“Paranoia strikes deep; into your heart it will creep. It starts when you’re always afraid…” go the words of Buffalo Springfield’s 1967 song. Apparently, in today’s society, fear and paranoia are rampant. Paranoia is defined as: “a rare chronic psychosis characterized by systemized delusions of persecution or of grandeur….” A second definition given by Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary is: “a tendency on the part of individuals or of groups toward excessive irrrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others” (611).
Several examples have surfaced in the news lately, but we begin with an incident which occurred in Troy, Alabama four years ago. A grade school student had as a hobby writing scripts for his favorite television series. [Schools once encouraged this kind of creativity.] He spent a great deal of time at the computer writing and revising until it was in the form he wanted it. He had in mind asking a few classmates to take the roles of the various characters and video-taping it; so he handed out copies of the script and asked them to read it and see if they wanted to be part of this project.
Big mistake. One boy took it home to his father, who called the school principal, and (like the marshal of Dodge City ridding the town of outlaws and rustlers) the courageous man confiscated all of those “dangerous” manuscripts the very next day. [Fortunately, he could not impound the lad’s home computer.] Citing and misapplying a general rule from the student handbook, he said he was authorized to take such actions to deter the school from gang activity. Say what? A harmless television script was construed as gang activity?
No, there were no gang members even in the context of the play; it was a futuristic science fiction story. The student was severely reprimanded for his creative mind, and his parents were called in for a conference to make sure this “reprehensible” behavior was not repeated. Some readers may be thinking, “There must be more to it than what we have been told; no one could be this paranoid.” Think so? Read on.
In Lexington, North Carolina a six-year-old boy was suspended from school for kissing a girl on the cheek. [It’s a good thing this policy was not in force when the author was in school; he would probably have been locked up in a Feminazi concentration camp.] The Dallas Morning News reported this story on September 27th, from which come the following facts (6A).
*The formal charge was sexual harassment.
*The girl’s parents did not complain to the school.
*The boy says the little girl asked him to kiss her, and she had kissed him before.
* School officials said they did not punish the boy for sexual harassment but for breaking a rule prohibiting “unwarranted and unwelcome touching of one student by another” (did they check with the girl?).
*The principal had previously told the boy’s mother, however, in clear and unmistakable terms that her son was in trouble because he violated the sexual harassment policy.
More Paranoia
How can schools and principals possibly be so paranoid as to see evil in the most innocent of deeds? Writing a story or kissing a child on the cheek are considered punishable offenses when in some schools weapons are brought into classrooms? Are we experiencing the emergence of power-hungry control freaks in administrative positions, or just people without any common sense?
Berry Brazelton, a pediatrician and nationally syndicated columnist, said, “I think it’s crazy going so far,” and added, “I would want to look at the adults in that situation, because I think they need help.”
Two weeks after this event a second-grade boy was suspended five days from Public School 104 in Queens for sexual harassment. He not only kissed a girl; he ripped a button off her skirt. Now granted that such an action constitutes inappropriate behavior (and he has had other problems), but a five-day suspension? Older students who have cussed out teachers only received three days. Drunk drivers who killed someone have served less time than that.
Someone might think that his action was sexual (even though it was in public), but he said he got the idea from his favorite book, Corduroy, which is about a bear with a missing button (Denton Record-Chronicle, October 2nd, 2A). The kid is either telling the truth, or he’s a very fast thinker. In either case, he was treated as a major felon with a twisted criminal mind rather than a child who had not thought through his actions.
The Great Drug Caper
Here is another one of those events that leaves a person scratching his (or in this case particularly, her) head, wondering, “Do we really have all the information on this issue? Apparently (and unfortunately) we do. The way the school system dealt with this problem, one would think the story should read as follows.
A big-time drug dealer and her victim were caught in Fairborn, Ohio. The “user” was suspended from school for ten days, and the vile wretch who gave her drugs was initially suspended for four months. Yes, it’s time we got tough on this problem. The Fairborn school district should be applauded for this bold action.
So what was the dangerous drug these girls were caught with: crack cocaine, marijuana, LSD? No-it was a Midol tablet. That’s right-just a plain, over-the-counter Midol tablet. Have school officials finally been driven over the edge by the pressures of their jobs, or did they just lose all their marbles during recess? How can any sane individual (let alone a group of them) possibly react in such a way?
Somebody is probably thinking that even though the punishment was excessive, the girls violated a school policy. They certainly did. No one is to receive so much as an aspirin without the parent’s permission. [Of course, if it were an abortion, the mere destruction of human life, Planned Parenthood could take a girl of the same age to an abortion clinic and back without her parent’s knowledge.]
So maybe a girls’ counselor should have called the two girls into her office and explained, “You are not allowed to share aspirin tablets, Midols, or any other medication (does that include cough drops?); next time come to the nurse’s office when you have a problem. But instead they made the school look ridiculous by giving the two girls ten-day and four-month suspensions (the “dispenser of drugs” is punished more severely).
According to the Denton Record-Chronicle of October 9th, “The school district’s drug policy does not distinguish between legal and illegal drugs, or prescription and nonprescription drugs” (9A). So how rational is that? Is it too difficult to write the words prescription or illegal into a drug policy? What is the matter with these people who occupy positions of authority?
The Dangers of Irrationality
The anger that many people feel at the various school officials involved in all of these absurd actions is not misdirected. Their indefensible actions help to sustain poor attitudes that already need correcting. The first is a lack of respect for authority. We have progressed considerably since the sixties when enlightened hippies addressed the police as “pigs.” But there is still progress to be made..
Children need to be taught to respect the authority of their parents, their teachers, the school principal, the police, elected officials, their spiritual leaders, and most of all, God. When children exhibit unruly behavior and violate school policies, they ought to be punished. But if the violation is questionable and the punishment excessive, what kind of message does that communicate? It tells young people that it doesn’t matter what the rules are-they are arbitrary. “Whatever I say they are is what they are.” What does someone learn from this kind of system? He learns that the one in authority is the one that gets to exercise the power. If such an individual is to be respected at all, it will be that he somehow achieved that power. Authority will not be viewed as a way to keep order, but to get one’s way and order others around.
Suspending students for writing a play, kissing a classmate on the cheek, or for handing a fellow-sufferer a Midol tablet can hardly be considered fair; thus respect for authority will not be engendered.
Not only does respect for law and order (and the authority behind it) break down, but serious concerns become trivialized. What worse punishment would a real drug dealer receive than a four-month suspension-perhaps execution? Students may say to themselves, “It isn’t going to matter what I do that’s wrong; I can’t fare any worse than the girl who was suspended for sharing her Midol tablets.”
And the sad fact is: we have a serious drug problem. The September 27th Dallas Morning News highlighted our nation’s current problem.
The U.S. Customs Service, which protects America’s borders from illegal drugs, money, and weapons, has cut 662 investigative jobs and brought thousands fewer criminal cases since President Clinton took office, records show (6A).
The very next day the same newspaper printed a chart with information supplied by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse showing the sharp rise in the usage of tobacco, marijuana, and other illegal drugs since 1992 (11A).
The point is that there are real problems that need to be handled with appropriate penalties. There must be a more effective way to alleviate the problem of drugs in the schools than making examples out of girls with Midol tablets.
The ironic thing is that most of the students know which of their peers are in gangs or using drugs. Could not something be done about these problems if we were really serious about fighting them? Or are these situations used as an opportunity to strike a pose of being concerned about these matters?
And isn’t it hypocritical to suspend first and second graders from classes for an innocent kiss and then three or four years later bring in Planned Parenthood to demonstrate birth control devices and hand out condoms? As Dr. Brazelton suggested, perhaps we ought to straighten out the adults before picking on the children this way.
Everyone is probably familiar with the situation in which a person is so focused on what he is doing that he misses something of even greater significance. One comic strip used to portray a zealous policeman arresting a jaywalker while totally oblivious to the bandits shooting their way out of a bank just down the block. One movie depicts the cavalry chasing a man into a town and passing by on either side of the Indians retreating from their attack on the same town. The commander failed to notice the Indians at all.
Although these gags are used to produce a chuckle, the fact is that such things really do happen. Some of them are recorded in the Bible. Jesus healed a man who had been troubled by an infirmity for 38 years. He told the man, “Rise, take up your bed and walk” (John 5:8). The Jews noticed the man and questioned him. Were they impressed that he had been healed of a 38-year infirmity? No, they were more concerned that he was carrying his bed on the Sabbath day.
They claimed, of course, that such an action violated the Sabbath, which was their faulty interpretation. Jesus never violated the Sabbath, nor did he encourage anyone else to do so. What they failed to realize was that someone with Jesus’ power, which He exercised in doing good, would not violate God’s laws. In their efforts to scrupulously keep God’s laws they erred concerning Jesus, accusing even the Son of God of wrongdoing rather than questioning their interpretations.
No matter what great good is being accomplished, some brethren will come along and protest that it is not done the way THEY think it should be done. That is not to say there are not wrong ways to go about doing good. The Missionary Society, for example, was not a Biblical way to spread the gospel. Using gimmicks is not the appropriate way to increased church membership. [In fact, increasing church membership is not really our goal; it’s a by-product of calling men to loving obedience of the gospel.]
But when Scriptural works are engaged in, some (like their cantankerous counterparts in the New Testament) feel it their prerogative to challenge how something is being done. About a dozen years ago a Christian school was literally destroyed because one teacher did not use the same teaching style as another. There was no room for flexibility; she had to be fired. She was; a few individuals’ opinions prevailed, and a good work with great evangelistic opportunity came to a halt. Those same attitudes have shut down a number of good works that congregations have been engaged in. In fact, some would be delighted if we never did anything at all, which is precisely what many churches are doing today.
How could the Pharisees have missed the significance of what Jesus did? As the formerly blind man told them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:30-33).
This man reasoned far better than the elite doctors of the law. Once again they were disturbed because this miracle occurred on the Sabbath day; they would deny the Son of God before they would their religious traditions. Were they conceited? Yes, but no more so than those today who frequently contribute little to the work of the church but may always be depended upon to be first in the complaint line.
We should all desire to be Scriptural in whatever we do; problems arise when we confuse Scripture with opinion. It then becomes possible to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24).
What are some of the significant things we may overlook? Suppose that a person has been a wonderful father, a faithful husband, and a pillar of a local congregation, but a member once heard him tell an off-color story (which clearly violates the conduct a Christian should have). Even though this unfortunate event occurred fifteen years ago, the “brother” who heard it still tells other members of the church about it. He never talked to the man about his offense, but he has talked to plenty of other people and colored their view of this brother, also.
Had he rebuked the man in a loving manner (Gal. 6:1), he might have repented (which he probably did anyway). Then the brother with the loose tongue could have exercised love in covering his sin rather than tattling on him to anyone who would listen, thereby damaging his reputation. The larger picture here is helping a brother to be faithful, which is for the good of the church rather than being his constant accuser and overlooking the good he has done (and the fact that he did not repeat the sin).
Instead of examining others all of the time (as the Pharisees were wont to do), perhaps we ought to examine our own motives. Perhaps we could profit from being certain that we distinguish between what the Bible teaches and what our opinions are. Above all, we should put first the welfare of the church and the advancement of the gospel (which are Christ’s goals for us).
Some might wonder in light of a review of this nature, “Is there nothing good to say about the Contemporary English Version (CEV)”? Okay. There is a good comment found in the introduction to the book of Revelation: “When the fall of Babylon is described (chapter 18), the early Christians knew that this pointed to the fall of the Roman Empire” (1294). Also, they did well in their rendering of Rev. 3:14, in which Jesus is described as “the source of God’s creation,” which is less ambiguous than “the beginning of God’s creation.”
But for the most part verses are more dumbed down than they are “contemporized.” Elegance is sacrificed for simplicity; forcefulness is toned down to passivity. Nuances and connotations disappear and are replaced by mediocre verbiage. Hosanna (“save, we pray”) becomes an expression of excitement, hooray, which has no association whatever with salvation (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; John 12:13).
The man possessed by many demons is called “Lots” in the CEV instead of “Legion” (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30). Although “lots” conveys the idea, would it be too difficult to retain “legion” and explain the significance of it and words like Hosanna in a footnote? “Deep ditch” in Luke 16:26 does not in any way convey the thought of a “great gulf” between the two sides of Hades. It makes travel between the two realms seem difficult rather than impossible. Are there so few pure young women today that “virgins” in Matthew 25:1-13 had to be replaced by “girls”? [Yes, the word virgin was used in Matthew 1:23.] Contemporary language necessitates none of these changes.
Calvinism in the CEV
One of the most obvious biases of this “version” of the Bible is its leanings toward the teachings of John Calvin, who taught that each individual was pre-selected by God to be saved or lost. Those whom God elects to be His are called by the Holy Spirit, apart from their own free will. In keeping with this false system of theology, the CEV renders several verses inaccurately. In the Scriptures cited below the false doctrine of the CEV will be in brackets followed by a dash (-) and the correct KJV rendering.
No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent them [makes them want to come-draw him]. But if they do come, I will raise them to life on the last day (John 6:44).
This promise is for you and your children. It is for everyone our Lord God will [choose-call], no matter where they live (Acts 2:39).
[When God makes you feel sorry enough-For godly sorrow]. . . (2 Cor. 7:10).
[Let the Spirit change your way of thinking-Be renewed in the spirit of your mind] (Eph. 4:23).
Don’t be like the people of this world, [but let God change the way you think-but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind] (Rom. 12:2).
[God washed us by the power of the Holy Spirit-by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost] (Titus 3:5).
Obviously, none of these are equivalents, except perhaps in the minds of the Calvinist creators of the CEV. Notice that the Father must make you want to come instead of just draw you to salvation (John 6:44). Again, God doesn’t just call; He chooses (Acts 2:39). People don’t experience godly sorrow; God must make them feel sorry (2 Cor. 7:10). We cannot allow the Word of God to renew our thinking; God or His Spirit must change our way of thinking. God actively washes us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Notice that in most of these verses man is passive and God acts upon him. Remember the verse that begins: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13)? The CEV records: “But God’s Spirit baptized each of us and made us part of the body of Christ.” Are they trying to teach Holy Spirit baptism here? The former rendering (the accurate one) leaves room for the Spirit to use the agency of His word; the latter allows for no intermediate step.
In fact, according to the CEV, man has very little to do with making up his own mind or being in control of his own actions. In Romans 9:19, the text has man asking, “How can God blame us, if he makes us behave in the way he wants us to?” There is a vast difference in God knowing how someone will behave in response to certain stimuli and making him behave in a certain way. With this version homosexuals could confirm that God made them the way they are.
Judas certainly does not seem to have any control over himself. “Right then Satan took control of Judas” (John 13:27a). “Satan entered him” (KJV) leaves room for a more metaphorical interpretation such as Judas allowing Satan’s influence to prevail. The CEV phraseology pretty well eliminates that possibility. The verse continues with Jesus telling Judas to “go quickly and do what you have to do” (John 13:27b), which is a far cry from, “That thou doest, do quickly” (KJV). Judas can hardly be blamed for doing what he must do; he can, however, be held accountable for what he had determined to do.
Most people who profess to be Christians will recognize the following familiar verses.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24, KJV).
Notice how the CEV interprets the text.
But a time is coming, and it is already here! Even now the true worshipers are being led by the Spirit to worship the Father according to the truth. These are the ones the Father is seeking to worship him.
God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth.
Once again, man is taken out of the active role of worshiping in spirit and in truth and made passive; the Holy Spirit even leads us to worship correctly. In the final analysis, it appears that those who worked on the CEV believed that God causes men to be saved or to be lost, that our actions merely conform to His will for us, and that the Spirit even goes so far as to baptize us and lead us in worship!
Dumbed-Down Morality
Several modern translations have tried to update the word fornication. The New American Standard uses the rather ambiguous immorality in place of fornication; the New King James at least narrows it down to sexual immorality in passages such as Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:18. But the CEV went absolutely bonkers in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
But I tell you not to divorce your wife unless she has committed some terrible sexual sin. . .
Say what??? Well, we all want to avoid those terrible sexual sins; many people will undoubtedly be relieved to find that this version of the Bible allows them to engage in some sexual sins which are not so terrible. The “translators” even further insinuate (in their footnote) that “mild” sexual sins are permitted, as they further muddy the waters.
This probably refers to the laws about the wrong kinds of marriages that are forbidden in Leviticus 18:6-18 or to some serious sexual sin.
Apparently incest qualifies as a serious sexual sin (Lev. 18:6-18). What about rape and child molestation? Those must certainly be deemed serious. But what about two young people living together outside of marriage? That’s not a serious sexual sin because they love each other and no one is getting hurt, right? Those who compiled the CEV might take issue with this interpretation of their work, but they have certainly invited it. Is culture now influencing the way the Bible is translated?
Perhaps not surprisingly, adultery has managed to slip out of “contemporary” usage. Sandwiched in between “Do not murder” (Ex. 20:13) and “Do not steal” (Ex. 20:15) is not what we would expect: “Do not commit adultery.” It has been replaced with: “Be faithful in marriage” (Ex. 20:14). This wording allows for such thinking as, “I’m as faithful as I can be (under the circumstances),” “We have an agreement,” and “Due to my mate’s incapacitation, I’m not really being unfaithful.” The need for a contemporary version should not be an excuse to change the Word.
Leaders
Culture also influenced the designations of God’s leaders. In reliable translations those who oversee the church are called elders, bishops, pastors. Paul ordained “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23) and gave the qualifications for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Deacons who serve under the elders are mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:8-10 and 12-13. The reader will not find them in the CEV.
The word Elders is replaced with the more nondescript leaders in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. Peter is reduced to addressing “church leaders” in 1 Peter 5:1; he further identifies himself as a “leader” in the CEV instead of the usual “elder.” Even the poor apostle John, in the two introductory verses of 2 and 3 John, doesn’t get to be “the elder”; he has been demoted to “church leader.”
But there is some variety. In 1 Timothy 3:1, 2, and 4 the word bishops has become church officials (Titus 1:7 also). Deacons has been downgraded to church officers (1 Tim. 3:8). These dumbed down designations for elders and deacons make them sound like figureheads rather than workers with a task to perform, but (at least) we are to obey these “leaders” (Heb. 13:7, 17).
Is this a deliberate attempt to fit God’s terms into modern society, which tends to view both men and women equally eligible for leadership roles? Two additional verses reveal a cultural bias. “I want everyone everywhere to lift up innocent hands. . .” says the CEV. All major translations use men because the Greek word means “men, as opposed to women” rather than “men,” as in the sense of “mankind.” Such an alteration can be nothing but deliberate (or else the translators have no credentials whatever).
The second indication of cultural bias is that Phoebe is called “a leader in the church at Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1 & 3). How about that? She and the men appointed to oversee the church are both termed “leaders.” Thus, men and women are equal in the church even though the ladies are not allowed “to teach or to tell men what to do” (1 Tim. 2:12, CEV).
Miscellaneous Objections
In no particular order are a few more verses which have certainly added to or taken away from the meaning God intended for serious Bible students.
Although the contents of the cup are not mentioned, the CEV calls it “wine” (1 Cor. 11:25). “Hypocrites” has become “show-offs” (Matt. 23:15). Jesus says, “I was, and I am” instead of just “I am,” which clouds and obscures the point He is making (John 8:58). “You can’t argue with the Scriptures” bears no resemblance to “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Jesus said the way to life is narrow, not: “The road that leads there is so hard to follow. . . ” (Matt. 7:14).
A few liberties were taken with the book of 2 Peter. The “translators” made a mess out of what occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration.
When we told you about the power and the return [emphasis mine-gws, “coming”-KJV] of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not telling clever stories that someone had made up (1:16, but read 16-18).
Peter is talking about the power and glory they observed in His first coming on the mount (Matt. 17:1-5). To state that the “coming” is referring to Jesus’ second one (His return) is not only an interpretation, but a faulty one at that.
Instead of Christians becoming “partakers of the Divine nature,” God’s nature “would become part of us” (1:4). Isn’t that just a little backwards? A premillennial flavor is added in 2 Peter 3:10 with: “The earth and everything on it will be seen for what they are.” Most Bible students are accustomed to reading in that verse: “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” The CEV does include a note that some “manuscripts have ‘will go up in flames.'” One would never know that the manuscript they used is the variant instead of the majority.
Well, the “translators” apparently wanted something to appeal to Roman Catholics; so they reworded Matthew 16:18 to say: “So I will call you Peter, which means ‘a rock.’ On this rock I will build my church. . . ” No, there is no footnote to explain the play on words.
Space fails to adequately discuss why God “never makes dark shadows by changing” (James 1:17). If “all that we know will be forgotten” (1 Cor. 13:8), one wonders why we should discuss or study anything at all. The CEV is not a “paraphrase” worth studying; it fails to be an adequate commentary, let alone the Word of God. Let us remain with valid translations such as the King James, the American Standard, or the best of the modern versions-the New King James.
A few months ago copies of the Contemporary English Version of the Bible were sent to many churches across the country for their inspection and use. The purpose of the translators was to achieve a “‘user-friendly’ and a ‘mission-driven’ translation that can be read aloud without stumbling, heard without misunderstanding, and listened to with enjoyment and appreciation, because the language is contemporary and the style is lucid and lyrical.” This brief, introductory statement closes with its own description: “the Word of God now as never before!”
Of the four goals stated above, the first one is the only one which may succeed. Due to the ambiguity of some of the words used in the translation’s text, there would certainly be some misunderstandings, and those who have already studied the Bible could certainly not enjoy the deliberate misrepresentations (examples will be provided shortly). As to the last claim, if this were the first modern speech version, we might say, “Amen! The Bible certainly never has been so translated.” But, alas, the sad fact is that the Scriptures have been treated this poorly a number of times (NIV, Living Bible, Good News, Easy to Read Version, etc.).
The CEV might appropriately be entitled the DDV (Dumbed Down Version) or the SEV (Something for Everyone Version). An example of the latter is their translation of Acts 2:38. They probably knew that members of the Lord’s church would look there first because we can usually use that verse as an indication of how the entire translation is done. And it reads well!
Peter said, “Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.”
Some would undoubtedly object to “the Holy Spirit” being substituted for “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” but the necessity of baptism is clearly seen in this verse.
But the CEV totally undermines this verse by the way they handle Acts 22:16. Just to highlight the difference, consider some other translations (even “dynamic” equivalents and paraphrases) along with the CEV.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (KJV).
‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord’ (NKJ).
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (ASV).
‘And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name’ (NAS).
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name’ (RSV).
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name’ (NIV).
And now, why delay? Go and be baptized, and be cleansed from your sins, calling on the name of the Lord'(TLB).
What are you waiting for? Get up! Be baptized, and wash away your sins by praying to the Lord’ (CEV).
Although some other paraphrases have come perilously close to such an inappropriate rendering, this is the first time such a perversion of this verse has been so blatant. The “translators” appear to be suggesting that a person should be baptized, then have his sins washed away through prayer, which doesn’t even make good nonsense. Since baptism is in water (Acts 8:36-38), why would anyone associate “washing away” sins with prayer rather than baptism? Furthermore, Paul had already been praying and fasting for three days (Acts 9:9, 11); if prayer alone could have saved him, he would have already been rejoicing in his salvation when Ananias arrived. It is obvious that baptism was the part of salvation that was missing, not prayer.
So in Acts 22:16, according to the CEV, sins are washed away by praying. But in Romans 10:9-10 the reader finds a sincere confession is sufficient.
So you will be saved, if you honestly say, “Jesus is Lord,” and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. God will accept you and save you, if you truly believe this and tell it to others.
These verses are greatly abused by the CEV; if taken at face value, they not only deny having sins cleansed by prayer (which they set forth in Acts 22:16), but they have negated any role for repentance, also. An accurate rendering of the passage is given below, in which it can be seen that confession brings one to the point of salvation without excluding baptism, which Paul had previously emphasized in Romans 6:3-7. That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to [unto-KJV, ASV) salvation (NKJ).
Speaking of repentance, the word must be one of those that is too difficult for modern men to understand; so it has been dumbed down to “turn back to God.” Consider the following verses, which avoided its usage.
He [John] said, “Turn back to God! The kingdom of heaven will soon be here” (Matt. 3:2).
Then Jesus started preaching, “Turn back to God! The kingdom of heaven will soon be here” (Matt. 4:17).
Not at all! But you can be sure that if you don’t turn back to God, every one of you will also be killed” (Luke 13:3).
In the past, God forgave all this because people did not know what they were doing. But now he says that everyone everywhere must turn to him (Acts 17:30).
In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost (2 Peter 3:9b).
Now I am happy, not because I hurt your feelings. It is because God used your hurt feelings to make you turn back to him, and none of you were harmed by us. When God makes you feel sorry enough to turn to him and be saved, you don’t have anything to feel bad about. But when this world makes you feel sorry, it can cause your death (2 Cor. 7:9-10).
This last passage is difficult to recognize-not only because of the absence of the word repentance, but because these two verses have been soundly butchered. Paul is making a contrast between godly sorrow (that which brings about change in one’s life) and worldly sorrow (that which brings pain by being caught). What an unfortunate and inaccurate impression passages like these will leave upon the reader who is not familiar with the text.
Dumbed Down Verses
There are dozens of verses to choose from to illustrate the point that the translators seem to get carried away trying to “simplify” the meaning. They not only rob the Bible of its majesty, but those who do not already know what those various verses teach would never be able to even guess what God communicated to us.
Instead of the noble “I am debtor,” the CEV has “I must tell the good news to everyone” (Rom. 1:14). In place of “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,” the CET gives “I am proud of the good news!” (Rom. 1:16). Rather than the familiar “There is none righteous, no, not one,” there is the misleading “No one is acceptable to God!” (Rom. 3:10). God sounds ruthless and implacable-if we do not know the reason we fail to please Him.
“By the mercies of God” in Romans 12:1 is changed to: “Dear friends, God is good.” Desiring that the sinful brother “be taken away from among you” (note the passive voice) has been replaced by “you ought to feel bad enough to chase away (active voice, gws) anyone who acts like that” (1 Cor. 5:2). Not being ignorant of Satan’s devices has been rendered “We all know what goes on in his mind” (2 Cor. 2:11). The sobering words of Paul, “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” has been weakened to “We know what it means to respect the Lord, and we encourage everyone to turn to him” (2 Cor. 5:11). Where is the striking emphasis which is so apparent in most translations?
“Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” should not be watered down to “stay away from everything that keeps our bodies and spirits from being clean” (2 Cor. 7:1). Being “thoroughly equipped for every good work” is hardly captured by doing “all kinds of good deeds” (2 Tim. 3:17). “Zealous for good works” is scarcely being “eager to do right” (Titus 2:14). These and many other “dumbed down” verses sap the Word of its great power.
(To be Continued)
Every so often the topic of life on other planets comes to the forefront of public thought and conversation. Back in the early seventies Erich Von Daniken created quite a stir with his Chariots of the Gods, in which he sought to introduce mysteries which he asserted could not be explained any other way except through alien civilizations influencing the Earth.
Then there have been the ever-popular Star Trek and Star Wars, along with numerous science fiction stories and movies which have captivated the imaginations of many. All of these were the products of fantasy. Audiences appreciate and enjoy such works, but we know they are not real. Despite ingenious techniques to make each adventure seem plausible, we can distinguish between the factual and the fictional.
The one thing that has always been lacking in the various fanciful scenarios composed by science fiction writers or those attempting to get the general population to take UFOs seriously is evidence. Even though we wonder about Roswell, New Mexico, and other unexplained phenomena, nothing tangible has presented itself. Some have come forward with interesting and often convincing testimonies, but nothing has been presented of an objective nature.
But what about this latest bit of “evidence”? It is already being hailed as “the greatest scientific discovery of all time.” [No matter what they say, it can’t beat having air conditioning in Texas.] The “evidence” of life on Mars consists of “tiny orange blobs,” “made of carbon-based chemicals that may have been deposited by primitive life forms billions of years ago before being transported to Earth,” NASA researchers said (The Dallas Morning News, August 18, 1996, 1J). The key word in the above sentence is may. To date scientists are divided as to precisely what has been discovered and how it got to be where it is.
According to Dr. Paul Davies, who wrote the book, Are We Alone?, “There is little doubt that even the discovery of a single extraterrestrial microbe, if it could be shown to have evolved independently of life on Earth, would drastically alter our world view and change our society as profoundly as the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions” (10 J). Really? Somehow it’s difficult to see how such a discovery will affect how many people are killed in Bosnia this year. Will it turn married couples into better husbands and wives? Will the national debt be reduced or the IRS be disbanded? Will it cause politicians to tell the truth? Will droughts, famines, and hurricanes no longer plague mankind? Perhaps this discovery will bring about a cure for the common cold.
Again, the key word in Davies’ statement is if. Nothing has been proven yet. The recent discovery is still subject to interpretation. The only real truth concerning this matter is that mankind seems to crave the existence of other worlds. Why do we have this need to believe in extra-terrestrials?
First of all, it would tend to validate evolution. The Bible does not speak of inhabitants of other planets (although some have imagined angels were such-occasionally even suggesting that they pilot flying saucers). The absence of references to civilizations on other planets indicates that none exist. So, if life evolved somewhere else in the universe, it would tend credibility to claims for evolution on this planet.
Could God have created life elsewhere and not told us about it? Why would He do so? If those inhabitants, like us, were beings with a free will, then Jesus would need to die for them, also. And if they were purely animalistic, we probably would not want to meet them. But in any case, if life does exist on other planets (and there is no reason to think that it does), then it was placed there by God; it still did not evolve.
A second reason for the enthusiasm engendered in some for life on other planets is that we would not be alone. It would be fascinating to learn how others had evolved. Would they have human traits? Would they be rational beings? Would they have done away with war or always exercised some other option? What would we be able to learn from them? Have they discovered the secret to peace and contentment? What many fail to realize is that God has given us “the great secrets of the universe” in the Holy Scriptures. Jesus talked about happiness (Matt. 5:3-12); He also offered peace (John 14:27). Mankind, it seems, is always searching for answers that have already been given to us. Having rejected Truth, we keep seeking for solutions in places that they cannot exist. We are like the person working a puzzle that has no solution. Even though it has been proven insoluble, we dedicate our time and energies to it anyway. When Truth is cast aside, there is no answer to life’s origins, no basis for values, and no hope for a better future.
For years now we have had expensive equipment operating around the clock in an attempt to pick up any kind of radio signals from elsewhere in the universe. So far? Nothing. The only voice that exists from beyond our galaxy (as well as in it) has already spoken to us. Have we listened to it? Have we obeyed it? Do we rely upon that hope?
The answer to the above question may be-their senses. The most recent survey of teen attitudes was conducted for the Horatio Alger Association and published in Parade Magazine on August 18th. Just under 1,000 teenagers from ages 13 through 17 participated in the survey; the overall results are encouraging.
Divided into three sections, the first chart displays “the one thing teens want most from life.” Although the respondents might have thought that a number of the choices were important, they could only list one. Happiness was the first choice with 28% followed by long, enjoyable life at 16% (all the information may be found on page 5). Now admittedly, these may sound a bit on the selfish side, but adults’ answers would probably not be appreciably different.
Marriage and family came in third at 9%, followed closely by financial success, career success, and religious satisfaction-all at 8%. What is ironic, of course, is that doing the will of God is what brings happiness; but many do not yet realize that fact. But isn’t it amazing that such a large percentage of young people listed religion as their first priority?
Love was next at 7% (where have all the romantics gone?), followed by personal success (6%) and an assortment of other items at 2% or less. Oddly enough, education was one of these. For such a high priority item in various government budgets, one would think education would rank just a little bit higher (or is there something lacking in our current system)?
The second question also elicited interesting responses from these teenagers in that they are a fairly accurate assessment of the way the world is. They were asked, “What’s the Single Worst Influence Facing Teens Today?” The number one problem cited (21%) was DRUGS. Coincidentally, just three days prior to this survey The Dallas Morning News ran an article headlined “Teen Drug Use Has Doubled Since ’92, U.S. Survey to Report” (6A), from which come the following excerpts.
Twice as many teenagers used illegal drugs during 1995 as in 1992, as consumption of marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogens such as LSD saw “significant increases” in the past year, the survey found. The preliminary report from the Department of Health and Human Services. . . shows a continuing increase in youthful drug use since its low point in 1992 (A6).
Prior to either one of these articles Reader’s Digest throughout this year had been informing its subscribers about the revival of drug use. In February they published “Drugs are Back Big Time” (71-76); March’s contribution was “How to Drug-Proof Your Child” (153-60); in May they focused on the new craze called “huffing” (131-35), from which some have actually died; but they led off the year with an expose about the enormous supply of drugs coming through our borders due to the relaxed controls of our current President and his administration (53-59). [Don’t forget that Joycelyn Elders, the former Surgeon General, argued in favor of studies legalizing drugs after her son was convicted of illegal possession.]
In second place as the “worst influence” young people selected PEER PRESSURE (20%). Teenagers may know more about the public school system than many adults, a few teachers, and nearly any of the NEA hierarchy. The influence toward evil is greatest at the very time that some are least able to resist the pressure. Teachers lack omniscience to know all of the things that are going on and could not possibly straighten out every situation even if they did know. Christian education and home schooling are alternatives well worth considering.
The next three categories were cited as the worst influence by 12% of the teens surveyed: sex and poor morals, violence, and gangs. The emphasis on morality may be due to the fact that 51% said they attend religious services regularly. In another part of the survey only 40% agreed that premarital sex is okay. With all of the influences from the entertainment media, one would think this percentage would be much higher. The down side to this statistic is that 61% thought that condoms should be available in schools. Hmm. Only 40% think premarital sex is okay, but 61% want protection (just in case they change their minds?).
It’s not surprising that violence and gangs rate highly for many as the worst influence. Once again, peer pressure could well be a factor in this statistic. How many have become part of a gang and goaded into committing violent acts when they didn’t really want to (but it was expected of them)? Apparently, it will take more than “midnight basketball” to fix this problem.
Rounding out this list are crime (4%), alcohol (3%), and television (3%). Crime may be related to the other bad influences of gangs and violence. Alcohol has been a perennial blight in the lives of high school (and then college) students. Unfortunately, there are thousands of teens who become alcoholics before (or even if) they can even graduate. Television must have been singled out because of the influence it has on the morality of this nation’s youth.
Teens’ Views on Contemporary Issues
The third table appearing in the Parade article contains their views on families, schools, social concerns, and government. The most surprising statistic (in view of what is generally taught in many schools) is that only 48% agreed that “abortion should remain legal.” This is incredible! Perhaps the battle is not over yet. Even though we are in our 23rd year of Roe vs. Wade, many people now recognize that “the fetus” is human life. Perhaps our President’s signing of the “Partial Term Abortion” Bill has caused many to wake up-at last. This grisly method of murder may be revoked soon. It lacks the support of the general population and is generally backed by strident feminists who honor “freedom” above human life.
Another good result in the survey is that only 25% think that marijuana should be legalized. Since drugs use was considered the worst influence, it is not surprising that so few are in favor of their legalization. In fact, one wonders if there would not be a higher percentage of adults desirous of decriminalization.
The teens’ views on government are instructive: 79% think that government corruption and dishonesty are widespread. How sad to hold such a jaded view of the nation’s leaders. [And yet at the same time we are told that “character doesn’t matter.”] Of course, there was that check-kiting scandal in the House. And it is true that those close to the President have been convicted recently of various crimes. “Well, that’s just politics,” some would cluck. Yes, and we can see the effect on our nation’s young people. Respect and public trust for our nation’s leaders need to be restored.
Though the overall results of this survey are good, there are two responses that are frightening. An overwhelming 83% agree that government spending on AIDS research should be increased. One would like to ask if those surveyed know how much is currently being spent, and for how many years such amounts have been spent. Likewise, are these young people not aware that AIDS is PREVENTABLE through proper behavior? Exactly where has the idea come that the government needs to spend more money? The premise seems to be that AIDS could be cured if the government would just spend more money. Instead of millions, let there be billions spent. And if that’s not enough, let’s go for trillions. If we just keep throwing money at it, maybe we’ll find a solution. Money can’t solve every problem; but in this case a change of behavior can!
Equally disturbing is that 81% agreed that “adequate health care for all should be provided through a national health plan.” Do these young people have any concept of what such a “plan” would entail (the government taking over 1/7th of the nation’s economy), or does this just sound like a good idea? Those in countries where such systems have been tried will not hesitate to pronounce such plans as “failures.” Are these teens aware that when “government” pays for something, that means that citizens pay for it?
The Bible does not teach that governments were instituted for such purposes as these. They are authorized to provide a national defense, to punish evildoers (Rom. 13:1-7), to build and maintain roads, and to do works of a similar nature.
Brethren, what are your children being taught in school and at home? How much peer pressure do they face at school? Are gangs, violence, and drugs part of their environment? May God grant all of us wisdom and strength to deal with today’s influences.
Dave Miller, Director of the Brown Trail School of Preaching, has written what is perhaps the most important brotherhood book since Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern, which remains an outstanding work. Miller’s Piloting the Strait (published in July of this year) is both current and worthy of careful study. Subtitled “A Guidebook for Assessing Change in Churches of Christ,” it analyzes trends occurring recently both in society and in the church.
Part I, “The Roots of Change,” takes a look at cultural, theological, political, and scientific currents of the day. We are influenced greatly by materialism (19), agnosticism (20), the craving for entertainment (21), the loss of an objective standard (27), and evolution (33-44). Miller has pinpointed precisely the thoughts which have shaped this generation.
He shows how these ideas have infiltrated the church in “The Fuel for Change,” seven chapters which comprise Part II of the book. Not only are we reaping the fruits of a generation of rebellion, we have witnessed the exaltation of emotion over reason and objectivity. Miller cites “brethren” who have adopted such unproductive and inadequate ideas. After devoting a great deal of attention to these matters on the part of those who are products of the Restoration movement, the author concludes the following.
If one did not know better, one would think that the church of our day is the victim of a conspiracy involving orchestrated efforts to expunge the true church from our midst (85-86).
The purpose of these first two sections of the book is to show that the church has followed the leading of society; in other words, the thinking and direction of the world has set the tone for “thinkers” in the church to follow despite Paul’s admonition to avoid being conformed to this world (Rom. 12:1-2).
Part III deals with “The Mechanism for Change: The New Hermeneutic.” Chapter twelve, “Aversion to Logic,” is certainly the place to begin this discussion. Many have opened their theological windows in hopes that fresh breezes will blow logic away. But brother Miller focuses our attention on the way Jesus used Scriptures as well as the principles He used to interpret and understand what had been written in the Old Testament. In subsequent chapters he then examines popular concepts such as “the core gospel” to show how they depart from the methods Jesus used. Finally he demonstrates proper hermeneutical principles beginning with the one that many would gnash their teeth at: absolute, objective truth exists (171).
Part IV comprises the bulk of the book; “The Specifics of Change” are thoroughly discussed. Chapter titles include “The Assault on Worship,” “New Preaching Style,” “Church Music,” “Lifting Up Hands,” “Handclapping,” “Drama and Dramatic Reading,” “Female Leadership,” “Religious Holidays,” “Dedicating Babies,” “The Lord’s Supper,” “Variety in Assembly Formats,” “Embracing Denominationalism,” “The Authority of Elders,” “Moral Issues,” and “The Holy Spirit.”
This comprehensive look at recent innovations in the Lord’s church is crucial to our continued faithfulness. Those who are younger may not realize how worship, preaching, and organization have changed in the past few years; they may not realize that these are not only departures from tradition-but from Scripture as well. Others may have questioned some of the alterations under way but accepted them for the time being. The material in this section discusses the changes some have already adopted (and they are completely documented); these alterations are then examined and analyzed in the light of Biblical teaching. This material alone is worth the price of the book; it needs to be distributed to as many congregations as possible.
“The Goal of Change,” Part V, suggests motives for those who are at the forefront of the attempt to restructure the church. They are primarily the same as those of false teachers in the first century: some want their own following or-prestige or pride (Acts 20); some are as greedy as Balaam; and others promise “freedom” to those who have just been delivered from the bondage of sin (freedom from restraint).
Part VI is entitled “The Antidote to Change.” Brother Miller begins this section with a discussion of “The Plausibility of God and the Bible.” Proofs for the existence of God are offered, as are evidences for the inspiration of the Word. In order to come to the correct conclusions set forth in the preceding section there must be a strong and sound foundation upon which to build. The author starts at the beginning, emphasizing Truth and authority.
The Jesus of the Scriptures is presented in contradistinction to the inaccurate makeover given to Him by today’s “change” agents. The church, God’s plan of salvation, and the doctrine of hell must also be reaffirmed in today’s preaching. The author suggests large doses of humility to help remedy our current problems. The epilogue contains suggestions for what faithful brethren can do to help while this excessive “drifting” is occurring. Piloting the Strait contains 528 pages and retails for $19.95. It may be ordered from Valid Publications for $17.00, plus shipping.
“Why did my Savior come to earth?” begins a familiar song. The poetic answer is that “He loved me so,” which is certainly true. Because of His love He was willing to die on the cross, and in the blood that He shed there is remission of sins for the penitent, obedient believer. The fact of His death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection is the heart of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It is the Truth which all must recognize who desire to have hope for eternal life.
During the course of His earthly life Jesus revealed Truth on a variety of subjects (including salvation) to all with whom He came into contact (whether multitudes or individuals). He even told His disciples that if they continued in His Word (His teachings), they would know the Truth, and the Truth would set them free (John 8:31-32). Truth is the powerful beacon shining forth from a lighthouse to guard ships against the path to destruction. Without it we must all remain shrouded in darkness, not knowing the way of salvation, correct expressions of worship, nor the way to live a holy and righteous life.
Truth cannot be diluted: when it is “watered down” even slightly, it is no longer Truth (Deut. 4:2). Just one word’s difference can make a world of difference (Gen. 3:1-6). Therefore, it is somewhat of a surprise to read of “interfaith” efforts. No, this term does not refer to efforts between denominations to achieve some sort of unity, but rather between major religions. According to an August 10th Dallas Morning News article by Deborah Kovach Caldwell, “there are more than 100 interfaith organizations” (36A).
In keeping with the usual media mentality (and that of some brethren) that those interested in unity are gracious pearls and those standing for Truth are legalistic swine, consider the following paragraph.
One woman-raised both Buddhist and Muslim-said her Anglican friend asked her to be a godmother at the friend’s baby’s christening. But could she? After they worked out special wording in the service with an open-minded priest, the answer was yes (36A).
If the “priest” had refused, what would he have been? He would have been called anything but “open-minded,” which seems to be a new synonym for a person lacking convictions.
Dr. Gerald Barney, who is president of the lofty sounding Millennium Institute, has plans for a Parliament of World Religions in South Africa in 1999, a massive interfaith worship service in Iceland in 2000, and a youth gathering in 2001 (36A).
Jesus would have no part of it; He wouldn’t even have interfaith meetings with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, let alone Wiccans and New Age groups, which are also invited to be part of the melee (36A). The reason is that in such diversity Truth is compromised and therefore rendered ineffective, or it is simply lost altogether. Out of many cultures one nation may be forged, but not one synthetic religion. The one true religion (John 14:6), however, must be preached to all cultures and accepted by them-if they are to have any hope of salvation.
How often has a headline like the one above appeared in the newspaper? Most religious groups do not make their appeal in such a manner. In fact, they would probably be horrified if anyone were to make such a suggestion. But Jesus made it clear that He came to bring division.
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I am come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.’ And ‘a man’s foes will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:34-37).
This teaching is expressed in bold and unmistakable terms, and it provides for us a paradox since Jesus is usually associated with peace, having even taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). But in this passage He is endorsing division. Why?
His purpose is not just to startle or shock us but to illustrate a point that is overlooked and ignored (especially in our society)-that there is something more important than unity or peace: Jesus Himself.
When He places Himself ahead of all else, it is understood that along with Jesus certain concepts that He represents are also included. But before discussing those matters, let’s notice first of all the existence of some groups devoted exclusively to peace above all else-including Jesus.
“Peace Is a Priority for Baha’is”
The above title appeared on the front page of the “Religion” section of The Dallas Morning News on July 13th of this year. The religious group of five million adherents is dedicated to the concept of global peace (an ambitious objective for anyone to hold). They believe that the main barrier to effecting world peace is racism; they are working diligently to provide solutions to this social ill. They conduct workshops and volunteer “to mediate disputes” (1G). These actions are commendable; certainly we all would like to see the ugliness typified by racism die and be permanently buried.
But there is more to the Baha’i agenda than resolving one of the world’s great problems. Baha’u’llah, the founder of the religion, “taught 150 years ago that he is the culmination of all the great prophets (which itself contradicts the New Testament gws) and that after a period of war, poverty, and famine, the world will experience unparalleled unity” (1G).
Does this statement bring to mind the words of John Lennon’s “Imagine”: “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one”? The Baha’i dreamers “believe they can speed up what they have long called the New World Order by bringing together all the races.” Further, a local spokesman says there is a purpose for the painful conflicts that now exist: “It’s because the world is pregnant and about to give birth to the New World Order” (1 G).
“New World Order”
Many people are not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a “new world order,” and there are at least three good reasons. The first is that the last time there was a one world government, all citizens were expected to conform to the thinking of the state. Christians were put to death in cruel and vicious ways because they refused to agree with and submit to the thinking of the empire of that day. If they would have admitted that there were many gods and that Caesar was one of them, there would have been no conflict. But they stubbornly persisted in the belief that there was but one lord, Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). That truth netted them persecution and death. They chose loyalty to Christ (division) rather than peace (which would have been compromise).
And what would happen today if there were another “new world order”? Who would be in charge of the ideology-the “politically correct” crowd? Horrors!! We would probably be forced to give up capitalism, freon, and a juicy steak. Schools would rewrite history (even worse than they do now) to serve the interests of the state. Anything divisive (such as Christianity or Truth) would be outlawed; books would be banned or burned. But the leaders of the “new world order” would consider these “necessary evils” for the good of society as a whole. No thanks.
A second reason that Christians find a one-world mentality disagreeable is that experience has shown that any kind of unity not based upon the word of God champions practices that are contrary and disobedient to its teachings. The last time the entire world was united, it was in rebellion against God. After the flood, God again commanded man to “fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1). But the whole earth decided to remain in one place and build a city and a tower “whose top is in heaven; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).
What is the unity suggested by the Baha’is based upon? As much as can be determined from the newspaper article, unity is based upon the teachings of the founder of the Baha’i religion. His original name was Mirza Husayn-Ali, but while imprisoned for claiming to be the new messenger, he changed his name to Baha-u-llah (“the glory of God” ) (6G). “Baha’is believe in one God and regard Baha’u’llah as the most recent of divine messengers who include Abraham, Moses, Khrishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, and Mohammed” (6G). What, no Joseph Smith? “We believe Baha-u-llah is the return of Christ, the fulfillment of the prophecies of all other religions” (their spokesman affirmed, thus showing little familiarity with the Scriptures. When Jesus returns, it will not be for a prison term but to render judgment (2 Thes. 1:7-9).
The third reason most are opposed to the “new world order” is due to its associattion with Secular Humanism. In fact, it is one of the five tenets of that system of belief, along with atheism, evolution, moral relativism, and personal autonomy. Furthermore, the idea blends in with “New Age” philosophy, also. Again, if this ideology were ever to reign supreme, Christianity would be the first religion to be outlawed. To be sure, the leaders of this movement might leave a few of the liberal denominations around, as a sort of token representation of their magnanimity, but those rabble-rousers clinging to the archaic notion of absolute truth would be eradicated in this new “tolerant” system.
Jesus and Division
Unity can only really be attained when man sets aside his own thoughts and submits to God’s, as revealed in the New Testament. Man-made religions contradict one another, as do even false interpretations of Christianity. The Baha’is, for example, meet for worship every 19 days (does Louis Farrakhan know about this?). From whence springs such a notion? The Law of Moses had its Sabbath, and the Christian system observes the Lord’s day; what is the basis of meeting every 19 days?
Unity will probably never be achieved on humanistic grounds; let’s pray that it does not. At the same time, we ought to be encouraging all people to obey the gospel, thus putting on Christ, in Whom is genuine unity. Returning to Matthew 10:34-37, let’s once again focus on His statement of division. What did He mean by it, and why did He say it?
He obviously wanted us to know that He is greater than unity based on anything other than Himself (secular humanist ideas, Baha’u’llah, etc.). Not only can unity not be based on men or non-Christian ideology, all such efforts to divide our allegiance to Jesus must be rejected. In other words, we must be united with Him and stand for His teachings first and foremost-even to the point of separating ourselves from any hindrance. WE DARE NOT COMPROMISE JUST TO GET ALONG!
In putting Him first, we also put Truth first. Opinions may be compromised; expediencies may enjoy a measure of flexibility; but Truth cannot be altered. The teaching of Christ was revealed to mankind just as God wanted it. Christians do not have the right to diminish the potency of the Word or to demean it by allowing that although God said it, we don’t necessarily have to be hard-nosed about it (translate “believe it and practice it”).
Yes, Jesus wants us to have peace with all men, but not at the expense of renouncing Him or Truth!
Paul certainly felt that the feelings of others were to be respected; he would go so far as to give up his right to eat meat-if it made his brother stumble (1 Cor. 8). This article is not intended in any way to detract from the point that Paul is making here; certainly we must be considerate of how others think (even if they are wrong).
But let us also take note that Paul was discussing giving up one’s personal liberties for the benefit of one’s brethren. He was not advocating that the church should give up various ideas, practices, or programs because some members didn’t like them. If that were the case, there would not be very many churches anywhere doing anything.
No matter what program is begun, it will invariably generate an adverse response from someone. In one congregation a new personal work program was just under way when brother Ken Tankerous confronted the leader: “I don’t like the way you do personal evangelism.” “Neither do I,” the man replied. “How do you do it?” “Well,” he stammered, “I don’t.” The conclusion was, “I guess I like the way I do it unsatisfactorily better than the way you don’t do it at all.”
Of course, most brethren have preferences as to how something should be done, but they recognize that there are different ideas and different means of getting something accomplished. Most programs are merely expedient ways of fulfilling a command, and brethren understand that we must maintain a certain amount of flexibility.
Problems are generated when some erroneously conclude that just because they object to something, it must be wrong. For example, one congregation decided to have a ladies’ class on Wednesday evening. This was not a new or novel idea since many churches do the same thing and have for years. In fact, the congregation in question had conducted one the year previously.
Since the sisters vastly outnumbered the brothers, they were given the auditorium while the men met in a classroom. This arrangement was objected to on the basis that visitors would come in and think women were exercising authority over men. So the men met in the foyer to apprise any latecomers of the situation (it never happened). But soon that became inappropriate, too. The same objector now had decided that it was unscriptural for the women to have a class at all during what he misnamed “the assembly.” On the basis of this one objection (with a faulty premise), the men cancelled the class.
In this way the women were cheated out of a class that dealt with subjects that pertained specifically to them. Minority rule (especially a minority of one) cannot be allowed in the Lord’s church.
One person objects to having Bible classes of any kind; another objects to having more than one communion cup (is it possible that all 3,000 converts drank out of one cup in Jerusalem?); still another thinks no one should eat in the church building (or have weddings or funerals there). How sad that on several continents the souls of millions will enter into eternity unprepared while we sit in relative ease, debating the real issues, such as whether or not it is Scriptural to use educational literature in Bible classes.
Our purpose is not to make light of a genuine attempt to understand the Scriptures; we all need to be serious Bible students. But we ought to be big enough to admit that some matters belong in the realm of preferences and opinions and do not fall under the scepter of “thus saith the Lord.”
God expects us to agree in points of doctrine (1 Cor. 1:10); He also expects us to be kind and gracious in areas of opinion (1 Cor. 13:4-7). There is no room in the kingdom of God for the minority rule of the one who insists, “It’s my way, or there will be trouble.” Too many people thinking only of themselves have lived by the “I’ll take my marbles and go home” philosophy. [In some cases they have withheld their contributions in an effort to apply pressure to the elders to show that they mean business.]
Those engaged in such tactics could not possibly have the humble mind of Christ within them (Phil. 2:5-8) or care about His body, the church (Eph. 5:28-29). The spirit of Diotrephes remains among us (3 John 9-10), but those of this stripe cannot be allowed to control the direction of the congregation because they will eventually rob it of every ounce of potential for good that it has.
The church needs men who have enough vision to try programs focused on evangelism and edification that fall within Scriptural parameters. The church must learn to disregard the naysaying minority, whose stock lines consist of: 1) “We’ve never tried that before”; and 2)”We tried that before, and it didn’t work.”
Jesus gave us urgent work to do; time does not afford us the luxury of mollifying everyone who has a different idea, or worse-no idea at all. Let us all have the courage to apply Biblical truths with the wisdom and foresight God gave us.
