In a land not very far away a temple was constructed out of various materials; the walls were then overlaid with pure gold. This temple had cost the owner a very dear price. Naturally a priesthood was added to the temple to take care of it until its owner could return from business he had to attend to elsewhere.
At first, those living in the temple were overjoyed to have such a great privilege, but eventually the newness wore off, and their collective dispositions began to deteriorate. Instead of treating one another with kindness and gentleness as they had been taught, they began to criticize one another.
Interestingly, every time a harsh word was spoken a little fleck of gold would float from the wall to the floor. Eventually, someone would step upon the tiny gold spot, and it would stick to the shoe’s sole. Attitudes were of such a critical level that before long, all of the priests were wearing golden shoes, which they mistook for a sign of the builder’s favor. They marveled at his foresight and the unexpected surprise of golden shoes.
After rejoicing in their luxurious footwear for many months, some of the priests eventually noticed that the walls of the temple were no longer solid gold. They were still predominantly gold, but now there were dark splotches intermingled. No one knew how to explain the disappearance of the gold off the walls; so they began to accuse one another. Fortunately, just as the priests were about to do violence to one another, the builder returned.
He bade the priests to be seated. They all wanted to ask him about the gold shoes and the disrepair of the walls, but they waited for the builder to speak. “Why have you not taken care of the temple?” he asked sternly.
One priest summoned courage enough to say, “We don’t know how to explain it, sire. We did not abuse the walls in any way; we do not know where the black came from or where the gold has gone.”
“Do you not indeed? Why are you all wearing golden shoes?” And they answered him not a word. “Hear the parable of the temple. The walls represent your redeemed souls. As long as you loved one another, they remained shiny and bright. But then you became dissatisfied. The more you grumbled and complained against one another, the more you destroyed the good in one another and trod each other underfoot. You thought you were enriching yourselves, but actually you were making each other poorer.”
“With the good character you once possessed being diminished, what remains but the darkness of your souls that I paid dearly to cover?” All were stunned-and ashamed. They said to the builder, “What can we do? Is it too late for us?”
The architect replied, “The damage can be undone by reversing your behavior. By loving, being kind to, forbearing, forgiving, and serving one another, the gold will return to the walls, from which you dislodged it. And the priests responded to this teaching by . . .
F. LaGard Smith, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, has written another excellent book of the same stripe as Sodom’s Second Coming and When Choice Becomes God. [Not recommended is his book on baptism or his teaching on hell.] Made available this year by Marcon Publishers, the material is both fresh and pertinent, including references to the Oklahoma City bombing, the first Menendez brothers non-verdicts, and other recent events.
Smith sets the tone for his analysis in the introduction by asserting that the American Civil Liberties Union has overstepped its bounds in two areas: 1) defending even excessive immorality, and 2) attacking (instead of defending) the rights of Christians. Of the first, he writes that the basic goal of the ACLU will not be achieved until “it has won the final victory for personal autonomy. Personal autonomy for what? Not to put too fine an edge on it-for licentious behavior” (vii). Concerning the second point referred to above, the author states clearly that “the ACLU is the avowed enemy of the Church and virtually anything religious”; after citing an example of their intolerance, he asks, “How else does one explain the ACLU’s appalling disdain of religious free speech?” (vii). Truly, many of us have wondered for years if ACLU did not stand for Anti Christian-Liberties Union.
In chapter two, “The Jekyll-and-Hyde ACLU,” the author credits this organization with some of the outstanding accomplishments they have achieved in the field of civil liberties, affirming that all Americans owe them a great debt for focusing national attention on civil rights (22-23). But then on the Hyde side they have evolved into a group that supports “Kevorkian-like doctor-assisted suicide ‘as a legitimate expression of the right of control over one’s own body'” (25).
Some of the chapters devote themselves to the extreme immoralities the ACLU now defends. Concerning pornography, for example, they think that children have a right to view it. Smith, when establishing ACLU positions, usually cites directly from their own policy statements. On this matter, for example, ACLU Policy 4 (b) states: “Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such material to minors violate the First Amendment, and inevitably restrict the right to publish and distribute such materials to adults” (90).
Worse than this policy is their defense of the publishers of child pornography. If someone produced a movie of a man raping a two-year-old child, the ACLU states: “the producer of the film should nevertheless be permitted to create the film, and distribute the film without any restriction whatsoever” (91). This policy is itself as heinous as the crime and is incomprehensible to any rational person. Considering their pro-abortion stance, Smith is correct in his assessment that “the ACLU is no friend to children, born or unborn” (93).
Several chapters are also devoted to the ACLU’s assault on religious freedom. The Scopes trial of 1925 undergoes a thorough review to set the stage for further events (197-99). Ironically, the ACLU solicited that trial to win academic freedom for evolution; now the same organization has participated in several cases to deny academic freedom to a presentation of Creationism. The final section of the book suggests ways to establish common ground between the two sides of the current culture war. Many of the suggestions make good sense, though one doubts their implementation. Even though the hardback edition is listed at $24.95, the material is well worth the cost.
Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and he brought her to the man. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:22-24).
Notice how simply told the account of this earth’s first marriage is. The only thing missing is, “And they lived happily ever after.” That phrase is absent for a reason-because a short time later this first couple allowed sin to enter into the world. That decision forever affected the earth and its inhabitants. Adam and Eve did, however, live happily ever after in comparison with their modern counterparts who are entering marriage today.
Earth’s first newlyweds remained joined together for several centuries. They did not divorce or alter God’s system in any other way. But it did not take mankind long to pervert the pattern God had established with Adam and Eve. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, introduced the concept of polygamy (Gen. 4:19). He either did not stop to consider or didn’t care that God had made one man and one woman-not one man and two (or more) women. Neither had He created several men for Eve. Certainly He did not create a group home of, say, five men and five women who could be exchanged and swapped upon a mere whim in order to avoid the staleness of a 900-year marriage (we ought to be able to endure a mere 80 years).
The men of Sodom were not impressed with God’s original pattern as they sought out other men (Gen. 19:4-5). Women also became perverted (Rom. 1:24-28). Men and women always seem to be creative when it comes to practicing evil. How long after the creation did it take mankind to think of fornication, rape (Gen. 34:2), prostitution (Gen 38:15), or adultery (Gen. 39:7-9)?
And then there is “putting away,” which Moses allowed (Deut. 24:1-4). God, however, hates it (Mal. 2:16). Divorce was not part of the pattern. When Jesus came to establish the new covenant, He made clear what should have been obvious all along: God made them male and female in the beginning for a reason!
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).
Mankind should have observed that Adam and Eve remained husband and wife. Neither of them after a hundred years or so desired to separate or get a divorce. [So far as we know, neither did their children.] The first person to obtain a divorce did so without God’s authority. Presumably, divorce entered through the seed of Satan and spread to the godly.
The Who and Why of Separation
God created the ideal marriage situation: one man and one woman for life. God joins the two together, and selfishness (on the part of one or both) tears it apart. When two people end their marriage, they should recognize that the fault lies not with God nor the institution of marriage which He ordained. The failure stems from one or both human beings. At least one of them brought the union to an end, and at least one of them did not take seriously the vows made or the charge not to destroy it.
There is no such thing as “it just didn’t work out.” Marriage doesn’t fail; people fail. There is no such thing as “love just died” or “we just grew apart” except in tinsel town melodrama. Such would not occur if the commitment to love, honor, and cherish was upheld. Many times these comments translate to, “Somebody more attractive, sexy, pleasant, kind, virile, decisive, etc. came along.” Marital bliss is not achieved effortlessly; husbands and wives must labor toward that goal, often suppressing feelings of pride and selfishness.
Despite Jesus’ clear teaching concerning the permanence of marriage (based on the original pattern), the Jews alleged that Moses had commanded divorce.
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 19:8-9).
Again, Jesus points out that Moses’ concession to divorce under the Law violated God’s original pattern. God, however, never intended that couples should divorce. He goes on to give one and only one exception to the rule-sexual immorality, which includes adultery and homosexuality.
A mate that becomes unfaithful has not only forsaken the vows made in the presence of God and various witnesses; he or she has violated the oneness of their relationship. Jesus’ point here is not that the marriage is over at the point of infidelity; many have been able to restore their marriages. Rather the point is that if anyone divorces a mate, the only acceptable reason is sexual immorality.
All who divorce and remarry for any other reason commit adultery. Adultery cannot be redefined solely as the action of divorcing and remarrying unscripturally (as some erroneously teach); rather, adultery refers to the state that this couple is now living in. John did not tell Herod it was wrong to marry Herodias; he said it was not lawful to have her (Mark 6:18).
Twentieth Century Tragedy
One hundred years ago, Christianity was a profound influence upon this nation. The divorce rate was about 1 out of 100. That statistic does not imply for a moment that the other 99 homes were completely blissful. But the institution of marriage was intact, and the value of the family was in evidence. Today about 50 in 100 marriages end in divorce. What happened?
It would take a dissertation to adequately answer such a question (and offer proof); let’s simplify the matter. As fewer and fewer people in the world chose to abide by God’s teachings on this subject, their attitude was absorbed by “Christendom.” Many of the more liberal denominations followed the lead of the world and ignored the Biblical standard. Finally, brethren began following the lead of the “progressive” denominational churches; they began echoing, “Us, too.”
But that posture posed a problem. Sure, many of us wanted to end up at the same place that others were (acceptance of unscripturally divorced and remarried individuals), but we knew we couldn’t get there the same way-by ignoring the Bible. We found out, however, that some of us could become excellent rationalizers; we simply explained away all of the passages that dealt with the subject (sometimes, quite ingeniously, although erroneously).
Those who indiscriminately divorced and remarried before becoming Christians were absolved by baptism (which not only removes sins; it deletes former mates). Christians married to unbelievers were granted “the Pauline privilege” (which never mentions remarriage). And Christians who preferred new mates despite Matthew 19:3-9 were justified by simply redefining the terms marriage and divorce and expanding the role of forgiveness to cover impenitence.
Since so few are upholding the word of God, it is no great wonder that the current crisis exists. The June 21-23 USA Weekend gives the 1994 statistics for divorce by state per thousand residents (4). Ironically, the state with the second highest divorce rate (after Nevada) is Arkansas, from whence came all of the false teachings listed above (Searcy). It apparently never dawned on brethren in their rush to exercise mercy and compassion that they were actually encouraging the breakup of additional homes. [Tennessee is listed 4th, Alabama 6th, and Texas 15th.]
Those who follow the Scriptures should have been the very ones who refused to give up the Lord’s doctrine on marriage. Now lawmakers are talking about making it tougher to get a divorce. GOOD! But why didn’t the church lead the charge? When will we ever learn to be leaders in light instead of followers amongst the shadows?
Have you ever thought that only the Lord’s church has problems? Have you found yourself envious of the various denominations that preach love and unity? Have you imagined that with them all is harmony and peace? Stick around. The fairy dust for Never-Never-Land will be passed out shortly.
The fact is that most religious denominations have their fill of dissension and acrimony. The Presbyterians and the Episcopalians have been making the news this year over ordaining homosexuals. And the Baptists have had their hands full of controversy.
Here locally they were termed intolerant and not very Christlike for refusing to let a homosexual choir perform in their building. Their decision to boycott Disney (which is an excellent idea if you have noticed what Disney has been doing lately) has drawn a great deal of fire and a spate of letters to the editor. When they decided it would be a good idea to evangelize Jews (although they can’t do it because they don’t preach the true gospel), you’d have thought someone had suggested an updated edition of the Holocaust.
But to see how deeply rooted their problems really are, you have only to read the letter T. W. Thompson wrote to the editor of The Dallas Morning News. After identifying himself as a Southern Baptist, he takes issue with a statement made by the newly elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention about the Bible being inerrant.
He is referring to the “original manuscripts” (autographs) which living persons do not have and have never seen. The Bible commonly used today is an imperfect translation, based on an imperfect text which is based upon imperfect ancient manuscripts (June 17, 1996, p. 24A).
As Pat Paulsen used to say, “Picky, picky, picky.” Let’s analyze Thompson’s paragraph. Is it true that living persons do not have nor ever have seen the original manuscripts? No one NOW living has, but several brethren had seen them at one time.
Is the Bible used today an imperfect translation? Which Bible? Certainly the NIV is, as are most modern “translations.” Even the King James slipped up on “Easter,” which it inappropriately used for “Passover” (Acts 12:4). Although there may not be one perfect version, there are several that are accurate enough to teach us about salvation.
Is the Greek text imperfect? Actually, there are several Greek texts, and they do disagree with one another at various points. And the manuscripts themselves also vary. So then, are we agreeing with Mr. Thompson? We agree with the facts of the matter but not over the significance.
What is the point of this man’s letter?
To expect someone to call this commonly used Bible inerrant is either to be ignorant or a demagogue.
Garbled Gobbledegook
Since the man does not specifically state his conclusion, let’s state it for him. The Bible is full of errors. That’s not a misrepresentation, is it? If only a fool would call the Bible inerrant, then it must be errant. If it is errant, then there must be errors in it (which idea agrees with all of his caterwauling about “imperfect”).
But if the Bible is full of errors, then why should we fool with it? When it says to love God and one’s fellow man (Matt. 22:37-40), perhaps that’s an error. In fact, when it teaches that we can be saved from our sins, maybe some overzealous scribe just stuck that in there. My guess is that since he is a Southern Baptist, he definitely thinks Mark 16:9-20 does not belong–especially the part about “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Now if that’s judgmental of me, that’s okay because it just may be that Matthew 7:1-5 was inaccurately translated, too.
The point should be obvious by now. If the Bible is full of errors, if it is so unreliable, then we would all be at an utter loss to figure out which, if any, parts are valid. Make no mistake about it; Mr. Thompson would not know how to escape from his own dilemma.
But think what an errant Bible means: no certainty about any Bible doctrine (such as the hope of eternal life), no words of comfort for anyone, and no objective standard of morality. Mr. Thompson is no better off than an atheist. In fact, he can not know that God even exists because Genesis 1 could just be one of those imperfect parts (haven’t the evolutionists said so for years?).
The Power of God
At the risk of being called an ignorant demagogue, I affirm that the Bible is inerrant. Even with the second-hand manuscripts, varied texts, and mistranslations? Even so. And a person doesn’t have to become a postmodernist (one who has no problem accepting contradictions) to do it.
The Bible teaches that God is all-powerful. The Bible also teaches that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Scriptures, and that the words written down for us are the very words of God (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
Now, are we to believe that an omnipotent God who even put words in the mouths of His spokesmen (Jer. 1:9), was not able to then preserve that word for future generations? Was He surprised that the original parchments crumbled into dust? (“Whoa! I didn’t think the world would last this long.”)
Such is an absurdity. The variations in manuscripts are generally slight and always totally irrelevant so far as our salvation is concerned. Let the critic cite a passage or verse that would absolutely throw mankind into a quandary as to what we should do to please God. Thompson has not addressed this side of the issue at all-for obvious reasons.
The Southern Baptists may keep this fellow (we’re already plagued by Carroll Osburn). He and his fellow modernists are invited to stay right where they are and not infiltrate the Lord’s church with their faith-destroying doctrine. We’ll stick with the Book!
During the past three weeks we have analyzed and rejected Mark Henderson’s suggestions for being a “Unity-Committed Church,” which he made in a speech at ACU in February. In essence, we have explained that counting as brethren those who have never obeyed the gospel is not the way to achieve unity. It is fair, however, to ask the question, “How can unity be achieved?” As always, we need to determine, “What saith the Scriptures?”
Let’s begin with some familiar Bible passages.
“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).
“Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).
The first rule of interpretation involves asking the questions, “Who is the writer?” and “To whom is the author of the letter writing?” In both of the above instances Paul has written to brethren within one congregation. Unity within the church is imperative, not optional. Furthermore, there is a purpose for unity–that we may work together “for the faith of the gospel.” If brethren become bogged down in petty squabbles, how can the work of the church advance?
Not only was internal unity crucial to congregations in the first century, it is just as necessary today. The very presence of these exhortations in the epistle shows us that even Christians are not perfect (though perfection is our goal–Heb. 6:1). We are going to offend one another (presumably unintentionally); those moments of friction should be dealt with in love, not hostility. We should not assume and assign impure motives on the part of our fellow family members. We are not each other’s enemies. Jesus taught that communication is the solution to the problem (Matt. 5:23-24 and 18:15-17).
But sometimes people approach things differently. There are variations of thinking, expression, and emphasis. Since human beings do differ in these areas, we must exercise love toward one another while certain matters are being worked out. Love is defined in part by being patient with each other (“bears all things”–1 Cor. 13:7); thinking the best of each other (“believes all things”–1 Cor. 13:7); having confidence that a solution pleasing to all will be found (“hopes all things”–1 Cor. 13:7); and that when things are not resolved in our favor, we continue anyway, putting it behind us (“endures all things”–1 Cor. 13:7). Regardless of how matters of judgment turn out, we are brethren committed to one another.
If doctrinal differences arise, we must not be suspicious of one another’s motives, but rather devote ourselves to both individual and group study of the matter. Ideally, a better understanding will result.
One of the biggest hindrances to congregational unity is pride–MY feelings were hurt beyond repair; MY opinion was disregarded; MY interpretation of the Scriptures did not prevail. Therefore, some divorce themselves from a congregation on inadequate (not to mention selfish) grounds. We ought to treat our relationship with the local church just as we do marriage–we only divorce ourselves from it for unfaithfulness (to the Lord).
Unfortunately, what we have observed over the years is that some leave sound congregations of God’s people for totally inadequate and often trivial reasons. Equally amazing are the brethren who have Scriptural grounds for divorce (the church which they attend is unfaithful to the teaching of Christ), but they remain with that unfaithful congregation. We must amuse Satan considerably.
The passages in 1 Cor. 1:10 and Phil. 1:27 are not optional; they are commandments like any other; we must commit ourselves to striving for unity. Anyone who one wants to walk worthy of his calling as a Christian must develop humility and patience; he or she must work hard to maintain unity.
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to have a walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-3).
Seven reasons are listed to remind us of what all we have in common (Eph. 4:4-6). Paul wants brethren to work at unity so that their work in the gospel may progress.
Unity Among Churches
What does the Bible teach about unity between various congregations in an area? There ought to be peace, harmony, love, and cooperation. In Col. 4:16 Paul tells the brethren in Colosse to exchange letters with the brethren in Laodicea. This instruction implies that they knew one another and enjoyed an amiable relationship, which is the way God designed it.
We ought to be interrelated in a positive way. Brethren in Thessalonica became examples to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:6-8). The zeal of the Corinthians in preparing a gift for the poor saints in Jerusalem inspired several other churches (2 Cor. 9:2-4). Unity and harmony between congregations of the Lord’s church ought to exist. And it will–if we all teach the same thing the Bible does. Paul taught the same doctrine in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17, and 11:16). Failure to achieve unity on this level can also hinder the Lord’s work.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another (Gal. 5:14-15).
The New Testament recognizes, however, the existence of false teachers, who will teach things not authorized by God nor in harmony with what Paul taught the churches by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul said to mark such men (Rom. 16:17-18). John said not to receive them (2 John 9-11).
But what do we do when false teachers are working with neighboring congregations or are in fellowship with them? If God has forbidden us to fellowship the false teacher, and some church fellowships that individual, then we have no choice but to withhold fellowship from those brethren who have violated the Scriptures (namely Romans 16:17-18 and 2 John 9-11). They are the ones who have disrupted fellowship by departing from the word of God. They may be acting out of ignorance; therefore, we should still exercise love and patience toward them as we seek to communicate with them about the barrier to fellowship they have introduced.
Unfortunately, most of the time, such congregations know exactly what they are doing, and they have absolutely no wish to discuss the matter. Sadly, they leave God’s faithful churches no alternative but to exclude them from Christian fellowship. We are committed to unity, but Truth and faithfulness to our Lord take precedence over unity, and we cannot fellowship them while they remain in their apostasy.
The Lord’s Prayer
What about unity with all who claim to be Christians? The Bible does not specifically address this issue because our twentieth century condition did not exist in the first century. Furthermore, it would be wrong (not to mention inaccurate) to attempt to apply Biblical passages enjoining unity among brethren to those in denominations who are not brethren. Consider Jesus’ prayer for unity.
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me (John 17:20-21).
Any effort to apply this passage to all the denominations would simply be poor exegesis. Campbell, Stone, and others may have begun with such a notion, but they were assuming that members of the various denominations were all Christians. If that assertion were true, their procedure would be valid.
If all members of denominations are Christians, then all ought to be willing to give up those creeds and doctrines that divide. Being separated into different “Christian” camps lacks any Biblical authority whatsoever, and it directly disobeys Jesus’ prayer. Furthermore, if those in denominations are Christians and members of the churches of Christ are Christians, then 1) we are just a denomination; 2) we have been wrong in separating ourselves from other “equal” churches; and 3) we ought to quit being divisive and begin treating everyone else as brothers and sisters in the kingdom. [Such was Henderson’s position.]
The problem is, however, that those in denominations are NOT Christians. [This statement is not made out of vindictiveness, cruelty, or self-righteousness; it is made solely out of respect for the truth.] Let’s look more closely at what Jesus said. “I do not pray for these alone [the apostles], but also for those who will believe in Me through their word.” Now answer honestly: “Is Jesus referring to anyone who just happens to hear about Him as a ‘believer’?”
No, these individuals for whom Jesus is praying are ones who have come to believe through the apostles’ word–the teachings now recorded in the New Testament. They are ones who have obeyed the same gospel taught by Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36-41). They are ones who have repented of sins and been baptized in the name of Christ in order to have their sins forgiven.
What denomination teaches that doctrine? Some sprinkle instead of immersing (Biblical baptism); Others make their children members of their denomination though they can neither believe nor repent. But all of them teach that one is saved before and without baptism for the remission of sins! So how can they be Christians? They are not Christians because they have never obeyed the apostles’ words. [Remember Jesus was praying for those who had obeyed the apostles’ words.]
The unity-committed church is not seeking fellowship with religious groups claiming to belong to Christ but rejecting the Bible’s teaching regarding salvation. We are not equal denominations; we are not even brethren. There can be no fellowship, much less unity. Of course, we are interested in the spiritual condition of those in denominations, just as we would be about Jews, Moslems, and atheists. But we can have no spiritual fellowship with any man-made religious group. We are members of the church of Jesus Christ, our Lord and our head–THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT!
Let us commit ourselves to the unity Jesus actually prayed for–for unity among brethren within the local congregation and between faithful churches.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:4-6).
[This article deals with the final two points of Mark Henderson’s February 19th lecture at Abilene “Christian” University.]
3. “I believe that if we are going to make any sort of a positive contribution to the unity of all believers, we must learn to reach to our left.” Exactly what Scriptural principle is this idea based upon? Apparently we can rule out 2 John 6: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. . .” His own definition of “the left” involves “a point of view which sees the Scriptures as allowing for more freedom for diversity of practice.” Is it permissible to allow more freedom than the Scriptures grant?
When I say that we need to reach to our left, I mean that we need to find ways to engage in meaningful dialogue with those we have traditionally rejected simply because of their understanding of Scripture, and therefore their practices are less restrictive than our own.
Satan should have been rejected in the garden of Eden because of his understanding of the Scriptures; Eve would have been better off to have had no dialogue with him. Jesus did reject the devil’s interpretation of Psalm 91:11-12 in Luke 4:12.
[Why is it that whenever liberals want us to move in a different direction we need to break with tradition? But whenever they want us to follow what men like Campbell, Stone, and Lipscomb said, they speak reverently of our heritage?]
Henderson first suggests that we reach to the left in our own “fellowship.” Considering the doctrines he espouses and that he was speaking at one of the most liberal universities still claiming to be affiliated with churches of Christ, one wonders how much further left he and his audience could reach (without their arms coming clear out of their sockets)?
Echoing Doug Foster, Henderson alleges: “We are all Biblical conservatives, who are all seeking the will of God as it is revealed in both the written word and the living word.” [Would someone like to explain what he means by “the living word”?] “But we have different approaches to the Scriptures, or at the very least, different interpretations of troublesome passages.” In light of what he is about to say, apparently those “troublesome” passages include Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 2:9-14, and other verses that once were plain (at least they were before we began to engage in “meaningful dialogue”).
After we reach to the “left” in our “fellowship,” guess what the next step is.
Brothers and sisters, we do not have to live in estrangement and isolation from those who honestly differ with us inside or outside our fellowship. We don’t have to agree with them at every point, nor do we have to convince them to agree with us on every issue.
At least we may isolate ourselves from those who dishonestly differ with us (whoever they are).
Christians Outside Our “Fellowship”
Where has this speech been leading? Mark Henderson now sets forth what he truly believes, which is: 1) The churches of Christ are merely a denomination; and 2) One does not have to be baptized to be saved. And remember, these things were taught at a “Christian” university. Now read carefully the following remarks, which continue exactly where we ended on the preceding page (so as not to lose the context).
All we have to do is look to our left, to those who have felt the sting of our rejection, and everywhere we see one who has committed his or her heart and life to the lordship of Jesus Christ, we may rejoice that we have found a brother or a sister. And we may extend to that child of God the same inviting hand of grace and acceptance which we ourselves have received from the Lord Jesus. It won’t be easy to do that; it is hard to lay aside the mantle of exclusivity.
This passage is nearly identical to Max Lucado’s inclusion of nearly everyone. Notice, everyone who has committed himself or herself to Christ is a Christian (brother or sister). In other words, according to Henderson and Lucado, a person becomes a “child of God” at the point of commitment. Never mind baptism for the remission of sins, which must be one of those “troublesome” passages.
Then he has the audacity to speak of “our common commitment to the authority of God’s word.” Can we see now why the wolves dress in sheep’s clothing? They look and talk like sheep in order to get close enough for the kill. “We are conservatives,” they mouth. “We believe in Biblical authority.” But what they advocate clearly denies those sentiments.
We do not have the right to extend the right hand of fellowship to those whose sins have never been washed in the blood of the lamb and who have not therefore been added to the body of Christ. They may be sweet, kind, devout friends, neighbors, or loved ones, but they are not Christians until they have obeyed the gospel. God never gave us the right to personally determine who is a Christian. Such is not determined subjectively but rather objectively.
Furthermore, exclusivity is not easy. Israel remained in constant trouble for her failure to remain separated from the peoples of the land. Likewise, it is the spirit of our age to be loving and peaceful, to make every endeavor to “get along” and to stand for nothing, lest we be called names like radicals and extremists. We’re all encouraged to have irenic spirits and not make waves, just as Micaiah the prophet was so warned before he appeared before Ahab. After all, demanding a “thus saith the Lord” is so legalistic.
“Attend The Church Of Your Choice”
4. “I don’t know anything which will motivate us to a commitment to unity faster than recognizing who the real enemy is.” Henderson then speaks about our real enemy being Satan and not people (Eph. 6: 12), which is, of course, true. But that fact does not preclude Paul from saying that those who preach any other gospel are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9), which is why they need to be challenged, not fellowshiped. Although we are fighting erroneous ideas, men are the ones who champion those ideas; therefore, Paul does not hesitate to call by name those who overthrow the faith of some (1 Tim. 1:18-20, 2 Tim. 2:17-18).
This ACU graduate pooh-poohs “our intramural squabbling over petty differences which don’t have anything whatsoever to do with the salvation of lost souls.” Petty? Not only is baptism for the remission of sins not essential; now it has been relegated to the “petty” file. When Henderson talks about “intramural squabbling,” he undoubtedly refers to debates that we have had with denominational ministers over “petty” issues such as what the Bible teaches about salvation. He has learned well from Carroll Osburn (or those like him) who, in his book, The Peaceable Kingdom, affirmed that “there should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on . . . soteriological matters such as whether baptism is ‘for’ or ‘because of’ the remission of sins.”
In other words, Osburn is saying (like Lucado and Henderson) that baptism has nothing to do with a person becoming a Christian, that those in denominations who have made some sort of commitment are brethren. Sorry, but Osburn, Lucado, and Henderson are false teachers far to the left of the Bible. They have gone beyond the boundaries of fundamental New Testament teaching and are no longer walking in the light.
Henderson lauds the Boulder Ministerial Fellowship in Boulder, Colorado, as men who anointed him “with the precious oil of unity.” As he listened to them pray, he “found a lump forming” in his throat. He mentions “great tears of release” rolling down his cheeks. His emotions obviously took precedence over what the Bible teaches. He was particularly affected by what an Assembly of God preacher (whom he termed a ministerial “colleague”) prayed.
God, I thank you for this brother, and I ask your blessings on his ministry and his family. Oh, God, thank you for the churches of Christ and for their commitment to your word. I pray that you will give them a powerful ministry in our community and that they will reach many lost souls for Jesus Christ.
The Bounds Of Fellowship
There is nothing wrong with the prayer (in fact, it contains the things we ought to be praying for one another). But the man praying it is not a brother in Christ. Neither is the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the charismatic, the man from the community church, nor the one from the Reformed Church (were there any women preachers there?). Not one of them preaches what Peter did on the day of Pentecost when people asked him what to do to be saved, nor has any of them been baptized in order to have his sins forgiven. What good is the prayer (1 Peter 3:12) of one who has never had his sins washed away and been added to the body of Christ?
Imagine the implications of Henderson’s teaching. One man teaches that babies are born with original sin and that they need to be sprinkled to get rid of it. But he’s a brother? Another teaches that sinners are saved by “faith only.” But he’s a brother? Yet another teaches that God is still working miracles today despite the fact that His word has already been confirmed (Heb. 2:1-4). But he’s a brother?
All of these doctrines are deemed subservient to unity. Such thinking just about destroys limits of fellowship altogether. Oh, we can still exclude the modernists who deny the miracles of Jesus and the inspiration of the word–unless we happen to attend a meeting of these men and they pray fervently for us and shame us for being exclusivistic.
“We Need Each Other”
Henderson talked about how ungodly the townspeople of Boulder, Colorado, are–how that only 7% of the population attends worship anywhere (as opposed to the national average of 40%). This serves as his rationale for joining with the denominations.
Yes, we still have our differences, and some of them are more significant than others, but what we do at those prayer meetings is we recognize that our common commitment to the lordship of Jesus Christ and our common hope that His kingdom would come in Boulder even as it is in heaven is greater than those things which divide us. So we unite with one voice to engage the battle against the enemy. Boulder is too big and the strongholds are too great for any one of us to do all the work; we need each other.
Corinth was a sinful city which included sins of drunkenness and sexual immorality. God didn’t advise Paul to form an alliance with Hymenaeus and Philetus, or any false teacher of their stripe, because the task was too great for him (it’s always too great for us). The Lord comforted Paul by saying, “I am with you” (Acts 18:10).
Brethren, we who have obeyed the gospel need each other. But those who have not done so are not brethren. Furthermore, they need to be taught the truth so that they can be saved. If we really loved them, that’s what we would do.
[This article continues to look at the teachings of Mark Henderson which he presented at Abilene “Christian” University’s annual lectureship on February 19th of this year. There are some eye-opening things to deal with yet from the first of his four points, but this article will evaluate his second one.]
2. “We must learn to allow for some diversity in belief and practice among congregations and individual believers.” While this bit of wisdom is certainly in accord with the humanistic philosophy of the day, how does it compare with the following Scriptures?
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4:17).
Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27).
A few years ago one could visit a congregation of God’s people almost anywhere, and the only difference one could find was whether the Lord’s Supper preceded or followed the sermon. What happened?
Now when members visit other churches while on vacation, they do not know what they are likely to find–due to diversity of beliefs and practices.
“Those issues which are central to the faith are presented clearly and without ambiguity in the Scriptures.” Most would probably agree with this statement, but what does the speaker mean by it? What does he consider ambiguous? Would he argue, for example, that we cannot take a firm stance against instrumental music because to do so involves logic and the use of implication?
These are valid, God-given tools of interpretation. The Sadducees failed to see the importance of the statement, “I am the God of Abraham. . .” (Matt. 22:23-33). The issue of the resurrection had been debated for centuries. Apparently, even the proponents of the doctrine had not drawn the correct inferences from Exodus 3:6, or the dispute could have ended much sooner.
If we understand that we need authority, the authority of Christ, for all that we teach and all that we practice (Col. 3:17), then we will not desire to introduce anything into our teachings or our worship that lacks authority. That kind of attitude will maintain unity. Division results from people saying, “Well, maybe there’s no Biblical authority for this practice, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, I like it.” Some may claim certain things are ambiguous so they may do them in the absence of authority.
“The Sounds of Silence”
Henderson continues: “We have divided over our opinions about what the Bible says concerning other matters and our opinions concerning the silence of the Scriptures.” In some instances, this statement would apply. Some have misunderstood and misapplied the silence of the Scriptures, which illustrates that we must be very careful. But the flawed logic which was used by those brethren has been exposed in public discussion. Such did not always end the division, but at least it afforded the opportunity for all honest hearts to hear the truth.
Those on the “right” have generally proven to be more “noble” than those on the left because they are willing to put their views to the test. They believe strongly in them and are willing to defend them. But liberals (those on the “left”) remain silent when it comes to defending their beliefs. They either tersely decline or resort to ridicule (“I refuse to puke with buzzards”).
When a person refuses to stand up for his beliefs, one has to wonder why. Are liberals not confident enough to put their beliefs to the test? They sound arrogant enough most of the time. [Of course, there is a difference between arrogance and confidence.] Perhaps they don’t hold their views that strongly (in which case they should quit propagating them). Or maybe they just know they are false teachers and don’t want to be exposed.
Can anyone imagine Paul refusing to defend his beliefs? Engaging in controversy was the norm for him because to him truth was paramount. Can anyone picture Jesus our Lord refusing to answer those who questioned Him? On many occasions the multitude marveled at His answers. Today’s liberals would amaze most brethren if they would even appear on the polemic platform. Their cowardice bears witness to the fact that they have not the spirit of Christ.
“Excuses for Diversity”
Henderson now begins to explain why we should fellowship divergent views. These will be categorized below and stated in his own words.
1. “As long as we who are sinful, uninspired readers attempt to interpret words inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, we will inevitably arrive at differing conclusions.” This statement denies the power of God, who created us and who inspired the Word. Fallible human beings can understand an infallible book, or God wasted His time. God knows man’s shortcomings and weaknesses, but He also knows our capabilities, and He charged us to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.”
2. After making the “human frailty” argument, Henderson next tries the “we’re all in error on something” gambit.
I believe we will more readily allow for diversity of practice and opinion if each of us will simply acknowledge that our doctrinal positions and opinions are necessarily and inevitably a mixture of truth and error. The only alternative I know to that admission is to claim that we have perfectly understood and perfectly obeyed every teaching in this great book, and I know of no one among us who would be willing to make such an arrogant claim.
In all candor we must admit that we are astonished at this doctrine–not because it holds any validity, but for its confusion and obfuscation. Read the first sentence of the above quotation again. Notice that he equates opinion with doctrinal positions. Which is it that we are discussing: opinion or doctrine? The two cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered equivalents. In matters of faith (doctrine) there must be unity; in matters of opinion there should be liberty. They are not, nor ever have been, the same, but Henderson uses them interchangeably.
Equally egregious is his outlandish statement that our doctrinal positions are a mixture of truth and error!! What does such a fantastic suggestion do to the inspired word of God? Several Scriptures will need to be rewritten.
“And you shall know the truth (though because you are human and fallible it will be mixed with error), and the truth (albeit mixed with error) shall make you free” (John 8:32).
If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God (except he can’t because he is a human being and will therefore mix the oracles of God with error) (1 Peter 4:11).
Why was Paul so harsh in his statements to “mark” false teachers (Rom. 16:17) if we all teach a mixture of truth and error anyway?
In the second part of the above quotation he says we would be arrogant to claim to have understood perfectly every teaching and to have obeyed perfectly every teaching. Of course we would! Even the apostles could not do that; Peter was to be blamed in Antioch (Gal. 2:11). But notice that we have now jumped from opinion to doctrine to obedience, as if no difference existed in these concepts.
As human beings, we will always fall short of practicing what we preach; does that make the teaching any less true? And does not understanding every intricate teaching in the Bible prevent us from teaching its fundamental principles? Henderson is arguing that imperfection implies fellowship of everything.
“An Invitation to Humor”
On the way to his next excuse for diversity, Henderson makes an irresistible offer for critics to have a little fun at his expense. “I have no doubt whatsoever that I currently embrace some wrong opinions and conclusions concerning what the Bible teaches.” AMEN! In fact, he provides an example shortly. “I do the best I can. I approach the Word with all the integrity I can muster, but my understanding is limited by my own ignorance. . .” Well, what else can be expected from someone who spent three years in Abilene’s graduate program? With professors like Carroll Osburn, it’s a wonder he hasn’t become part of a man-made denomination.
3. “. . .and sinfulness. . .” The admission is appreciated, but such does not necessarily impair one’s ability to understand the Bible. It could, as in the case of dishonest homosexuals who pervert the Scriptures to try to justify their sins. But even atheists and the most immoral people alike can understand what the Bible teaches. They may not want to accept it or to repent of their sins, but they can comprehend it. Notice that the accusers of the immoral woman were sinful, but they understood what Jesus said (John 8:2-11).
4. “. . .and a lifetime of immersion in a western culture which in so many ways is foreign to the Bible.” Granted that the more information we gain from our study of the Scriptures, including cultural insights, the more we profit. But God knew these things when He gave us the His word in the Greek language. [He also knew that many peoples would need to rely on translations into their own languages.] God knew that we would still understand the major doctrines of the Bible–even if we did not catch all of the nuances.
“My thinking is not always clear. . .” (AMEN again); “. . .my motives are not always pure.” Henderson may be the first liberal who has questioned his own credibility; we shall not challenge him concerning it.
5. “Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 that on this side of heaven our knowledge is always going to be partial; so I don’t suspect that I’ll ever have it all figured out.” WHOA!! This is the example of a wrong conclusion of what the Bible teaches. What Paul actually said is quoted below.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they shall cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away. . . Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then shall I know just as I also am known (1 Cor. 13:8-10, 12).
“1 Corinthians 13”
The purpose of 1 Corinthians 13 is to demonstrate to the church that there is something better than spiritual gifts. In terms of quality love far transcends the spiritual gifts. In fact, one could possess the ability to speak in unknown tongues, to prophesy, to know spiritual truths without studying, or to miraculously move mountains (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Yet without love none of those things matters.
Furthermore, those things are not only inferior in quality; they are inferior in duration. All those spiritual gifts shall fail, cease, vanish away. When? At the end of time? If such is Henderson’s position, which his statement indicates, then he could not deny that spiritual gifts are in use at this very moment! The text, however, indicates that the temporary gifts will cease while faith, hope, and love abide (1 Cor. 13:13). They abide now. In eternity faith and hope will be unnecessary (Rom. 8:24).
Paul’s overall point is that the gifts are temporary; he therefore contrasts the temporary with that which is permanent. Prophecies, tongues, and knowledge all pertain to the revelation of God’s will, which was incomplete at the time Paul wrote. When it became complete, the means of revelation (prophecies, tongues, knowledge–the gifts, in other words), would be done away.
Henderson makes a dangerous statement when he says that our knowledge is always going to be partial this side of heaven. First of all, he has ignored the context of 1 Corinthians 13. But even worse is that he has denied what the other Scriptures plainly teach.
. . .as His divine power has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness. . . (2 Peter 1:3).
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
If God’s revelation to mankind is not complete, then inspiration must have continued to this present hour. Either God has given all of His revelation to us, or He has not. If He has, then we can know and understand it. If not, we are at the mercy of everyone who claims to have seen a vision.
Paul (in 1 Cor. 13) was not saying that the best we could do this side of heaven was to have partial knowledge; partial knowledge was the best Christians could do until the revelation was complete. It is wrong to imply that if we fail to understand every Bible nuance, we will be lost. No one believes that. Even the first century Christians understood salvation and worship, which is more than can be said for liberals.
On Monday evening, February 19th, of this year, Mark Henderson of Boulder, Colorado, spoke at the Abilene Christian University lectureship on the subject “People Need the Unity-Committed Church.” The purpose of this (and subsequent articles) will be to evaluate that speech.
This writer freely and openly confesses that he does not know Mark Henderson, nor has he made any effort to speak to him about his speech. [This admission is made that so Henderson’s fellow-liberals can begin clucking their tongues and pointing their fingers immediately without having to inquire.] His speech, however, was made publicly, and the response will likewise be public. He has not sinned against an individual brother, as per Matthew 18:15-17; he has sinned against Christ and the brotherhood by publicly teaching that which is grievously false.
Was there nothing in his speech to agree with? Of course, there was. When he quoted Psalm 133, John 17, or Eph. 4:11, he was correct. In fact, we enthusiastically agree that the unity enjoined in these Scriptures should be emphasized more because many problems and church splits have not arisen over Truth but over opinions on less than crucial matters or on personalities. An earnest commitment to spirituality, love, and unity could prevent many future heartbreaks.
In some of the quotations that follow there may be a reference “our fellowship” or “the American Restoration Movement.” The reader should know that these are terms devised by liberals so that they can better get along with “those who hate the Lord” (see the article entitled “Loving Those Who Hate The Lord”). They refrain from using Biblical terminology such as “the Lord’s church” or “Christians”; so they talk about “our fellowship” as distinguished from the Baptist fellowship. It’s more subtle than just referring to ourselves as a denomination, which is what liberals genuinely believe that we are.
The reference to the American Restoration Movement implies that our current beliefs are based upon Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, to whom Henderson frequently refers. The fact is that, while we have all profited from these men (as we have from Luther and Calvin), we believe that the things we teach and practice today because of what the Bible says, not because of anything those men said. The truth of the matter is that most of us would strenuously disagree with Stone (especially on his view that Jesus was a created being) and Campbell (especially on his acceptance as President of the Missionary Society, an unauthorized concept, and his answer on baptism in the Lunenburg letter).
Implications of the Introduction
Consider what the following words (transcribed from the tape) imply.
“Now I’m not in any way for compromising truth, but we must not ignore the plea for unity because not only will we deprive ourselves of the blessings God attaches to the unity of His people, but we will also diminish our witness before an unbelieving world which desperately needs the unity-committed church.”
Most of us would probably make this statement the other way around: “We are committed to unity, but we must not sacrifice the truth to obtain it.” One wonders where he is heading. [Notice the denominational (and incorrect) usage of the word witness.]
Jesus loves those people, and I have every confidence that He is going to raise up a unity-committed church. The question is whether we will be His partners in that undertaking, or whether He will do it without us.
Perhaps the speaker possesses greater insights than the rest of us do, but upon what is his confidence based that the Lord will raise up a unity-committed church: the Scriptures, current conditions, or something else? And what does He mean by that? And why would we, members of the Lord’s church, be excluded from genuine attempts at unity? And if those who are members of the body of Christ are excluded from whatever Henderson thinks is going to happen, who will be involved in it, non-members? How can those who have never obeyed the truth generate unity? Unity of what?
To be a unity-committed church will require the humility to rethink some things which have been very important to us.
What an arrogant assumption and charge. We cannot speak for Mark Henderson, but the writer rethinks everything each time he studies to teach a Bible class, preach a sermon, write an article, or teach someone the gospel. Can one pay heed to 1 Peter 4:11 and do otherwise? It is truly insulting for the speaker to act as if no one (but him?) ever evaluated anything.
But what does he imagine we so desperately need to rethink: baptism for the remission of sins, correct worship, the boundaries of fellowship, what? We have studied and debated those matters for decades; we believe we know the truth on these matters, but we are always interested in compelling evidence.
The Unity of All Believers
Mark Henderson discussed four things we must do.
First, we are going to have to rediscover a passion for the Biblical doctrine of the unity of all believers.
This is a valid point, depending on how the word believers is defined. The importance of this point was commented on earlier in this article. The speaker did not, however, make many applications of this idea, except to say: “Today, in the name of doctrinal purity, we are facing tensions over differing styles of a cappella music in worship.”
What does he specifically mean: that brethren should not object to solos, choirs, and groups like Acappella Vocal Band? We can maintain unity if brethren will quit insisting on doing that for which there is no Biblical authority. Were brethren commanded to sing solos or to sing to one another (Eph. 5:19)? Were they to pick out the best singers, or was everyone to participate (Col. 3:16)? The purpose for singing is mutual edification. Some brethren prefer to substitute God’s reasons for singing with their own–to please the ear. The New Testament teaches that we are to edify and admonish one another. Some want to go beyond that concept.
Furthermore, the New Testament never says make vocal sounds or music; it says, “Sing.” Those who want to introduce something new and different just because it is new and different should not expect their innovations to remain unevaluated.
The lecturer next made the point that Jesus could have prayed for anything the night He died, but He chose unity. That is true, but it’s not the whole truth. Jesus prayed for several things. Part of the prayer concerned a request for Himself–that He be glorified (John 17:1 & 5).
Next, Jesus began a long prayer for His disciples. Some of the key points are highlighted by the following verses.
“For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that you sent Me” (8).
I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world (15:16).
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (17).
Unity is important (11, 20-21), but the other subjects, including Truth and not being of the world, are also important. It is not as though our Lord prayed for only one item; there were several. And the importance of the disciples having accepted His words (truth) precedes the plea for unity (6-11, 17-21).
Truth undergirds unity. Without it, unity can exist. Atheists, evolutionists, and humanists can be united in error just as those in denominations can be. But Christian unity can not exist unless it is built upon truth.
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, went up to visit Ahab, king of Israel, who invited him to join in the battle against Ramoth Gilead. Jehoshaphat’s response to Ahab was, “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will be with you in the war” (1 Kings 18:3).
What prompted Jehoshaphat to speak this way? Was there a sweet, irenic, ecumenical spirit sweeping the land in his day (as there is in ours)? While it is true that they were all brethren in the flesh, nevertheless, they were not brethren spiritually. Why not? The reason involves (liberals, sit down for this) doctrine. Judah followed (albeit imperfectly) the commands of Jehovah; Israel followed the changes instituted by Jeroboam. Thus, they still had the golden calves, unauthorized priests, a different feast day than what God had commanded, and two cities to worship in other than Jerusalem (see 1 Kings 12:25-33).
So what’s the problem? Well, sure, the golden calves are a direct violation of the second commandment, but the others are not so bad. After all, God never said that members of the other tribes could NOT be priests. So they added another feast day; at least it didn’t conflict with the one in Jerusalem; people could attend both if they desired. And the cities? Why, it is only a matter of convenience. Traveling all the way to Jerusalem could prove to be a hardship for some; why not make it easier for people to worship? [Don’t these sound like some of the same arguments that brethren are using today to change things and fellowship nearly anyone?]
“Besides, none of us is perfect; we are all in error on something. Unity must prevail over Truth; if we are going to insist on truth, we will reap nothing but division.” So says the wisdom of this modern age.
Now consider God’s wisdom. He sent Hanani the seer to speak to Jehoshaphat after the battle was fought, in which Ahab died: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chron. 19:2). That’s right. Those who have changed God’s doctrines and are worshiping falsely, according to the Scriptures (not just the “opinion” of harsh, unloving conservatives) hate the Lord. Furthermore, it is wrong for us to fellowship them in a spiritual way.
Like so many brethren today who remain in congregations who fellowship those who hate the Lord (whether denominations or brethren in serious error), Jehoshaphat was a slow learner. Ahab’s son and successor, Ahaziah (who walked in his father’s evil ways), proposed a business venture to Jehoshaphat, and again he was eager to have fellowship with Israel. This time the prophet Eliezer told him: “Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah, the Lord has destroyed your works” (2 Chron. 20:35-37).
Jehoshaphat finally understood God’s will in this matter. When Ahaziah suggested rebuilding the ships and letting the sailors be from both nations, the king of Judah refused (1 Kings 22:48-49). He finally complied with God’s position on fellowship. Will some of our brethren ever comprehend this point?
Many statements have been made about the founding fathers of this nation in recent times. Some have attempted to make it sound as if they were all Deists who believed as strongly as the ACLU in the separation of church and state. Not only were very few actually Deists, but most of them were strongly influenced by the Bible. The purpose of John Eidsmoe’s book, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, is to provide an historically accurate account of their views.
He begins with chapters on Calvinism and Puritanism to show the religious climate of the time and to provide the philosophy which influenced their thinking. Chapter three deals with “Deism, Freemasonry, and Science.” The religious profession of each of the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention is listed (41-43).
Three charts in the next chapter are also quite interesting; they include the thinkers most cited by the founding fathers (by decade) (52-53). The work cited most often, not surprisingly, was the Bible (52).
The founding fathers surveyed in the book include John Witherspoon, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
The author has been very diligent in researching through historical documents and private letters to provide the reader insights into their beliefs. The many quotations serve as a valuable reference in refuting the claims of those trying to portray these men as atheists.
Franklin may have held some Deistic views at one time, but it was he, during a deadlock in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who said:
I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
Franklin then went on to move that “. . . prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning. . .” (208).
Jefferson accepted his own version of Christianity after the 1790’s (240). His statement about “a wall of separation between Church and State” is given special treatment (242-45).
The history of the Constitution, as well as its ratification, are outlined. The entire document with all its amendments and The Articles of Confederation are also included. The book is factual and educational.
