Is it a reaction to the Deism of the eighteenth century? Or is it intended to counter cold, formalistic, ritualistic religion? Maybe it’s an ego thing. Whatever the cause, some are awfully quick today to assign God as the source of various occurrences in an effort to make Him more personal.
For example, some preachers, when asked why they are with their current congregation, will say, “The Lord sent me here.” Well, of course, that’s possible, but how does he know that beyond a reasonable doubt? If, after a year, the church tells him to leave, then what will he say: “The Lord sent me here, but the brethren fired me”? Yet even that scenario is possible, is it not?
The point of contention is, “How are brethren so certain so quickly that things which have happened are the Lord’s doing?” Do they have a hotline to heaven that furnishes them with special insight that the rest of us lack? How can they interpret events with such certainty and infallibility?
Some have allowed themselves to be driven to almost Pentecostal extremes. Every little thing that happens suddenly takes on theological significance. There was a reason for it. Such thinking can take on New Age proportions: “There are no such things as accidents.” Instead of fate, however, it is God personally intervening in my life every day to help me. There is a reason why everything happens, and I can figure it all out.
“IT’S A SIGN”
A few weeks ago the movie Sleepless in Seattle was broadcast on television in an edited version. One of the lines frequently repeated, whenever something of significance occurred, was: “It’s a sign.” It was never made clear whether the “sign” was attributed to some kind of cosmic and impersonal force or to God. Some in the church would undoubtedly subscribe to the latter.
Yet there are circumstances which occur all the time that have no special meaning. Two weeks ago, for example, I parked behind a car at a local barbecue place. Its color was the same as the one Barb drives. In fact, it was the same basic car with only the names Omni and Horizon to distinguish them. So what? Stranger still was the car’s license plate: SRW 89J. Our look-alike is SRW 87J. Inside the restaurant, I asked the only other customer if that was her car. “Yes,” she replied, “did you hit it?” (That question is indicative of Texas driving patterns.)
Then I told her about the coincidence. To round out the irony, she told me her car was an ’87. “That’s interesting,” I told her. “You have an ’87 with an 89 on your license plate, and we have an ’89 with an 87 on ours.” Surely this must have been a great sign. Maybe I should have said, “With all of these coincidences, the Lord is surely trying to tell us something; let’s study the Bible together.” She could only think I was a little nuts and thereafter eat lunch elsewhere.
HAVE WE NO CHOICES?
God does work providentially (Rom. 8:28); no one disputes that fact. But is God so intimately involved with each of His children that several things are happening every day in a way they can easily discern?
If God’s actions are so easily recognized, can it rightly be called providence? Or do we simply have a miraculous ability of some sort to unequivocally know we have seen it in operation and can confidently declare so to others?
This way of thinking presupposes at least two ideas: 1) that God desires to control every aspect of our lives; and 2) that we can easily recognize Him working in our lives. The first of these is Calvinistic, and the second one is egotistic.
In the tiny book of Philemon Paul makes a large point. He is writing on behalf of Onesimus, a slave who had run away from Philemon. Somehow, this man came in contact with Paul while the apostle was imprisoned in Rome. Paul taught him the gospel, which he obeyed. Now he was a Christian. Pretty providential, wasn’t it?
Paul was a man of faith; no one could ever seriously question that. He worked miracles (Acts 19:11-12). He both spoke and wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, etc.). Yet notice that Paul does not tell Philemon: “Figure it out, brother. What else can Onesimus’ coming to Rome be except God’s providence?”
Instead he wrote: “For perhaps (italics supplied, gws) he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…” (15-16). Commenting on the verse, M.R. Vincent quotes Maclaren as saying:
We are not to be too sure what God means by such and such a thing, as some of us are wont to be, as if we had been sworn of God’s privy-council. . . Let us not be in too great a hurry to make sure that we have the key of the cabinet where God keeps his purposes, but content ourselves with ‘perhaps’ when we are interpreting the often questionable ways of His providence, each of which has many meanings and many ends (Word Studies in the New Testament 2:922).
Likewise, Mordecai, did not tell Esther, “Woman, can’t you see the providence involved in this situation? God put you here just to save the Jews.” Instead, he stated plainly that God would find a way to save His people; then he asked: “Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14).
WHAT ABOUT THE DEVIL?
Another flaw in the philosophy of those who seem determined to make God more personal is that they frequently fail to take into account the activity of the devil, who seeks to destroy all of us spiritually. It may be that some of the things God is credited with should actually be charged to Satan.
Let’s consider a hypothetical case in which a person begins to drive to the building where the saints meet for worship. Just before he is ready to turn on the main road, he sees that a tree has fallen down, blocking his way. Well, there is another way, but as he nears that exit, he sees that there has been an accident which will take a while to clear out.
What should he do? Clearly, the Lord is providentially hindering him from attending worship that day. He may as well return home and just study the Bible on his own. But once again, is the assumption made correct? How does he know that the devil is not trying to keep him away? On what basis does a Christian conclude that the Lord didn’t want him to meet with other brethren, when it is usually Satan that tries to keep us from good things?
And what if, instead of just supposing this is “any” church member, it is pointed out that this is an elder who was going to preside over the Lord’s Table that morning? Or the one who was supposed to preach? Or even a visiting evangelist who was to begin a gospel meeting that morning? Are we still satisfied with the “it-was-meant-to-be” posture? Let us be quick to refrain from making judgments about why certain things happen the way they do.
Can the propensity to attribute everything that happens to God be the result of a weak faith? Is it possible that some need to feel that God is with them every minute, causing astounding things to happen to them, in order to be strong spiritually? Does this daily demonstration of God’s existence help fortify one’s trust and conviction? If so, the person will shortly be disappointed. After all, when things begin to go against him, what else can he conclude but that God no longer cares for him.
Are we saying that God does not work providentially? No, He certainly does. Are we saying that we can not ever tell it? No, sometimes we can. But it is seldom immediately obvious. We know that God loves us and that He answers our prayers, but our finite limitations should serve to keep us from being dogmatic. A little time is needed to think and reflect upon certain things. We can easily ascertain why some things happen and may never know why others did. But even if we make the wrong choices, God can bring about good results from it–if we maintain our faith.
Churches of Christ do not conduct “heresy” trials because we, in accordance with New Testament teaching, do not have a national or international organization which possesses such authority. Instead, if we discover that someone is consistently teaching false doctrines, which are clearly refuted by the Scriptures, and he refuses to repent of it, we will not receive such an individual (2 John 9-11), and we mark him so that other brethren will not be duped (Rom. 16:17). [In many cases, however, these efforts are disregarded because some brethren cannot be warned, and others simply don’t care.]
But most religious denominations do have a structure and a body of doctrine (a man-made creed). What do they do when someone teaches contrary to their theology? Theoretically, they can conduct a “heresy” trial. The Episcopal Church has only charged two of their bishops with this serious offense in their 206 year history. Cautious, aren’t they? We could accuse at least a dozen of our own in the city of Abilene right now–and perhaps even more in Nashville.
The Episcopalians’ most recent case involves “Bishop” Walter Righter who is being criticized for “ordaining” a non-celibate gay man. David Briggs wrote the Associated Press article that appeared in newspapers like The Journal-Gazette in Fort Wayne on April 20th under the headline, “Discipline for Dissent Divides Denominations.” He also cites Catholics and Mormons as those practicing “excommunication.” Finally, some have seen a need to take a stand.
Who Has the Authority?
The subject of this article, however, does not concern the issues that are being debated among those groups; rather, it is the rationale of the “bishop” who is in trouble. His accusers state that he (in taking the action he has) has violated the authority of the Scriptures. By such a statement they presumably mean that a practicing homosexual should not be ordained an Episcopalian Bishop.
It is all too obvious to point out that the Scriptures do not recognize any denomination, including theirs, and that bishops such as exist in their organization are also unauthorized. Think about it: what verses could someone use to justify either of these concepts? So they disregard Scriptures on these matters but wish to invoke them on matters of morality.
Perhaps Righter thinks that his denomination is inconsistent. Consider this interesting assertion of his: “The Episcopal Church says the Bible exists for the church to interpret.” Whoa! That brings up an interesting question: “Does the Bible exist for the church to interpret, or is the church under the authority of the Scriptures?”
We infer from Righter’s statement that he believes that the church (a governing body of “officials”) has the right to accept or reject God’s laws. Many would agree; they reserve the right to label Bible teaching “cultural” (homosexuality, women preachers).
If this is the course people wish to pursue, then people would be free to do virtually anything. In fact, we could start out with the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-21 and relegate each one of them to culture-based statements. Fornication? Oh, sure, it’s condemned in the Scriptures, but that’s just promiscuous fornication that is meant, not two people living together who have a loving relationship. “Witchcraft”? That was probably “black magic”; why, today’s witches help people. “Heresies”? There may have been a time when orthodoxy was needed, but in today’s world of diversity there is no such thing as heresy. “Revellings”? We don’t have any problem with that today, as long as there is a designated driver.
If the church is allowed to interpret the Bible, it will end up changing every doctrine imaginable. Just consider the Catholic Church alone. They use sprinkling for baptism; what Scripture authorizes that change? They also “baptize” (actually, sprinkle) babies so their “original sin” can be forgiven, but where do we read that infants are born with sin or that sprinkling will get rid of it? Where is the authority for the Rosary, holy water, a separate priesthood, etc.?
Not only did the Catholic Church exercise the right to “interpret”; they also claimed the “right” of invention–making up whatever teachings they desired. Every denomination begins with the same assumption; otherwise, they could not exist–because there is no authority for them.
The fact of the matter is that “the church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24). Christians have no right to change the word of God to suit any culture; neither have we any authority to add to the commandments contained in the perfect law of liberty, or to take away from them.
“But there is always some interpretation involved when we study the Scriptures.” Yes, but the only correct approach in understanding them is the attitude that says, “What do they mean?” It is not appropriate to ask, “What would I like them to mean?” Responsible interpretation respects the authority of the Word of God; it does not kowtow or cater to culture.
In other words, God revealed to us His will in all matters of morality and doctrine. Our task is to discover and abide by these truths. No group of men has been granted the power to change what God has written to suit themselves or someone else. God never authorized His leaders to begin making changes if people balk at what He wrote. If God’s revelation becomes unpopular, it will not be the first time. No one wanted to hear it just prior to the Flood , either. No one cared just before the captivity. The fault lies in the hearts of men, not with the Word of God.
The Modernist Attitude
Righter’s real attitude toward the Bible is revealed in the following quotation:
Are we going to be a church which buys into the funny farm of saying, “Every word in the Bible is true?” We never have.
Funny farm? Is he saying that we are crazy if we believe that the Bible means what it says? In the absence of further explanation by him, we can only conclude that he does not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which it presents itself throughout (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
In fact, Paul was apparently challenged by some about his apostolic authority, and he responded in the following way: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
The Bible does contain some figurative language. Not every word or statement can be understood literally (e.g., Jesus saying, “I am the vine”); but every word is true. Some might cite a statement such as “You shall not surely die” as being false. What Satan told Eve was untrue, but it is true that he said it. And given the context and the results, no reader could possibly misunderstand that it was a lie he told.
What words does Righter think are not true that are in the Bible? Let’s take a guess. Since he “ordained” a practicing homosexual, he must not believe Gen. 19, Rom. 1, and other equivalent passages. Since he thinks the church “interprets” the Bible, he must have a problem with Jesus’ statement that all authority has been given unto Him (Matt. 28:18). Since the Bible speaks of only one church (Eph. 4:4), it’s a safe bet he disagrees with that.
Righter merely reserves the right to sit in judgment on the Bible. If he likes what it says, he’ll accept that verse. If it rubs him the wrong way, well, the Bible simply becomes invalid on that point. This system would work really well–if God was the author of it. Satan, however, is behind this philosophy. Note how Jesus viewed man’s response to His word.
Not everyone who saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).
Note that God is not pleased with the one who quibbles with His will nor the one who rejects it. The wise man (Matt. 7:21-28) is the one who hears–and does it. Man has never had, nor ever will have, the right to sit in judgment upon God, His ways, or His word. Our responsibility is to believe and obey.
Are you unhappy with the church? Are you disappointed in the worship? Have you gotten to the point where you just attend once in a while? When you try to motivate yourself to come, does the whole process feel like sheer drudgery? And when you are here, do the lessons seem kind of boring? Has the Lord’s Supper lost some of its flavor? Do brethren appear to ignore you? And have you started wondering how many things you could buy with the money you put in the contribution?
Cheer up! You’re not the only one who has ever felt this way. One of the most spiritual men of all time, “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14), also once lost the enthusiasm that he had formerly possessed in his love and service of God. In Psalm 51:12, he prayed to God, “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation.”
David did that? Yes, David, conqueror of giants and author of the most devotional literature in the Old Testament, reached a point in his life where he could no longer feel close to the God he loved. What could have happened to such a devout man, to have caused him to depart from His creator?
The same thing that hindered him is working on you, if you fall into this category–sin! David wrote Psalm 51 after Nathan rebuked him for his sin with Bathsheba. “Now wait just a minute,” you say, “I certainly haven’t done anything like David did. I may have my faults–but nothing that serious.”
Good. But it’s not the specific sin of adultery–or the follow-up sin of murder– that is under discussion. The point is that when a person can not be happy or content in his relationship to God (or the church over which Jesus is head), then something is wrong, and that something involves sin. Salvation in Christ is the greatest source for elation that exists in this world. Misery cannot accompany a person walking in the light (1 John 1:7), nor can it dominate the Christian who maintains his faith in God. Even persecution cannot make us sorrowful. Those in Thessalonica “received the word in much affliction”–yet “with joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess 1:6).
Only sin in some form can rob of us of the joy that is ours. David was keenly conscious of the effects that sin had upon him. “For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me” (Psalm 51:3). He had chosen to sin, knowing that what he was doing was wrong. Any time we choose to sin, we know it is going to affect our relationship with God.
Suppose I have an opportunity in the work place to make a few extra bucks via appropriation. In other words, I have the opportunity to steal twenty or thirty dollars a week, which helps pad my income (I deserve it anyway). The knowledge that I have taken that which does not belong to me just might get in the way of my spiritual life. After all, how can I pray to God when He knows I am a thief? How can I praise Him when I know how He feels about sin? How can I make requests or ask that my sins be forgiven?
The same holds true with a number of other sins. Suppose I have gotten hold of a few Pamela Anderson videos, produced by Playboy, or one of several other pornographic materials that I bought in a neighboring town where nobody knows me (and which I watch when no one is around). I know that fleshly lusts “war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11), but I just cannot seem to help myself. Can I have problems like these and expect God to bless me?
“BUT SIN IS NOT MY PROBLEM”
“Well, sure,” you say, “but I’m certainly not in any of those categories. My problem is not sin; it’s just that I feel listless and lackluster about attending worship. Perhaps if the sermons were shorter, the singing was more inspiring, and we had a few plays…”
Sorry, but the problem is still sin. Anyone who is bored, listless, and lackluster ought to begin to think, “Maybe the problem is me”–instead of fixing the blame on everyone else. Perhaps the problem is not being conscious of sins that are so obvious and well-recognized as adultery, stealing, etc.
But there are other types of sins. One affliction of this age is PROSPERITY. Are you absorbed with THINGS? No? Of course, we would all deny it. But really think about it. Compare yourself to what people in other countries have. Are we not just slightly slanted in the direction of materialism? It is still true that a person’s “life does not consist in the abundance of things he possesses” (Luke 12:15) and that all these things shall one day be burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12). Jesus also said that “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word” (Matt. 13:22).
The church and its worship may not seem exciting to us when most of our life is spent among the tangibles. Spiritual truths have never seemed to inflame God’s people, but they should; they are of greater substance and duration than those things of a physical nature. And the physical never satisfies; that’s why we’re always on the lookout for a bigger and more exciting “toy.” Forgiveness of sins, peace of mind, and eternal life do not seem to compare favorably with the short-term enjoyment of physical things.
Another distraction is ENTERTAINMENT. We live in the most amusement-oriented society (perhaps) in the history of the world. We have accelerated almost exponentially in the growth of the entertainment industry. A few centuries ago people might have been entertained by a court jester and a handful of wandering minstrels. Now we have “rock stars” and “movie stars,” and athletes in a variety of major sports who make salaries in the millions. And how many homes lack radios, televisions, VCR’s, and stereos?
All of these things affect (and sometimes assault) the eyes and ears, the physical senses. Our society is virtually drenched in material things; spiritual concerns seldom see the light of day. When we allow the earthly to crowd out the heavenly, sin is at work.
SOLUTIONS
If salvation has ceased to be joyful, if worship seems to be flat, if spiritual pursuits seem boring, then sin of some sort is hindering you. The problem does not lie with the elders, evangelists, or brethren; the problem lies within you. Even Paul, who confided that he was “in perils among false brethren,” and constantly faced “deep concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:26-28), wrote, “Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice” (Phil. 4:4). It simply will not suffice to cast the blame onto others for your problem.
Returning to Psalm 51, we find several suggestions to improve one’s spiritual condition. The first is to acknowledge transgressions (3). Unless we see the sin in our life and take responsibility for it, we cannot overcome it. David acknowledged his transgressions (1), his iniquity (2), his sin (2), and the evil he had done (4).
He also expressed a strong desire to be right with God, but he knew that only God could help him out of the ungodly position he was in: “wash me thoroughly from my iniquity” (2); “cleanse me from my sin” (2); “purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean” (7); “wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (7); “create in me a clean heart, O God” (10); “renew a right spirit within me” (10); “deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God” (14).
David was aware that he could not undo what he had done; he knew there was no way to atone for his sins. Thus he cries out, “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; according to the multitude of Your tender mercies” (1). David certainly knew about God’s grace (even under the Old Testament system!). He also knew that offering up sacrifices to God would not compensate for his sins; the only thing that prevails with God is genuine repentance. “A broken and contrite heart–these, O God, You will not despise” (17). Since this relationship is between the individual and God, it cannot be faked–except by self-delusion.
If you need the joy of your salvation restored, ask yourself, “Have I been praying as I once did? Have I been reading and studying the word of God as I did formerly? What has been the emphasis in my life?” If your love and zeal for God have cooled, take responsibility for your actions. Call upon God as David did; call upon God to renew you. Then you will not only be right with God–but useful once again (13).
In the March 15-17 USA Weekend the reader finds an article entitled “New Ways to Pack the Pews?” The focus of attention is similar to that of John MacArthur’s book, Ashamed of the Gospel? The subject is the new approach that many churches are taking in an effort to attract new members.
Most of the allurements cited in the article involve changes in music. Some congregations have bands playing live rock music; others are playing “Christian pop music.” Then there are the “megachurches,” like the one mentioned in Houston, Texas, which “claims 22,000 members, a 600-voice choir, and staff of 500″ They also sport their own health club, hot tubs, aerobics classes, basketball courts,” etc. (17).
Perhaps faced with criticism by some, those who use these various methods have mounted a defense, such as the one found in this closing paragraph. “Billy Graham built his ministry in the 1950’s based strictly on what the Bible says. That doesn’t work today. Not as many people assume the basic tenets of Christianity; so we have to first tell them why we believe in the Bible before we can tell them what it says. We’ve rethought the approach. But that’s all that’s changed” (17).
Oh, really? And how does playing rock music prepare them for the basic tenets of Christianity? The changes that have been made cannot all be assigned to a difference in approach. The fact is that not only has the method changed–so has the substance!
The fact that the message has changed, as well as the approaches used to gain members, is seen in the statements of preaching philosophy. Consider a brief acknowledgment from this same article. The author poses the following hypothetical question about the congregation: “Will they get an earful of fire and brimstone?” The answer is, “Hardly.” The “sermon” will consist of “a video clip of a doctor discussing medical aspects of crucifixion, a drama staged by church members, and a slide show” (not to be confused with side show) (17).
John MacArthur reported similar sentiments in his book decrying these new “approaches,” Ashamed of the Gospel? Summarizing the philosophy of many, he wrote: “The new rules of preaching in the user-friendly church are simple: Be clever, informal, positive, brief and friendly. Never loosen your necktie. Never let them see you sweat. And never, never use the H-word” (47).
MacArthur (who incorrectly holds to the doctrine of Calvinism) correctly states the following about preaching: “No church can remain healthy for long if the pulpit is not strong. And no pulpit is truly strong if the Bible is not the basis for preaching. . . Biblical preaching cannot be geared toward meeting felt needs, solving psychological problems, amusing the audience, making people feel good about themselves, or any other of the hollow fads that have commandeered pulpits in this entertainment oriented age” (187).
Jonah’s Story (RSSV)
To demonstrate that there is a substantial change in the modern message (and not just in methods), let’s apply these afore-mentioned techniques to the prophet Jonah to see how the current philosophy might have altered his work.
Jonah was so reluctant to preach to Nineveh that he tried to run away from the responsibility. God caught his attention and gave him the same charge He had initially. This time he went to Nineveh and preached the message that God gave him. “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4).
Fortunately, there was no one there to tell Jonah that strictly preaching the word of God wouldn’t work in that day and age. Instead, all the people believed the message; they also took it to heart, and they repented “from the greatest to the least” (Jonah 3:5).
But suppose we could transpose cultures and centuries, and some of these modern “church growth” principles were applied back then. In fact, why not imagine a conversation between Jonah and Pastor Vainglory of the First National Church as Jonah is traveling on the way to Nineveh. The following dialogue is taken from the Hebrew Imaginary Text and is recorded from the Revised Substandard Version (RSSV).
Pastor Vainglory (hereafter referred to as PV): “Jonah. I hear you are on your way to Nineveh.”
Jonah: “Yes, but I’d rather be in Tarshish.”
PV: “Have you thought about what you’re going to say when you get there?”
Jonah: “Yes, I’m going to be very bold, straight-forward, and plain-spoken.”
PV: “What will be the content of your message?”
Jonah: “I’m going to tell them that if they don’t repent of their sins, they will be destroyed in forty days’ time.”
PV: “Apparently, you have never heard that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
Jonah: “Why would I want to catch a bunch of nasty flies?”
PV: “What I mean is: how do you expect people to listen to you, if you say such unpleasant things?”
Jonah: “Listen, I didn’t want this job, but if I do it, it’s going to be done right. I didn’t originate the message; I’m just delivering it.”
PV: “You’ll hurt their self-esteem, which violates the first commandment of public relations. I’m not suggesting that you change your message, Jonah–just that you take a different approach.”
Jonah: “What do you suggest?”
PV: “Well, you need to get people’s attention; you can’t just run through the streets shouting at people. Why don’t you see if you can rent an auditorium in town? Hire a band to play music–something contemporary, with a smattering of spiritual content. Then advertise.”
Jonah: “And that will get people to come in?”
PV: “Oh, sure. Schedule various times to address them. Use the Sabbath day, but set some non-traditional days, also. They’ll love that. But now about that message. It must be brief, say twenty minutes, and very palatable.”
Jonah: “I don’t think I know how to make judgment and destruction palatable.”
PV: “Is that a necessity? People really don’t want to hear that stuff any more. Tell some amusing stories and personal anecdotes.”
Jonah: “But it’s the heart of the message.”
PV: “Well, you can’t expect to keep a very large congregation with that attitude. Instead of emphasizing all that “doom and gloom” stuff, why not focus on God’s grace and mercy? You can love them into righteousness instead of badgering them into it.”
Jonah: “It is true that God is ‘a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm'” (Jonah 4:2).
PV: “Now you’re getting it. Just briefly touch on their sins. Say: ‘Maybe there are some things in your lives that displease God. Look into your hearts, be honest, and change what you need to.’ Then remind them that God’s grace will cover all their failings.”
Jonah: “Okay, I’ll give it a try.”
Jonah spoke to packed houses every night; he had the largest religious gatherings in the city, having become the most popular speaker there. On Pastor Vainglory’s advice, they instituted dramas and other interesting practices aimed at the people’s “felt needs,” which all seemed to enjoy. This blissful condition lasted for forty days, at which time they were all destroyed. Because they were never taught God’s holiness and justice, His love and His grace simply could not be understood.
In the religious section of the The Dallas Morning News on April 13th of this year Max Lucado took center stage. The article written by Anne Belli Gesalman (entitled “Jesus as the Everyman”) leaves the reader wondering if she is Lucado’s publicity agent. Included are several columns of praise for the popular author.
Now certainly she has every right to interview such a well-known personality, and Max undoubtedly appreciates any positive exposure he can get, but somehow between the two of them a tremendous disservice has been done to the Lord and His church.
She begins by describing a sketch of Jesus which hangs in Lucado’s office. Perhaps this is not the greatest point in the world, but one wonders who drew it: Peter, James, John? Perhaps Paul doodled it while in his prison cell? Where would one get a picture of the Lord 2,000 years removed from His physical presence? And why doesn’t Max know any better? Name anyone else masquerading as a preacher that has a picture of Jesus hanging in his office.
But wait. This sketch is unique. According to Anne, the Jesus in this picture is laughing hysterically. She comments: “But it’s the one that Mr. Lucado keeps in mind each time he sits down to pen another chapter in one of his inspirational books,” and “Indeed, it’s Mr. Lucado’s portrayal of Jesus in a relaxed, Everyman sort of way” that has made him so popular (1G).
That’s interesting. Did Jesus laugh hysterically?
First of all, the word hysterically does not appear in the Bible; laughing does. Ironically, Jesus is never in the New Testament described as laughing (what would you expect for the “man of sorrows”?); He was, however, laughed at (Luke 8:53). He did make two statements about laughter. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh” (Luke 6:21). “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). Perhaps Max has “lightened up” a little too soon and should consider spiritual matters more seriously. Is he making Jesus an “Everyman” or a “common man”? Certainly, his sketch of Jesus laughing hysterically lacks Biblical authority.
Devoutly What?
This mischaracterization of Jesus is prominently displayed at the beginning of Gesalman’s article. After the attack on the Lord, His church is the next target. “While Mr. Lucado is devoutly Church of Christ (he’s minister of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio), his books are nondenominational and sometimes include references to principal figures in other Christian denominations” (1 G).
There can be no question that the church of Christ, a name derived from the New Testament (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16; Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4, and 5:23), is being equated in this sentence with man-made denominations. This inaccurate usage of the phrase is an insult to Jesus our Lord and a slap in the face of those truly trying to be non-denominational.
The church of Christ, as described in the New Testament, was built by Jesus; He yet remains the head over it. The Lord’s church has nothing to do with denominations which are unauthorized by God and established by men. Those who are genuine Christians today have no desire to be part of a denomination and recoil in horror at the thought. We just want to be Christians and are satisfied to be part of the church, the temple, the household of God.
We do not have a denominational structure, national conventions, or policy making boards. We are autonomous and subject only to the Scriptures, which are God’s revelation to man. We believe that the Scriptures are inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and that they alone authorize what we do and what we teach (Col. 3:17).
To say that someone is “Church of Christ” (and shamefully some brethren do it) is the equivalent form of saying that someone is Methodist or Presbyterian. Such terminology implies that the Lord’s church is a man-made denomination, which in turn casts a poor reflection upon our Savior.
In the second place, Max Lucado is not devoutly “Church of Christ” in any sense. He certainly is not a devout member of the Lord’s church, as described in the pages of the New Testament. He fellowships those who teach doctrinal error, something that Jesus did not do (Matt. 15:12-14, Matt. 23), nor Paul (Rom. 16:17-18, 1 Tim. 1:18-20, 2 Tim. 2:16-18), nor Peter (2 Peter 2:18-22), nor John (1 John 4:1, 2 John 9-11), nor Jude (vs. 3-4). Max speaks to various denominational groups and praises what they are doing. He treats all who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of sins as brethren–because he thinks they are! So he is not a devout member of the Lord’s church.
But if he thinks the church of Christ is the same as a man-made denomination (and he most assuredly does), then he is still not very devout, because he fellowships indiscriminately all the other denominations–scarcely the philosophy of a “devout” partisan. If the reporter wanted to characterize accurately Max’ relationship with the church of Christ, she might be surprised to learn that true brethren do not fellowship him because of his unrepented heresies. As people bought by the blood of Christ and instructed by the New Testament concerning genuine fellowship, we find it impossible to abide by the Word and fellowship one who blatantly transgresses it.
How ironic that the reporter calls his books “non-denominational” (which they are not; if anything, they are inter-denominational) and then treats the genuinely non-denominational church of Christ as though it were one.
The Secret Identity
Consider some of the final comments recorded in this article from Julie Mantai, the manager of a large “Christian” bookstore in The Woodlands, just north of Houston. “Lucado books don’t stay on the shelves very long. Christians of all sorts buy them” (4G). What does she mean by “Christians of all sorts”? Tall ones, short ones, male, female? No, she means denominational “Christians.”
She goes on to say: “I don’t think anyone knows he’s Church of Christ. I’m Episcopalian, and my priest quotes him in at least two or three sermons a month” (4G). [That’s scary–to think that Lucado’s literary placebos are put on a par with the Scriptures.] Here, once again, the Lord’s church is treated as a mere denomination. No doubt, those who admit to being members of one would like to think that every other religious group is the same as they are, but such is not the case among those who respect the truth.
There is a reason that many people do not know Max’ religious background. For one, it never shows. Who could ever read anything by Max Lucado and find anything in it that would connect him with the Lord’s church? Certainly, he never teaches anyone about how to be saved. What book has he written in which he discusses baptism for the remission of sins, as Peter did on the day of Pentecost? He doesn’t even believe it himself (“devout” person that he is), and we know that he does not believe it because he counts nearly anybody as a Christian (except perhaps some of his “legalistic” brethren). It matters not to him if they were sprinkled as children or just prayed the “sinner’s prayer.” They are all Christians to him because he abides not in New Testament teaching. No, no one would identify Max as one of us–because he is not one of us.
Lucado does not teach (and therefore does not believe) that one must (after repenting of sins) be baptized in water by the authority of Jesus in order that they might be forgiven; he does not teach that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from our sins when we are baptized (Acts 2:38); he will not affirm that the Lord adds us to His church (Acts 2:47); nor will anyone ever hear him say that there is but one church (Eph. 4:4). And what has he written about the Lord’s Supper, correct worship, etc.?
Members of the Lord’s church are quite happy that Max has maintained a secret identity. The less association with us, the better. Max has opted for popularity and what he calls “unity.” He has, however, union at best; true unity would involve all of us coming together and abiding by the doctrine of the New Testament. Agreeing to ignore Biblical teaching, if it can be called unity, is the Babel kind.
How could one see what Israel saw and know what Israel knew, yet be disobedient and rebellious and fall in the wilderness? They watched God bring plague after plague upon the Egyptians, culminating with the death of the firstborn. They not only saw the Egyptians drown in the Red Sea after they themselves had passed through on dry ground, but they sang a song and rejoiced in their deliverance (Ex. 15).
Despite all of these benefits and blessings, however, Israel rebelled in the wilderness. Why? They had hardened their hearts. Why? “The word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it” (Heb. 4:2).
In other words, knowledge does not imply obedience. Sometimes, when a brother or sister well-versed in the Scriptures falls away from the church, we often scratch our heads and say, “How could such a thing have happened? Why, brother X taught the Bible for 15 years and did an excellent job, too. How could he forsake the truths he has known and taught?”
We are likewise perplexed when a preacher deserts his family and disappears with a woman who may also be a member of the congregation (an all too frequent occurrence). “Why, he knows better than that, and so does she.” These statements are true, but it is not a matter of knowledge; it’s a matter of faith.
Let’s consider Israel first. She experienced God’s deliverance firsthand in being allowed to leave Egypt without even engaging in a battle for freedom; God took care of the entire matter. One would think that such great salvation would generate faith in God. But as they are hemmed in between Pharaoh and the sea, whatever confidence they might have had has disappeared.
Instead of praying to God for help, they accuse Moses instead: “Because there were no graves in Egypt, have you taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt so with us, to bring us out of Egypt? Is not the word that we told you in Egypt, saying, ‘Let us alone that we may serve the Egyptians?’ For it would have been better for us to have served the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness” (Ex. 14:11-12).
Moses replies with authority: “Do not be afraid. Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which He will accomplish for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall see again no more forever. The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace” (Ex. 14:13-14). Implicit in these remarks is the idea that God’s people, as a whole, lacked faith.
The same God who delivered them from Pharaoh in the land of Egypt could deliver them from Pharaoh by the Red Sea, which He does. But then the people complained about not having water, and meat, and conquering the land. Could they not remember what God had already done for them? Yes, but they continue to demonstrate a lack of faith.
Such is the problem with many in the Lord’s church today. Like Chicken Little, they run around cackling that we’re losing members and losing young people, and we’d better start being like the denominations round about us if we hope to have any relevance in the future. The problem is not one of knowledge; it’s one of faith. Somehow we can not trust the God who saved us from our sins and who has preserved His Word for us all these generations to be effective any more.
Did God somehow fail to take into account the twentieth century? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16); can the gospel and the church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth, no longer be pertinent in our age? To entertain such a foolish notion demonstrates a lack of faith in God–that He knows what He’s doing.
Or consider the knowledgeable brother that leaves his wife (and maybe even goes so far as to write a defense of his lustful actions). Why did he abandon his family, and violate the vows he made on his wedding day? On the human side, there was a breakdown in communication somewhere; there was also a lack of trust in God’s institution of marriage. Did God not design it and teach us how to make it work (Matt. 19:3-9, Eph. 5:22-33)?
A lack of faith is at the root of many of today’s problems. More than once elders have allowed sins of immorality to go unnoticed because of the generous givers in the congregation who threatened to withhold their contribution if a certain sin was preached against (which insistence was typical of their spirituality). In one case, elders forbade a preacher to teach on divorce and remarriage because the new building had to be paid for.
King Amaziah was once told to dismiss the Israelite soldiers he had already bought and paid for. He was assured that the battle was in God’s hands “. . . for God has power to help and to overthrow” (2 Chron. 25:7-8). When he protested about the money, he was told, “The Lord is able to give you much more than this” (v. 9). If we are following the will of God, He will bless us and take care of us. If not, we will eventually fail. It’s a matter of our knowledge being mixed with faith.
What is the context of Hebrews 4:2? It is part of one of the exhortations to Christians to be careful of “falling away.” Brethren are to “exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today,’ lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). Israel is cited as an example to let us know that God’s children can fall. Just as that one generation of Israelites was kept out of the promised land because of their unbelief (Heb. 3:19), so can we be denied our eternal rest.
Oh, but we have obeyed the gospel. Israel had the equivalent of what we have, but it did not do them any good because though they knew God’s word, their knowledge was not mixed with faith. And Christians must therefore be careful, lest we find ourselves repeating these past mistakes. Knowledge plus faith equals a servant pleasing to God. But when faith is removed from the equation, the remaining knowledge becomes both barren and useless.
We must trust in the Word of God, that it is sufficient to live by. We must trust in God, that He knows what He’s doing (Rom. 8:28). We must trust God when the world is marching in the wrong direction. We must trust Him when the church is following false brethren.
Do we not entrust our souls to Him for our salvation? Do we not believe that the blood of Christ has cleansed us from our sins? Do we not count on God to establish us and keep us spiritually safe (John 10:27-29, 1 Cor. 10:13)? And aren’t our souls more valuable than all else (Matt. 16:26)? If we can trust our God with that which holds the greatest value, how much easier is it to trust Him in all lesser matters! Let’s be sure that our knowledge is “mixed with faith.”
Days can travel swiftly. They can be packed tightly, like a suitcase bulging with so many clothes that it’s difficult to get it shut. A day can be so crowded with things we have planned that we scarcely have time to think. Or is that the idea?
There we are, cramming into each day as much activity as we can. Days free from work and school may find us engaged in various sports, visiting theme parks, or absorbed in our favorite hobbies. Perhaps the hours are filled with visits to family members or friends. And then comes the evening, and more recreation is provided in the form of television, movies, or in playing assorted games.
Days flee from us swiftly. But there are those awkward moments–say before we fall asleep (or perhaps sleep is evading us), or we first wake up, and we are alone with our thoughts. It is then that perhaps we realize that there are some important matters we may not have dealt with.
Yes, we have been enjoying ourselves and having a good time. We have fulfilled thoroughly our “pursuit of happiness,” at least in a physical way. But the question we may find nagging at us in those silent moments is, “What about God?” Have we ignored Him? Should we be paying more attention to Him? Are there some important spiritual matters we have overlooked? Are we satisfying to the One who has created us? Or is He perchance disappointed in us? Are we living our lives a bit too selfishly? What about God?
The answer to this question will vary depending upon the person giving it. An atheist would probably chastise himself for wasting his time thinking about it. An agnostic might toy with the thought for a while before dismissing it. The evolutionist, as he does obeisance to primordial soup, would scoff at the idea of a Creator. But is it so easy to dismiss Deity?
In moments of honesty (not to mention the absence of any concrete evidence by evolutionists) we admit that since we are here, we must have an origin. If God did create us (as the Bible so affirms), the next question is, “Why?”
It was not for whimsical purposes–just to see what would happen. He knew what would happen. It was not just for fun; our being here has caused God a great deal of anguish and pain. It was not for any frivolous reason; we have an eternal destiny.
God created man in His own image, to be like Him. We should feel honored that He gave us life, intelligence, and reasoning abilities, and then bade us to have fellowship with Him. How privileged we are! And when we chose to sin, God sent Jesus to die for our sins, that they might be forgiven and fellowship could be restored. But how are we responding to these great gifts? Are we living our lives selfishly, or thoughtfully? Do we view our lives as our own (as though we earned life), or do we count them a blessing from above? Do we answer to no one, or are we responsible to God? How do we individually answer “the question”?
The homosexuals who have attempted to defend their sin by redefining and twisting the Scriptures make the point (as so many others have) that Jesus “said nothing about homosexuality” as if such a fact (if it were true) would somehow negate every-thing else taught in the Bible. Jesus also said nothing about idols or idolatry; does that mean that their worship is suddenly all right? He didn’t say anything about kidnapping, either, which was a capital offense in the Old Testament (Ex. 21:16).
The silence of the Scriptures is sometimes very important, but silence in one, or even four, books of the New Testament cannot be considered significant when the subject is discussed elsewhere. Jesus received His teaching from the Father (John 12: 49-50). Likewise, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the apostles, did not originate His own message; “but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak” (John 16:13). In other words, all Scripture is inspired of God, regardless of who the writer or speaker is (2 Tim. 3:16). And there are plenty of other passages in the New Testament that condemn homosexuality.
Those who make the “silence” argument about homosexuality apparently miss something else just as significant. Jesus said nothing specifically about incest, bestiality, or rape. Are such actions therefore authorized? The truth is that all of those terms are covered by the word fornication.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament points out that during the time of Christ the Greek word porneia included “unnatural vice,” such as “sodomy” (VI:587). When Jesus therefore used “fornication” as the ground for divorce, he included a mate who has had a homosexual affair or is committing incest with a family member.
Still, why did he not mention any of these sins specifically? Could it be that the Jews (to whom He spent the great bulk of His time teaching) were not practitioners of homosexuality? No gospel preachers devoted much attention to this problem thirty years ago, either, because it was not a common problem. When Paul, however, wrote to the Romans and the Corinthians, cities full of pagans and their various corruptions, he did speak of it because it was relevant to those societies.
The fact that Jesus spoke of the sin in a general sense is sufficient; the fact that the apostles specified homosexuality as sinful is conclusive.
Who Can Believe This?
Romans 1:24-28 has long been the “un-get-around-able” passage against homosexuality in the New Testament. But anyone tuning into this defense of homosexualtiy on the Internet will find a desperate attempt to discount it. The writers of it pervert a passage on perversion for their own perversion’s sake. Read the following statement of theirs, and realize that they really argue this way; your eyes have not deceived you.
“‘Unnatural’ in these passages does not refer to the so-called laws of nature, but rather implies actions contradicting one’s own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is ‘unnatural’, para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.”
Incredible!! Why, to preach that homosexuals need to repent is all wrong. They would be violating their own “natural” homosexual “tendencies.” Anyone who has ever wanted to see someone make a passage of Scripture say exactly the opposite of what it really means now has that wish fulfilled. Who can believe it?
They try to bolster this position by stating that the phrase is also used of God. “In Romans 11:24, God acts in an ‘unnatural’ way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles.” Obviously, these homosexual apologists cannot be trusted to handle the New Testament Scriptures any more than they could the Old. Consider the verse: “For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?”
It was not against God’s nature to accept Gentiles. God loves all and desires their salvation (2 Peter 3:9). The point is that a wild branch is not naturally grafted in a good olive tree. It took a loving God to bring about such a phenomenon. God accepts all who repent of sin (Ps. 51:17)–even homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
The word translated “nature” always refers to what is “natural,” such as a man having short hair (1 Cor. 11:14). Homosexual and lesbian relationships are NOT natural, which is precisely Paul’s point. Furthermore, it is “unclean,” a dishonoring of one’s body, and a “vile affection.”
What is obviously lesbianism is dismissed as “women adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships.” A person must just want to believe these explanations because they violate all the rules of normal Biblical interpretation. Any reputable commentary or lexicon will contradict these fanciful, desperate assertions.
1 Corinthians 6:9, an important passage because it shows that homosexuals can change, is also dismissed in typical twisted fashion. Modern translations using the term homosexuals (such as the New King James and practically anything else translated since 1901) are condemned for their choice of words. In fact, they are outright attacked: “Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations.”
These pseudo-scholars say that malakos “most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.” What lexicon did that come from? All scholars, older and contemporary, harmonize on the use of “effeminate” or “homosexual.” There is no conspiracy against homosexuals by scholars–just poor attempts on the part of the sinful to justify their sin.
In fact, their ultimate conclusion about this word and arsenokoitai (translated “abusers of themselves with mankind” in the KJV, “sodomites” in the NKJ) is that “their precise meaning is uncertain.” Imagine that. They confess not to know the meanings of the words, but they are sure about one thing: It is wrong to translate them “homosexuals” and “sodomites.” In fact, using such definitions for the Greek words is the result of plain, old homophobia, but, uh, no, we don’t know what those words mean.
Homosexuals are not the only ones guilty of twisting the Scriptures in attempt to justify immorality. “Social” drinkers and those unlawfully married and living in adultery blazed the trail. But anyone with even a modicum of objectivity should realize how far-fetched their “interpretations” of the Scriptures are.
Like so many others, they assume that their morality (or theology) is correct, then they open the Bible to verify their thinking. This approach is totally erroneous. We must all study the Word of God for the truth it contains, and then make the appropriate applications to ourselves. It is not our will, but the Father’s that must be done.
Hardly anyone is standing against the homosexual agenda–not the entertainment media, not the news media, not even advice columnists. On February 27th of this year Ann Landers published a letter from the parents of a 20-year-old boy who is “confused about his gender identity. He told us that since high school he has had romantic fantasies about guys, not girls. He wants to see a counselor and become straight” (Dallas Morning News 2C).
Rather than encourage the young man in the direction of his desire, Ann replied that he was “unquestionably homosexual. Counseling will not ‘straighten him around.'” Her advice was to see a counselor who would help him ACCEPT HIS HOMOSEXUALITY!! How pitiful. Instead of affirming that several people who have engaged in homosexual acts have overcome those desires and become normal, she just implied that it was impossible to be any different. And so far as we know, he was not even a practicing homosexual.
Christians and those professing to be such are the only ones with enough conviction to change things. Everyone else, it seems, is willing to throw in the towel. Only those who respect Truth can help homosexuals repent of their sins.
Now an attempt has been made to explain away the Scriptures. A five-page document, which perverts the Scriptures in an attempt to justify homosexuality, is available on the Internet. This document needs to be answered.
We have already seen how these perverters of the Word of God tried to prejudice their case; now we want to examine their “interpretation” of Gensis 19:1-25. “The Hebrew word for know in this case, yadha, usually means ‘have thorough knowledge of.’ It could also express intent to examine the visitors’ credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse.”
It would be difficult to imagine a more absurd argument. While it is true that this Hebrew word has as many variations of meaning as its English equivalent does, it is completely erroneous to suggest that it refers to sexual intercourse only rarely. Following are a few of the “rare occasions” in Genesis: “Adam knew his wife Eve” (4:1 and 4: 25); “Cain knew his wife” (4:17); Jacob “knew” Tamar again no more (38:26). Counting the passage in 19:5, there are five instances of this usage in the book of Genesis alone, which hardly qualifies as being all that rare.
What about the idea that these Sodomites were just checking the visitors’ credentials? First of all, where is the passage where the word know is used in such a way? Second, is such an idea compatible with the text? Lot begged the men not to act so wickedly (19:7); what is so evil about checking credentials? And why would Lot offer his two virgin daughters to a mob of rowdy credential checkers (19:8)? These bureaucrats were really dedicated to their job; even when struck blind, they wearied themselves trying to find the door just to be certain these strangers had the proper credentials (19:11)!!
Not content with such a preposterous position, the authors of this “defense” next attempt to call into question the homosexual “interpretation.” “First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident.” True, but such does not imply that this was the very first time the thought ever occurred to them. Are we to believe that the sight of these two visitors caused all of the men of the city to become homosexuals on the spot?
“Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.” This is an allegation that remains unprovable. This culture was given over totally to licentiousness. They were not strictly homosexual since they apparently had wives and children. And who knows how many other similar cultures may have been destroyed with no trace of their past? If it were not for the Bible, would we even know about Sodom? How many of the cultures before the flood were just like them (Gen. 6:5)? The authors have affirmed what they can not prove.
“Third, Lot’s offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests.” This community was bisexual, at least as far as it was necessary to procreate. But they much preferred males since they refused the young women, thus showing their deep-seated love of perversion.
“Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters?” The fact that Lot offered his daughters proves the issue was sexual. Apparently, we are still being asked to believe these men were pushy credential checkers. This statement implies that Lot was nothing more than a dirty old man. The mere insinuation that Lot was anything other than a righteous man contradicts the Scriptures (2 Peter 2:7-8). The fact is that his daughters made him drunk in order to lie with him and have children by him because of their fear that no man would have them. Lot did not perceive when they lay down nor when they arose (19:33 and 35).
“Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?” In the first place, this charge is not true. “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Not only is their sin described, but they serve as an example for everlasting punishment.
But even if it were never mentioned again, what would that prove? The text makes it clear what their sin was, just as it does in Judges 19: 22 when certain sons of Belial “beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.” More “credential checkers,” no doubt. No, these perverse men abused his concubine all night long, thus making it a sexual matter from beginning to end.
“What was the Sin of Sodom?” asks this document. Though rich, “they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshiped idols” is the answer, with Ezekiel 16:48-50 being cited. And the passage does say those things, but it was probably a wise decision on their part not to quote the verses, especially verse 50, which states, “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
As one might expect, however, these perverters of the Scripture try to make of no effect the word abomination by asserting that it applies solely to sexual acts tied to the practice of idolatry. Leviticus 18, although it condemns idolatry, does not primarily deal with such. Its major emphasis is upon sexual sins, of which homosexuality is one: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination” (Lev. 18: 22). Leviticus 20:13 also appears in the midst of a lengthy passage on sexual sins, not idolatry.
Is it true that the Hebrew word, toevah, translated “abomination,” is usually associated with idolatry? It certainly is in the book of Deuteronomy, but just the opposite occurs in the book of Proverbs; none of the references are to idolatry (consider 6: 16, 8:11, 11:1, 12:22, 15:26, 16:5, and 17:15). The people trying to justify homosexuality through the Scriptures are themselves an abomination to God because God does not accept worship or sacrifices from the wicked: “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination” (21:27). Furthermore, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination” (28:9).
Once again, the word must be judged by the way it is used in its context. In Deuteronomy, the context of the word abomination is in association with idolatry. In Proverbs, that association is not found. The two times the word is found in Leviticus both have a context of sexual sins, not idolatry. Their argument is not a valid one.
But these homosexual authors have not even warmed up yet. Their efforts to destroy the force of Old Testament passages are nothing compared to what they attempt to do to the New Testament.
Yet another incident involving homosexuality found its way into The Dallas Morning News; the author of this article sought to blame Christians for the deaths of two lesbian friends. Apparently, they were being robbed, and when the thief realized they were homosexuals, he killed them. In his grief, the writer attempted to fix the blame for this action upon those who preach that homosexuality is a sin. The fact that such people do not advocate violence against homosexuals (admitted by him) was not sufficient; he blamed the death of his two friends on Christian teaching.
One marvels at the irony of blaming murder (which the Bible denounces) on Christian teaching when the man was already engaged in stealing (which also violates Christian doctrine). It should be obvious that this man was not under the influence of Christianity at all. Nevertheless, we (who follow God’s Word and could not sanction either action) get accused of being the problem. Following is the response I wrote to the editor of the newspaper (which they decided not to publish).
If Mel White (see “Intolerance of Gays Creates Climate for Murder,” January 7th, 1996, on page 6j) is looking for someone to blame for the murder of his two lesbian friends, he should take a long look at the face in his mirror. Despite the thesis of his book, there is no such thing as a practicing homosexual Christian, any more than there are Christian thieves, Christian adulterers, or Christian extortioners. Homosexuality is a sin a person must repent of in order to become a Christian (1 Cor.6:9-11).
It apparently never occurred to him that perhaps all of his support and encouragement for homosexuality might be the cause of his friends’ deaths. Instead of assuring everybody that the practice is all right (and even twisting the Scriptures in a vain attempt to prove it — 2 Peter 3:16), he would have served them better to explain that it is a sin that they needed to repent of. Had he and they followed such a scenario, their murderer might have let them live.
He didn’t need the 700 Club to determine that their behavior was “sick”; since homosexuality is “against nature” (Rom. 1:26), most people can figure that out even without the Bible. [Their murderer’s response to their sin is not authorized in the New Testament; by killing them, they will never have the opportunity to repent.]
Mr. White is either naive or ignorant to present homosexuals as those who are persecuted merely out of prejudice or fear. Many actively recruit young people (NAMBLA) and have been known to pursue “straights” who are married. It may be that when he gave up the Biblical doctrine of moral purity, he threw out honesty as well.
Since he is so intent on defending the sin of homosexuality, perhaps he would enjoy the opportunity to do so in a public debate. If so, he will not lack a respondent.
