, such as that God’s day is evening to evening and God’s law never changes. By the latter statement he meant that since the Sabbath day was included in the ten commandments, it must be an eternal law.
Then he read, as it were, from a prepared text. “There are three churches: God’s church, the apostate church, and the occult church. There are two spirits: God’s spirit, and the spirit of the antiChrist.” Nobody knew how these observations related to the subject.
The Literal Time Spent in the Tomb
Finally, he said something germane to the discussion: “No Scripture authorizes worship on the first day of the week.” Of course, in order to make this statement one must ignore Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, which is exactly what he did.
Then, instead of attempting to refute the affirmative arguments, he began making one of his own (which he didn’t complete until his second speech). Even if he had been successful in proving his assertion, it would have in no way negated the material presented on Acts 20:7. He tried to show that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and raised on Saturday (so that no one could claim that Sunday is the Lord’s day).
He said that some people try to rely upon Mark 16:9 to say that Jesus arose on the first day of the week, but that verse offers no proof for a Sunday resurrection. The reader can judge for himself.
Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.
Sharon made no effort to disprove what this verse obviously proves-a Sunday resurrection. In his second speech he cited Matthew 28:1 as evidence that Jesus was raised on Saturday (just before the first day of the week). Coupling that with the three days and three nights mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 12:39-40 (and assuming it must be a literal 72 hours), he concluded that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and buried just before 6:00 p.m. What does Matthew 28:1 say?
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre (KJV).
Sharon’s argument is based upon the phrase, in the end of the Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath day actually begins about sunset (6:00 p.m.) on Friday evening (which is the reason Jesus needed to be buried before the Sabbath day began), and it ends on Saturday evening. Sharon contends that “the end of the Sabbath” would be just prior to 6:00 p.m., Saturday.
The problem is that the King James and the American Standard (or the NAS) did not provide us the best translation of the Greek phrase. Nearly every modern translation and version, such as the New King James, uses “Now after the Sabbath.” [Ironically, Mr. Sharon consistently quoted from a modern version throughout the debate but reverted to the King James for this one passage.] One need not know Greek, however, to decide which is the best rendering. Look at the text. How can it be (at one and the same time) “the end of the Sabbath” and “dawn” on the first day of the week when they are separated by twelve hours?
The New King James makes much more sense: “Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn. . . .” This version causes the twelve-hour discrepancy to evaporate. Besides, all of the accounts have the women coming to the tomb in the morning-not at sunset the evening before. The New King James’ rendering also harmonizes much better with Mark 16:9. The best Mr. Sharon could do was to introduce one passage of Scripture (ambiguously translated) to set it against another verse.
The Third Day
In Steve Wiggins’ second speech he showed that an exact 72 hours was never in view the way the Jews and Romans reckoned time. He began with Luke 24:1 to identify the day of the week it was when the women came to the tomb.
Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
Next he pointed out that the two disciples on the road to Emmaeus were traveling “that same day” (Luke 24:13). Later they mention to the stranger (whom they did not recognize as Jesus) that Jesus had been “condemned to death, and crucified” (20) and that “today is the third day since these things happened” (21). After Jesus opened their understanding, He told them:
“Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” (46).
The point is that the way the ancients reckoned time three days and three nights was not incompatible with “on the third day.” For us it would be; we would say “on the fourth day.” Steve also cited Paul, who wrote:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
Brother Wiggins went on to note that Jesus made several appearances on the first day of the week after His resurrection and that the church was established on the first day of the week. He next discussed the fact that the Sabbath day was only commanded to be observed in one dispensation-the Mosaic Age. God gave no commandment concerning its observance during the Patriarchal Age, and He gave no such commandment to Christians, either. Furthermore, there was no example of the Sabbath day being observed until Sinai, and there was no penalty for violating the day during the Patriarchy or in the Christian age. He also introduced the fact that the law was taken out of the way.
False Dichotomy
In his second negative speech of the evening Mr. Sharon ignored just about everything that Steve had presented in his first two speeches. The only response was to affirm that the ten commandments were spoken by God, are eternal, and were not abolished by Christ (Matt. 5:17). He argued that only the ceremonial portions of the Law of Moses were done away, but the Law of God is eternal.
Brother Wiggins was prepared to explain this false dichotomy that seventh-day adherents consistently (and erroneously) champion. He referred to several passages which show that the Law of God and the Law of Moses are identical (Neh. 8:1, 8; 10:29). He also presented Jeremiah 31:31-32 which talks about the new covenant and then showed how that the ten commandments constituted the old covenant (1 Kings 8:9, 21). The old covenant (which specifically includes the ten commandments) has been done away (Heb. 13:6-13).
In response to Matthew 5:17 (the one verse seventh-day advocates rely on most heavily) it was pointed out that Jesus taught that the law was to be obeyed until it was fulfilled, but Jesus Himself (after His death for our sins, His burial, and resurrection) taught that all things written concerning Him had been fulfilled (Luke 24:44).
The only other thing Mr. Sharon did in his second speech was to introduce what he called “18 lies about Sunday.” It was evident that he was going to rely upon secular history to try to prove that the day of worship was changed after the first century, apparently forgetting that the debate concerned what the SCRIPTURES taught.
In his final speech of the evening brother Wiggins pointed out how many of his arguments went untouched. He reiterated many of them, adding that Jesus kept the Passover and all other portions of the law (in harmony with what he taught in Matthew 5:17-20), but when He died, He nailed the law to the cross (Col. 2:14).
How Not To Debate
Mr. Sharon began his final speech with perhaps the most astute observation he had made all evening. He assessed Steve Wiggins as a “formidable opponent.” His problem, however, was not his adversary (well-prepared though he was); his problem consisted mostly in being opposed to the Truth.
Instead of answering the arguments based on Acts 20:7, he finally said of the passage, “It has no significance,” which was also his assessment of the fact that the church began on a Sunday, the day of Pentecost. When teaching a group of neophyte inductees in to one’s religion, dismissing an argument with a wave of the hand may suffice; in debate it fails.
He made several unsupportable statements, such as: 1) “The New Testament church rested on the Sabbath day”; and 2) “Only semi-converted pagans kept Sunday.” In a debate the audience expects some evidence to be given to substantiate one’s position.
He ignored his opponent’s arguments while responding to some that were never made. “Some people say it doesn’t matter what day we keep-as long as we keep one.” He must have been studying the Antony Flew debating technique, since Flew spent an entire speech denouncing the idea that one can prove the existence of God by his own subjective feelings. The only problem is that brother Warren had never advanced such a ludicrous position. Whenever a debater dodges, sidesteps, or ignores his opponent’s main arguments (and even spends time refuting what was not said), there must be a reason. The reason is that he knows he is trapped.
When a disputant presents an irrefutable case, the opposition has no choice but to change the subject. He may do so by taking refuge in his strongest point, by attacking his opponent for things he did not say, or by giving a charismatic presentation of irrelevant matters. One’s pride and commitment to the error he has espoused will cause many to be blinded to the Truth.
