As has been aptly stated many times, “There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who don’t know what’s happened.”
In 1992, the news media began bombarding the public in behalf of the homosexual cause. With scarcely a lull since that time, the attack has continued unabated. In fact, the proponents of this sin go to such great lengths in keeping their ideas before the public that a person could write a rebuttal to them about once a week. Following are a few of the controversies that have occurred thus far this year.
First of all, there was the Baptist Church who refused to allow a “gay” choir to perform. One of Dallas’ local columnists took them to task as being un-Christian and incorrectly cited, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Readers reminded the uninformed columnist that Jesus also said to the woman, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:7, 11). They also pointed out that the “choir” had no intention of repenting of their sins, which is the crux of the problem. The goal of the homosexual movement has ever been public acceptance of their sin, even “Christian” acceptance.
The second controversy occurred in February when a Dallas Episcopal Bishop brought up another bishop on charges of heresy for ordaining homosexuals as deacons in 1990. The Dallas Morning News on March 6th allowed articles both supporting and denying the charge of heresy.
The bishop who did the ordaining defended his actions on the basis of culture. “The church has to stay alert and alive to what’s happening in the culture” (19A). [Is he friends with Randy Mayeux?] When Bible teaching on this subject was called to his attention, he replied, “We do not worship the Bible. We use it for interpretation–we don’t take it literally” (19A).
God never used culture as the index for determining His laws. At the very time that Moses was on the mount receiving the ten commandments, the people broke out in revelry, insisting upon and getting a golden calf. God didn’t say, “I see the culture has already rejected these first three commandments; I’ll use “Liquid Rock” on those and send you down with the other seven. And when Israel violated the remaining commandments, what else could God do but sigh and say to Himself, “I’ll see if I can find ten more”?
The “bishop” is correct when he states that we don’t worship the Bible, but the Bible does tell us how to worship God correctly, as well as how to live properly. The Bible also defines sin, and most of the terms (murder, stealing, adultery) are fairly easy to comprehend without a great deal of “interpretation.” Of course, if someone refuses to admit that most parts of the Bible are to be taken literally (and, in fact, refuses to take any part literally), then it may as well be discarded entirely.
In defending the ordination of “gays,” Mark Johnson writes that it would be un-Christian to deny them. “If the church is to welcome and celebrate the body of Christ, it can’t exclude gays and lesbians any more than it can exclude women, people of color and people with disabilities. All of us are part of the creation” (19A).
As long as homosexual sympathizers are going to make this inaccurate comparison, Christians will need to respond. [If the battle against this sin can be won, it will have to be fought by Christians. If a victory could be achieved on purely practical considerations, the specter of AIDS would have already accomplished it]. The fallacy of this comparison is that we come into this world as male or female; we are born with or without color; we may have some disability at birth (or obtain one along the way due to a number of reasons); but NOBODY IS BORN A HOMOSEXUAL. Proof? The fact that many have changed (even those convinced they were born that way) destroys this argument.
“Second, the church will continue to lose many good and talented people as both clergy and lay people. They will be dissuaded from joining a church that won’t recognize them and respect them for all they are” (19A). [Is this guy friends with Randy Mayeux?]
Why not just say it more accurately: “Many good and talented people will be lost to the church that won’t legitimize their sin”? Aren’t there any talented adulterers? So a man left his wife and four children; he still should be allowed to use his talents and abilities for God. So he embezzled several hundred thousand dollars from his company; shall these souls be denied a place in the church? Even John Gacy painted a number of pictures. Who knows what other talents murderers might possess? This line of reasoning is absurd. It is used in the absence of any Scriptural argument to get homosexuals accepted in their sins.
A New Forum: The Internet
This past week Southwest held their annual lectureship. Johnie Skaggs made a copy for me of what he had just pulled off the Internet. It’s a defense of homosexuality based on the Scriptures in that the author attempts to explain away those passages which condemn the sin.
Such is not the first attempt to do so. Books have been published in vain attempts to find Biblical support for homosexuality. But this new avenue of expression may find more readers than any other–even more than the usual flurry of editorial letters published almost daily in various newspapers. Following is a response to these “perversions” of the Scriptures.
Genesis 19:1-25
The audacity of whoever has produced this document is seen in the opening lines. “What was the sin of Sodom? Some ‘televangelists’ carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of ‘homosexuality.’ Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance.”
Notice that the publishers of this document first try to prejudice their case. Knowing that “televangelists” are currently held in low esteem, they want all who disagree with their viewpoint to be associated with people who have been discredited. Furthermore, those who disagree with them make “careless” proclamations. And notice that only “some” theologians have held to the homosexual explanation. The best evaluation of these comments that could be made is that they are dishonest and misleading.
The fact is that every major commentary (Pulpit , Clarke’s , Barnes’ , etc.) recognizes the facts and truth of Genesis 19 (and none of them were televangelists). If there are any “theologians” whatsoever who hold a different view, they must be quite modern. Furthermore, they would be wrong if they did hold such a view.
The rest of their “explanation” of Genesis 19 will be considered next week, along with an appropriate refutation of their perversions of the Word of God.
A few weeks ago a troubled young lady stopped by the office to talk about some of her problems. As she described her situation, it became evident that the solution to some of her difficulties would be for her to obey the gospel and attend worship.
Like so many people, she did not know how to become a Christian. She repeatedly mentioned not “feeling” close to God, and we examined Proverbs 28:26 and Jeremiah 17:9, which explain that our feelings are not the correct means upon which to decide matters as important as salvation.
In response to her concerns for her children, however, it was evident that being part of the church could help her family. A grimace formed upon her face as she asked: “You mean I’d have to come to church?”
Several responses to this question come to mind, the first of which is that we don’t come to church; Christians are the church. She probably would not have understood such a difference–even brethren have a hard time grasping it.
The second thought was: “You don’t have to come to worship God; you get to come.” But for one never saved by the blood of Christ and added to His precious body (Acts 2:47), the value of the observation could be lost. Why is it that so many people have such a bad taste in their mouths about the word church? Is it that they have some cold ritualistic service in mind? Or is it that they have no worship to bring to God?
The best course to pursue seemed to be to explain the purpose for the church and the subsequent value of it.
1. God did not design salvation so that we could all be hermits. Notice that those being saved from their sins were added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:47).
2. The early church did not then say, “This salvation experience here in Jerusalem has been grand; now let’s all go home and get back to our lives.”
3. Instead, they “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Imagine being part of the long awaited kingdom and being privileged to learn the doctrines of Christianity!
So close to one another were first century brethren that the Scripture says they were “. . . continuing daily with one accord in the temple…” (Acts 2:46). What a great opportunity to learn and grow together. How great was the wisdom of God to design the body this way–that we could encourage and strengthen one another.
Not only were the inspired apostles able to teach the will of God, but evangelistic growth soared. Soon the number of those who believed was five thousand (Acts 4:4). What an encouragement to see more and more obeying the gospel each day!
But being a member of the church involves more than sharing in spiritual triumphs. Moments of sadness and tragedy also occur. When Peter and John were threatened, the church girded itself for spiritual warfare and prayed that they might speak the word with all boldness (Acts 4:29). If there were a cowardly voice protesting that the apostles were making enemies needlessly and that they should therefore “tone it down” or try some other approach to win converts, he was ignored.
Acts 12 describes Herod putting to death James the brother of John; he further intended to kill Peter, also. But the church had met together to pray on his behalf (Acts 12:12). We are brethren not only when things are going our way, but in times of persecution and sorrow as well.
Keeping Christ in View
Though the church enjoyed such a great beginning, perfection seldom lasts. Satan gets busy trying to destroy the great things God has accomplished for man’s benefit. God created the Garden of Eden, but Satan introduced sin into it. Jesus shed His blood for the church, but mankind has introduced various ungodly elements into it.
In Corinth, members brought in their own selfishness. Some were bragging about the teacher or preacher they liked best. “Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ'” (1 Cor. 1:12). This unbiblical attitude was causing them to go to law against their brethren–even before unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:6).
Even the most spiritual things became methods of vaunting self and avenues of downgrading fellow Christians. Some had miraculous knowledge (see 1 Cor. 12:8), but they were using it as a weapon against their brethren instead of exercising love (1 Cor. 8:1). Others were so enamored by the spiritual gifts they possessed that they just had to use them–even if it meant interrupting someone else’s use of one. And if no one could profit by the message because it was spoken in an unknown tongue and no one in the congregation could interpret it, the selfish person did not care (study 1 Cor. 14).
One of the most spiritual aspects of worship is the Lord’s Supper, and some were perverting even that (1 Cor. 11:17-34)!! The basic problem was one of selfishness; the cure was to begin practicing LOVE. The many definitions of “love” are not located in 1 Corinthians 13 by accident. Those brethren needed to learn such things as patience and kindness (1 Cor. 13:4). These attitudes can not be taken for granted. The selfish person does not bear with other members (Why doesn’t he do what I want him to do–and right now?). Paul calls for patience. Those who cannot disagree with someone without being disagreeable need a huge dose of kindness, too. A person motivated by love does not act rudely (1 Cor. 13:5).
If brethren cannot treat one another kindly, what will they have to offer to the non-Christian? “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another” (John 14:35).
Paul teaches the brethren at Corinth that the members of the body “should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Cor. 12:25-26). [That’s certainly better than “biting and devouring one another” (Gal. 5:15).]
The lady who visited the office felt alone, and her children had few friends. The church can fill those needs. Had she obeyed the gospel, she would have had loving brothers and sisters; she would not have needed to feel alone. And her children would have found new friends here. Why? Because that’s one of the benefits of the way God designed the church. These are not reasons to become a Christian; the reason for obedience is salvation from sin. But they are certainly good byproducts of faithfulness. How marvelous is God’s plan, and how fortunate we are to be part of it (Eph. 4:16).
Okay. At first the above title seemed a little harsh. But since the book, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, has been the number one best seller for a number of weeks, it must be appropriate, perhaps even fashionable, to say such things.
Why, recently a radio “shock jock” (or should it be “schlock”?) was invited to “entertain” the press, which he did make by making vulgar jokes about the Clintons. Now, political humor and satire have long been part of the American system, and while all politicians must avoid taking themselves too seriously, no one elected to the highest office of the land should be subjected to public sewage spewing from the mouths of so-called comedians.
But whereas the outrageous may be designed to capture public attention (what does that say about the public?), the affirmation in the title of this article is based on Scripture, not sensationalism. Amy Irving is, by her own admission, a pig.
What would you think if you saw this title above a four-paragraph article in, say, last Saturday’s Record Chronicle: “Boyfriend directs lover’s movie sex”? Sounds like some sleazy guy and his live-in operating out of an apartment, doesn’t it?
But, no. In this case it’s a sleazy Hollywood director making a big-budget movie with his live-in lover. “Since it’s art, that justifies it.” One might ask, “How could a man with any self-respect even allow his wife to have sex with another man, let alone film it for anyone in the world (who enjoys seeing such filth) to see? Amy says that having her lover direct her in making love to another man is an “extra-ordinarily exciting, erotic, wonderful experience” (11A).
Apparently concepts such as honor, integrity, morality, fidelity, and shame have been discarded by Miss Irving, as well as others in Hollywood. She thinks that indecency, ungodliness, nudity, and who knows what else comprise a “wonderful experience,”
But why is she a pig? Proverbs 11:22 says: “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a lovely woman who lacks discretion.” Let’s put it to the test. Is she a lovely woman? She and her “boyfriend” would probably insist that she is. Does she lack discretion? Are you kidding? Then she is as incongruous as a ring of gold in a swine’s snout. When you see her picture, visualize a pig’s face wearing a gold ring in its nose.
What Is Parade Magazine?
As sordid and seedy as the facts of this situation are, one wonders why they were trumpeted in the March 24th Parade. Isn’t it supposed to be a family magazine? They include features for teens as well as adults. So what is Amy Irving, the swine (by her own admission and God’s definition), doing on the cover?
As an enticement to read the story, the blurb above the author’s name, Dotson Rader, says: “The actress Amy Irving talks about love, raising children, passion and change: ‘I Feel Very Lucky.'” Once the reader has read the article, he is thinking that she knows nothing about love and that most courts would have declared her an unfit mother not too many years ago.
To be sure, the article contains some factual information about her: the ex-Mrs. Steven Spielberg; five feet, four inches tall; personal history, movie portfolio, but the disturbing part of the interview is the smugness and self-satisfaction with herself. In huge letters across the picture of herself and Brazilian director Bruno Barreto are the words: “I Have a New Life” (4), and most of her conversation has to do with Self. A sampling?
“I fell in love,” “I’m much more liberated now,” “Now I’m in a world where I’m an equal partner,” “I have a new life and a new family,” “I always dreamed of being a poor, starving stage actress,” “I wanted my own identity,” “that felt good to me,” “it was the last film my father saw me do,” “I’ve moved on, and I’ve met the man of my dreams,” “I’d seen a picture of him, but I didn’t know I’d be so attracted to him the minute I met him,” “I’m not a subservient woman,” “I’ve never indulged in anything too much, because I have to do my duties,” and “I’m blessed” (4-5) are just a few of the comments that reveal intense self-absorption.
But consider the egotism of the final paragraph of the article: “I had great parents, and I grew up on that kind of love. It gave me a belief in myself, to be able to achieve what I want to achieve, the courage to do whatever was asked of me even if it scared me. Through it all, I’ve never lost touch with the fact that I’m an actress. I have never, ever faltered from that” (5). Whoopie! Bring out Frank Sinatra to sing another chorus of “My Way.” Pigs probably are pretty self-centered.
Create Your Own Morality
When a person like Amy rejects the Bible, she has freed herself to create their own subjective system of morality. “While not legally married, the two celebrated their union in 1990 in a private ceremony, and Irving always refers to Barreto as ‘my husband.'” You can call a swine a princess, too, but that doesn’t make it so. Irving is no better than the woman at the well before she met Jesus (John 4).
Commenting on her “husband” Bruno, Amy says, “He’s very evolved and just understands human nature and continues to grow” (5). Jesus understands human nature, too. He knows how destructive sin can be (and what the penalty for it is); that’s why he told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more.
Rader queries: “Was she at all uncomfortable with the film’s degree of sexual explicitness?” “We’re not making porn films here.” Oh, really? “We’re expressing human nature in a very real, very strong, moving way. As a mother, it is a statement about human nature in which I feel no shame. Eventually my children will see this film…” (5). If they do, perhaps they will experience the shame their mother should have felt.
“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush” (Jer. 6:15). Just because someone has seared her conscience does not prove that her actions are all right. As for the excuse of “expressing human nature,” how about substituting the phrase “human depravity” instead? No matter what the movie is about, she and the director who are so much in “love” with one another have demonstrated some of the depths of human depravity. They may clean themselves up afterward, but like the sow that is washed, they will but wallow in the mire once again (2 Peter 2:22).
It might prove helpful if several people wrote to Parade Magazine and expressed disappointment with this article which exalts such depraved behavior. Let them know how sad it is to see such ungodly conduct glorified, especially in a day of rampant venereal disease among young people. Their address is 711 Third Ave., New York, NY 10017.
In discussing the differences between the Christian and the worldling, Paul writes, “Be ye angry, and sin not . . .” (Ephesians 4:26). This is a quotation from Psalm 4:4 where both the King James and the American Standard Versions read “Stand in awe, and sin not . . .” Moreover, the American Standard Version mentions in a footnote that “Stand in awe” may also be translated, “Be ye angry.” In this Psalm, David (like Paul) contrasts the “sons of men” (vs. 2) and the “godly” (vs. 3). He says that it is characteristic of the godly to “Be ye angry, and sin not.” Thus we ought not to sin as the world does when they become angry, but sin not.
It is not necessarily a sin to be angry. Certainly God does not expect us to rejoice when people do wrong. We must be angry at sin. “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11). Paul writes of the indignation that the Corinthian brethren had concerning the sin in which they had formerly been (2 Corinthians 7:11). Jesus also was angry when he overturned the money changers’ tables as he cleansed the temple (Mark 11:15-17). However, when we are angry, we want to make sure that our anger does not venture into sin. So, let us look at a few Bible principles that will help us control our “righteous indignation.”
First, we should not be quick to anger. Many sins committed in the wake of anger are like a hot water geyser. They build up and spew out without any control. This is the kind of anger that leads to so-called crimes of passion. It is the anger that causes us to say things that later we wish we had not said. This kind of anger strikes out at others and does not help anyone. Anger of this caliber is sinful anger. “A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife” (Proverbs 15:18).
Second, when provoked, think before you become angry. Ask yourself a few simple questions. Is this a situation over which it is worth becoming angry? Are there any dire consequences to the catalyst of my impending anger? Am I angry because of this situation, or am I angry because something bad in another part of my life is affecting my judgment? (In other words, am I “kicking the cat”?) Is my getting angry going to affect people in a negative way to hinder good relationships? These are questions that we should ask ourselves when provoked to anger. Life can be frustrating (and often is). However, it just becomes more frustrating for more people when we unnecessarily become angry. James arranges it this way. “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19).
Third, when we get angry, we must control ourselves. No problems have ever been solved by losing control. Loss of control builds problems. Although it is sometimes very difficult, we should bring our anger into subjection and deal with it in a rational manner. When we become angry, we should step away from the situation, cool down, and come back and confront the problem in an adult-like fashion. Throwing a tantrum is childish and will only gain disrespect from those in front of whom the tantrum is thrown. Another thing we might do is think of a person we know who often “blows his stack.” It may be that in thinking of the way this person acts, we ourselves will see how ridiculous that behavior is, and avoid loss of control. Too, sometimes we must confront someone with whom we are angry. When we do, we should speak calmly and rationally. Keep body movements (especially arms) to a minimum. Further, it is likely that this person with whom we are angry will become angry himself. When both parties are angry, things are less productive and more time consuming. Regulation, however, conserves time and increases productivity. Controlling our actions is the key. If our actions are not in control then, most likely, our thoughts are not in control. God demands that we bring ” . . . into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Finally, we must resolve our anger within the same day it is provoked. A sore left untreated will fester and fester until it becomes infected; it can then cause major complications with serious consequences. The smallest cut left untreated can end up as gangrene; many people have lost limbs and lives because of such. Anger is much the same way. If we allow it to continue, it will grow and fester, and our anger will become bitterness. Soon it is not simply a small mistake we made which irritates us, but the whole world. Our bitterness then becomes cynicism, and we begin to see deceit and dishonesty in every situation. We question people’s motives without reason. Soon we even give up on ourselves as our cynicism becomes despair. The ultimate fruit of festering fury is the destruction of our faith in God. Such a small beginning can have such drastic consequences–if we do not confront and resolve our anger. The second half of Ephesians 4:26 says, ” . . . let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” We only hurt ourselves when we let anger fester within us.
Anger is one of the most intense emotions which God has given to us. However, we can use anger for a good purpose. Let us resolve: (1) not to become angry hastily, (2) to think before we become angry, (3) to control our anger should we become angry, and (4) to resolve our anger before the end of the day. We may never completely master anger. Nevertheless, we still want to learn God’s principles on the subject, for on any subject he has “. . . given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3).
The description in the title above is how a symphony may be defined or characterized. Those who enjoy music may marvel at how all of the diverse instruments harmonize together. The stringed instruments, the woodwinds, the brass horns, even the percussion section all unite to produce a sound melodious to the ears–a symphony.
The Greek word sumphonia is translated “music” in Luke 15:25, referring to the sounds that the older brother heard in honor of the return of the prodigal son. Of course, he greatly disapproved of the celebration. His was the dissenting voice of dissatisfaction in an otherwise harmonious chorus of jubilant souls welcoming the dead back to life.
This is the only instance of this word (in any of its related forms) being translated “music.” The verb form appears six times in the New Testament, and every time it is translated “agree” (Matt. 18: 19, 20:2, 13; Luke 5:36; Acts 5:9, 15:15).
There can be agreement in things that are good or in some evil enterprise. Ananias and Sapphira agreed concerning the lie they told. Such was complete harmony, but for no good purpose. False witnesses and false teachers also fit into this category.
Another form of the word is found in 2 Cor. 6: 15, in which the question is asked, “And what accord has Christ with Belial?” The issue of fellowship is raised here, with which the church still struggles.
The final form of the word is found in 1 Cor. 7: 5, in which couples are urged not to abstain from the sexual relationship within marriage except it be by consent (agreement) for a time.
The dictionary traces the modern word symphony back to the Greek word just examined, and although the definition could be applied to music back then, the New Testament uses it most of the time in the context of “agreement.”
How wonderful it would be if when Jesus looked at the church, He saw “a harmonious combination of elements.” Some brethren may be as refined as a violin or as noisy and boisterous as a bass drum, but all can blend together in worship and service. The church may be composed of people as different as musical instruments, but through following the Scriptures the body of Christ can become a beautiful symphony, worshiping and working together in harmony and unity.
A myopic individual recently wrote to “Dear Abby” with half of a valid argument about the influence that movies, television, and books have on our society. She published his letter (and commended it) on Sunday, March 10th. Since such “wisdom” frequently is repeated in society, his letter deserves a response.
He argues that the entertainment media do not influence our young people. If it did, “please tell me what books Cain read before he murdered his brother Abel. What soap opera did Lot’s two daughters watch that influenced them to get their father drunk and commit incest? And what vile movie prompted the woman at the well to take up a life of dissolution?”
On the one hand, he demonstrates beyond any reasonable objection that the entertainment media are not responsible for all of our social ills. Cain apparently originated the idea of murder since such an evil deed was entirely outside his range of experience. In doing so, he followed in the footsteps of Satan who had never seen evil, period, in any form–until he instituted sin by rebelling against God. Certainly, people do not need to be prompted to transgress; we can be genuinely inventive.
On the other hand, this truth hardly proves that television or movies have NO effect on those watching. Has not the author of this article read about the recent toll booth bombing, which was imitated from a scene in a movie? Has Abby never heard of gangs following the lead of a television show by setting an elderly person on fire? Just because sleazy characters don’t need an evil deed set before them as a pattern to follow doesn’t mean that they won’t duplicate one that they see. Many times, it has been discovered, life imitates “art.” Just as some may be too quick to credit the media for society’s ills, others seem too anxious to discount their influence.
The next error the letter-writer revives is that the media merely reflect society. “The media do not set the trends–they follow them.” Oh, really? So Madonna was just copying current “styles” with all her bizarre garments? And, pray tell, what part of society is reflected by the language one hears in TV sitcoms (and the multitude of sexual innuendoes)–fraternity houses? Sorry, but the entertainment media can not be absolved from responsibility by a few worn-out assertions that they don’t set trends. As stated before, it’s a two-way street.
There’s a Market For It
“If no one bought tobacco, apples, or potatoes, no farmer would raise them. If there were no demand for smut, no one would go to the expense of providing it, because without profit, there is no incentive.” Ooh, such logic! Please dispense a few more gems! [Abby appreciates his “common sense.” It’s common, all right, but sense is not the correct noun for common to modify.]
So, because there is a market, that justifies it, eh? Isn’t there a market for marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and other illegal and harmful drugs? Yes, and isn’t there a market for child pornography? Why, yes, there is. And might there be a market for murderers? Why, we have heard of “hit” men, have we not? In short, invent the most disgusting, vile, despicable things imaginable, and eventually THERE WILL BE A MARKET FOR IT!
So what does that prove? If anything, the conclusion of the matter is that we should have no laws whatsoever (this is only “common sense”). Far be it from Americans to quench the profit motive. And those do-gooders that would try to censor risk-taking entrepreneurs (such as those who show XXX-rated pornographic films in their business “establishments”) should just shut up, mind their own business, and leave everyone else alone.
Peers Only?
The letter-writer affirms that we get many of our ideas from peers, from “friends among us.” With that fact there can be no argument. The Bible says: “He who walks with wise men shall be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed” (Pr. 13:20). Proverbs 1 contains a lengthy warning for young men to avoid falling in with the wrong crowd (8-19). The New Testament states it this way: “Do not be deceived: evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Cor. 15:33).
But are peers the only ones who exercise any influence over us? What about parents? Aunts? Uncles? Someone five to ten years older than we are? What about Bible school teachers? Preachers? Those older than we are who exhibit genuine wisdom? It would be difficult to evaluate the exact amount of impact that a school teacher, policeman, or some other public figure might have had upon us. We may be inspired by a great many people.
The same thing holds true for books, movies, and television. Who does not imitate words, expressions, and attitudes from these media? Anyone who remains skeptical might want to explain the origin of the following terms: “Cowabunga, dude,” “Don’t have a cow, man,” “Sock it to me,” “Excellent,” or preceeding every sentence with the word like. “Well, isn’t that special?”
The Missing Cliche
About the only thing missing from this “Dear Abby” column is the trite expression, “If you don’t like it, turn it off,” as though social problems will be eradicated if we all just pretend that none of themexist.
Well, let’s suppose all decent people refrain from seeing the current crop of television shows (actually, it’s not difficult). How will that help if the little neighbor boy talks with a foul mouth around other children because his parents refuse to monitor or discipline him? And what if the ten-year-old boy across the street (inspired by his daddy’s videos of Pamela Anderson or some other shameless beauty) decides to attack a little girl on the way home from school?
None of us lives in a vacuum. It is worse than naive to think that when the sewers back up, if I wear a clothespin over my nose, the neighborhood won’t stink. Where did Lot’s daughters get their brand of immorality? Could it have been from the town they lived in, which was full of perversion? Andwhy was it full of corruption? Perhaps because the new family (Lot’s) was told to mind its own business and let others do what they wanted to? John Donne’s “no man is an island” meditation cannot be applied only to positive societal concern at the expense of eliminating its detrimentalelements.
Another fundamental flaw of being a moral isolationist is that permitting the moral garbage to pile up validates it. So some people do not subscribe to HBO or the Playboy Channel. But there is amarket for it, after all. Many participate in such “services”; so they must be all right. Young people especially live by the credo, “If it’s legal, it must be all right.” It’s time that something was done aboutpornography and blasphemy. “Just turn it off” doesn’t work. Decency and morality is everybody’s business.
“These are tough times for many churches,” writes Ed Housewright of The Dallas Morning News. “Expenses are up. Contributions are down. People are demanding more services, yet giving is at a 25-year low, according to a recent national report. What can churches do? Some have hired consultants to help them raise much-needed operating funds. Others have turned to denominational offices for assistance” (1-13-96, p. 1G).
The Lord’s church does neither of these. We don’t hire consultants for fundraising events because members give as they have been prospered. Neither can we appeal to a denominational office since we are not a denomination and therefore have no such offices. One might think that lacking these two avenues of raising revenues would be a tremendous disadvantage, but churches of Christ do not share this problem with man-made churches.
Why? We know that the Lord’s church is to be supported by the members of that body. For years we have presented the correct view of giving, and brethren have responded appropriately. Oh, sure, we undoubtedly have some stingy misers among us; there may also be some who have not yet been taught correctly on the subject. But the majority of us give generously (not that we could not improve).
The article affirms that there is a giving crisis among our religious neighbors. Several reasons are assigned for the problem. One is that “We’ve tried to manipulate by fear and guilt too long.” Ron Chandler, president of the stewardship commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, adds: “We’ve not given them the Biblical message of giving” (1G).
No foolin’? What message do people get from the fundraising mentality? They come to think that it’s everybody else’s responsibility to support their children. Atheists are not the only ones who find such thinking repugnant. Many reason that, since they are not asking anyone to support their beliefs, others should not come begging from them.
Furthermore, what does reliance upon “headquarters” teach? Will it inspire the less financially endowed church to work harder, knowing that adequate support is available from the more prosperous organizations who have sent in their dues? Motivation springs from necessity.
A second reason cited for the current deficiency of funds is that denominational pastors are reluctant to speak on the subject of giving lest they be considered self-serving or identified with televangelists (6G). Of course, those are valid concerns, but we should not be intimidated–because giving is a Biblical subject emphasized often.
How Much?
As usual, the discussion of this subject turned to the subject of tithing, an oft-avoided word among us. Dean Hoge, a professor of sociology at Catholic University of America, studied the subject of tithing among the denominations and published his findings last year (1G). He found that 73% of Assembly of God members tithed, as did 44% of the Baptists queried. Only 9% of the Presbyterians did likewise, compared with 7% of Lutherans, and 4% of Catholics.
Where does the concept of giving God 10% of one’s income originate? The first time giving is mentioned in the Scriptures is Genesis 14:20. After Abram’s successful rescue attempt of Lot and his family, the great patriarch met Melchizedek, the priest of the God Most High, who pronounced a blessing upon him. “And he gave him a tithe of all.”
Where did Abram get this idea? Did he make it up, or was it divinely revealed to him that he should do so? Somehow Jacob determined to do the same thing. He promised God that if He would be with him and prosper him, he would return to God a tenth (Genesis 28:22). What a coincidence!! The first two times that giving is mentioned in the Bible, the givers settled on 10%.
It is difficult to imagine that God would be pleased with anything less. “But,” someone protests, “God didn’t require us in the New Testament to tithe.” That’s true. But please notice that the Pharisees considered it their duty to give tithes of all that they possessed (Luke 18:12). And Jesus agrees that they ought to have done so (Matt. 23: 23)–though they needed to make corrections in their priorities and eliminate their self-righteous attitudes.
Jesus never tells anyone to give less than what our spiritual forefathers gave; He does commend those who give more (Luke 21:1-4). Paul likewise praises sacrificial giving (2 Cor. 8:1-5).
Discoveries of Truth
The article whose information we have been examining, “A Crisis in Giving,” did present some keen insights. First of all, many have come to realize that giving properly “should be a joyful, worshipful experience.” In citing how that some “churches” cater to baby-boomers by putting a box at the back of the auditorium rather than passing around a collection plate, the conclusion was drawn that “you’re actually telling the individual they cannot have a full worship experience” (1G). If this is their way of saying that God has designed giving to be part of New Testament worship, they have stumbled upon the truth of the matter.
A second valid point (and perhaps we ought to be emphasizing this even more) is “to get people to see that they have a need to give, regardless of the church’s need to receive” (1G). Although brethren have proven fairly generous over the years, we may not have seen the significance of this point yet. Many times congregations will give to the current level of need. If a special need arises, they will give more, but if all the bills are paid, they will give less (does this habit constitute “giving of necessity”?).
How often has it been stated that people seldom get excited about giving money for utility bills, janitorial supplies, and paving the parking lot? The point is that we have the need to give as we have been prospered–regardless of the fact that the portion of the budget set aside for evangelism or benevolence is small (we are fortunate to be able to do both at Pearl Street). Generosity should not be tied to necessity. Having more money would open up greater possibilities.
The third point of wisdom in this article involves a problem even among some of us: “Most people give more thought to the tip they leave for dinner than what they give for church” (1G). Having been treasurer at least three times, I am aware that a few brethren have chintzy tendencies which they display each Lord’s day. Though having an income of $700 to $1,000 per week, they cast in the collection plate twenty bucks and then go out to Sunday dinner where they fork over $25 or more for one meal. Hmmmm! But on the whole, the brotherhood is doing well, and it’s nice to know that there’s at least one problem the denominations face that we have escaped.
Most of us recognize that we are living in an age in which people do not want to bear the consequences of their actions. Two recent examples appearing in Ann Landers’ advice column serve to highlight the situation. The first letter under consideration is from a professional stripper; the second proceeds from an irate mother without natural affection toward her offspring. Both women stand guilty of refusing to acknowledge that they are the cause of their own problems.
Stripper Standards
The letter from the stripper complains about her colleagues who might become involved with one of the guys after a performance at a stag party. She proudly states: “When I entertain at a bachelor party, I explain the rules up front: no touching, no dirty language, no photos or videos, and no making dates for later. I do my number and give them their money’s worth, and there are no encores” (October 8, 1995).
Apparently, it does not occur to this woman why she needs to have such rules in her line of “work.” Would a female physician, interior decorator, shop owner, university professor, or secretary feel the need to give instructions like these to those with whom she works?
The reason that she senses the need for such restrictions is that her line of work is immoral, and immorality begets immorality. Let’s face it. People do not think of a stripper as a wholesome member of the community. They think that anyone who would seductively remove her clothes in the presence of a group of men would likely be susceptible to a few other lewd suggestions.
How can a woman who is giving men their “money’s worth” possibly be so naive as to think that one or two of them might wish her to go a step further? Her job is to move in such a way as to excite those present to lustful thoughts. And what does she expect in return: pure speech and nobility of soul? Sure. Maybe when she completes her “act,” they can all sit in a circle and participate in a discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics.
In trying to attach dignity to her “work,” she points out that strippers are not “porno queens” or “hookers”; they are housewives, college graduates, medical students, and dental assistants. So what does that really prove–except that if “the price is right,” some women will do anything?
Can you imagine a woman coming home and informing her husband that she applied for a job as a stripper? No self-respecting man would allow his wife to be ogled by a degenerate public. And no godly woman would consider such a “profession.” After her “performance,” how does she know that she has not inspired one of the men present to rape an innocent woman or his girl friend? What guarantee does she have that he might not stalk her? Without question, she has opened the door to or contributed to sleazy, immoral behavior.
To defend herself (and soothe her conscience) she writes: “Those who think stripping is obscene should go to the beach and check out the latest swimwear. They’ll see four inches of fabric held together with a string.” Isn’t that like saying, “Because others are immoral, I have the right to be, also”? “The state hosts lotteries and allows riverboat gambling; therefore, it’s all right for me to host a high stakes poker game.” Two immoralities doth not a virtue make.
She is correct, of course, that swimsuits are immodest. Even if a Christian were not wearing one comparable to the above description, he or she certainly does not need to be in a place where other people are. Donning a swimsuit with six inches of material (instead of four) is scarcely an improvement. Immodesty has never been successfully defended by members of the church (those in the world admit they are designed for lustful purposes); they just participate in such shameful activities anyway. [By the way, open-minded Ann Landers commented: “You have acquitted yourself admirably. The Sisterhood should be proud.” We doubt the Lord shall “acquit” her on the day of judgment, and godly sisters thoroughly reject her rationale.]
The Outraged Mother
On January 16th of this year, a woman wrote to protest that her parents had discovered and met with the daughter she had given up for adoption several years previously. Notice the selfishness drip from the page as she complains about her parents initiating the search for their granddaughter (her child): “I am still trying to sort out what this may mean and to what extent it will disrupt my life. I am angry and upset that the search took place against my wishes, and I feel that my right to privacy was violated.” Now wait a second. Who gave birth to the child? Why did she give her up for adoption? Was the child the result of this woman’s actions (passions)? If so, she put her daughter out of sight for years. Why? Because she is a reminder of her immorality?
Apparently, this “mother” has her life arranged into a tidy package which precludes flesh and blood concerns. Her life is being disrupted. Aww. Lady, you’re the one that gave birth. Your daughter didn’t ask you to conceive her. Her feelings and those of your parents apparently do not count. In fact, nobody’s does but yours.
Her cold, compassionless attitude continues: “I don’t wish to be included in any family gatherings from now on. Nor do I want any information about me given to the ‘new’ family member.” Sounds like a spoiled child, doesn’t she? She also does not want to know anything about her daughter. It’s only January (the date of her letter), but this woman could easily win “the most calloused mother-of-the-year” award.
Sadly, Ann agrees with her. She denounces state laws which aid in the discovery of family members and adds: “The great Justice Louis D. Brandeis suggested we pay more attention to ‘the freedom to be left alone.'” Oh, really? So we should be free to fornicate or commit adultery, bring an innocent life into the world, adopt her out, and then claim PRIVACY?!!
Sorry, but this woman deserves no sympathy. And with her unmerciful and uncharitable attitude, it is doubtful she will receive either in the judgment.
Why is it that people think they have a right to behave any way they desire to, ruin other lives, or create lives, and then bear no responsibility for their actions? God holds a different philosophy. He will have people give an account of the things done in their bodies, whether it be good or bad (2Cor. 5:10). There will be nothing “private” on the day of judgment; all will be brought to light. No laws of mankind will be substantial enough to prevent it, either. Why don’t we face up to our actions now and take responsibility? Let’s humbly acknowledge our sins, live righteously, and use our Christian influence in a positive way.
Last week brief clips of interviews with various voters were broadcast in quick succession. The question was, “Will character be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign?” The overwhelming consensus of opinion was, “No.” One’s first response to such shallow thinking is, “No wonder we find so many crooked, immoral, and corrupt politicians in office–since a great number of voters seem totally apathetic to this issue.
How can the mentality of anyone who would vote for a person because he’s “my party” be comprehended? If “My Country–Right Or Wrong” is unBiblical, how much less valid is “My Party–Right or Wrong”? As to the former sentiment, imagine stiff-necked Jews making the same statement–just prior to the captivity!! What if Nineveh had rejected the preaching of Jonah by saying, “We’re not going to repent. Our country–right or wrong”?
The fact is that God sent the prophets to proclaim to the nations their sins. A brief perusal of the first two chapters of Amos demonstrates that God destroys nations because of their unrepentedof sins. He possessed this same disposition even towards His own beloved people (Amos 2:4-16).
Since God never makes exceptions with nations, what makes America think that He will continue to tolerate abominations such as abortion and homosexuality without bringing judgment on us?
Political parties are not inherently moral or immoral, but if they sponsor an immoral candidate (and they know it), then they have acted corruptly. Furthermore, Christians sin when they vote for a candidate who precipitates God’s judgment by advocating pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies).
When Character Matters
Many have argued that one’s immoral quirks have no bearing on his ability to govern. In an attempt to establish this point, examples are given, such as the following. Being a homosexual does not affect one’s ability to play the piano or professional tennis. Engaging in numerous “one-night-stands” does not diminish one’s ability to play professional basketball or rock music. These examples allegedly prove that a candidate’s character should be irrelevant when we vote for those who will govern us. Such an application is not even remotely parallel.
Rulers not only communicate to their constituents; they also deal with other nations (which means they must be credible). Furthermore, a nation’s leaders usually set the moral tone for the country. Consider Judah: when she had a good king, most of the immoral practices were done away with, but when an evil king reigned, the nation likewise followed suit. These were not exceptions; they form a pattern throughout the Old Testament.
If a man cheats repeatedly on his wife, he lacks integrity. Obviously, the vow he made when married holds no significance; so how can his word or commitment in any other field mean anything? He is just as likely to disregard any other promise he makes as he has his sacred vow of marriage.
And with what kind of people will he surround himself as he tends to the affairs of state? Generally, leaders select those of like character, which means that the amount of damage that can occur might increase a hundredfold–or more. [Why, the FBI and the IRS might even be used to discredit an innocent man!] What kind of ethics are these for our young people to grow up observing (and perhaps emulating)?
Another consequence of Presidential authority involves the Supreme Court. The views of those who sit on the highest court of the land are crucial. Consider all of the damage done by the Warren court, as well as succeeding ones. In the last forty years, the court has been: 1) unable to define pornography, 2) removed school prayer (as well as caused other spiritual damage to this nation), and 3) legislated abortion-on-demand through Roe v. Wade. [Yes, legislated is the appropriate word because they did not interpret law (the function of the court); they wrote it.]
Appointees should be given important consideration. February’s Reader’s Digest , for example, points out that former President Bush and his staff were confident that David Souter was a conservative. The article concluded that they did not know enough about his views; worse yet, he has reversed himself on the conservative views he once held. In fact, he has become one of the most (if not the most) liberal member of the court. Dwight Eisenhower was similarly disappointed by Earl Warren.
The above Presidential duties reveal just a few reasons which show that character does matter!
The Influence of Leaders
Consider how the following men influenced God’s people and decide if character matters.
King Saul was either a weak leader or an accomplished liar (or both). He claimed that he usurped the function of a priest because “the people were scattered from me” (1 Sam. 13: 11). After disobeying God’s instructions concerning Amalek, Saul again credited the people for his actions (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). A weak leader will abide by the most recent public opinion poll and say what he thinks folks want to hear even if it contradicts what he said the day before. The alternative is that King Saul lied and blamed the people, thinking that somehow doing so would absolve his disobedience. It did not.
Ahab was an evil man who did worse than all who were before him. Then he married Jezebel (1 Kings 16:30-31). If he became temporarily impressed with Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal, she was there to get him back off track (1 Kings 19:2). And if he grew weak in the practice of evil, she was there to take up the slack (1 Kings 21:1-14). What a helper! Some rulers, although talented (in wickedness) in their own right, are nevertheless dominated by their wives. These were especially dark days for Israel. Did this couple’s character matter?
Jeroboam was selected to rule over Israel when the kingdom split due to Rehoboam’s stubbornness (1 Kings 12:20). Jeroboam may have seemed like a good choice at the time, but his character also proved to be deficient. He became intoxicated with power. He could not stand the thought of losing the kingdom; so he devised a strategy to keep the people under his control (1 Kings 12:25-33).
It worked. Of course, he changed aspects of worship as God designed it (just as some are doing today), but apparently nobody objected (or not many did, just like today). So until they were taken captive for their sins, the nation of Israel engaged in unauthorized worship. God destroyed them because they walked in the sins instituted by one king (2 Kings 17:21-23). A defective leader’s character caused a nation to sin by following after his “reforms.” Can anyone successfully argue that “character doesn’t matter”?
Back in the mid-60’s the fad which developed among college students was “doing drugs.” This infatuation with mind-altering substances became a large part of the popular music scene with psychedelic lyrics (“I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high; I tore my mind on the jagged sky”) and colorful groups (Strawberry Alarm Clock, who woke everyone up with “Incense and Peppermints”).
The Association came along with “Along Comes Mary” (“now my empty cup is as sweet as the punch”). “Mary” and “Mary Jane” were designations for marijuana in those days, but now young people are referring to it as “dank,” “bo,” “chronic,” and “hemp,” according to “The New Pot Culture” by Monika Guttman in last Sunday’s (2-18-96) USA WEEKEND (4).
And, sadly, the use of marijuana has sharply increased during the past four years. Reader’s Digest credited Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign (in part) with the sharp decline in young people’s use of the drug (February 73). According to the information presented in USA Weekend the number of high school seniors smoking pot declined from 50% in 1979 to 22% in 1992; since that time the number has risen dramatically to 34.7% (5). Something is terribly wrong for the number of users to increase so rapidly in such a short period of time.
One reason for this change may be society’s deemphasis of the subject. Reader’s Digest cites several factors. “In 1989, 518 drug stories were aired on the evening news of the three major networks. By 1994, there were just 78. The number of PDFA spots is down 20 percent since 1990.” And many of those ads are aired at times when young people are not watching (75).
Furthermore, drugs seem to be more acceptable in the entertainment media. According to USA Weekend, approval of marijuana has been suggested on Roseanne , in movies such as How To Make An American Quilt, and once again in the realm of popular music. In fact, a recent CD entitled Hempilation, was released specifically to earn money for marijuana decriminalization (5), a cause which even some misguided conservatives (and liberals such as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders-RD 74) champion. There are also some potthemed hats and T-shirts that one may find young people starting to wear.
Keep Off the Grass
Today’s adults who survived “hippie-hood” may not be too alarmed about this resurgent craze, but they should be because the primary psychoactive chemical (THC) of today’s marijuana has doubled in potency during the past ten years (USA 5). The ease of obtaining the drug should strike fear into most people.
Becoming commonplace are “Phillies blunts,” which are cigars which have been hollowed out and refilled with marijuana. “The nicotine helps increase the high” (4). But consider the following information carefully. Marijuana is currently this nation’s largest cash crop (6). Furthermore, many teens who were interviewed for the USA article said that the average time it would take them to find and buy pot was three minutes (6-7). A Seattle teenager confided to Reader’s Digest that “Weed is as common as school lunch” (72).
Effects
The effects of smoking marijuana are detrimental to both the individual and society. Let’s begin with the latter. Many who desire either to legalize or decriminalize marijuana have cited “the European model” as a system that works. According to the February Reader’s Digest ,”Dutch adolescent marijuana use, for example, nearly tripled between 1984 and 1992, while the flow of drugs into bordering countries has grown. At the same time the Netherlands is ranked No. 1 in Europe for forcible assaults, up 65 percent since 1985″ (74). Similar unsavory results have been Zurich, Switzerland’s reward. “Today, Switzerland is left with Europe’s highest percapita rate of drug addiction and second highest rate of HIV infection” (75).
The personal effects on the individual user are well known. USA Weekend states them succinctly: “Marijuana reduces coordination; slows reflexes; interferes with the ability to measure distance, speed and time; and disrupts concentration in short term memory. A marijuana smoker is exposed to six times as many carcinogens as a tobacco smoker” (5).
Another danger of marijuana is that (as a “gateway” drug) it leads its devotees to experiment with drugs even more dangerous than it is, as some users admit: “Pot makes you lazy. I don’t like to do schoolwork,” a former 3.5 average student admitted. “A lot of people move on to acid” (Reader’s Digest 71-72). Parents need to be aware of this revived threat against young people and caution them not to be deceived by it.
Many enjoy the high and think they are more lucid when stoned, possessing greater insights. The following letter was written to Ann Landers several years ago–before I began documenting articles properly. The misspellings and errors were on the part of the letter writer. It serves to demonstrate how marijuana affects the brain.
Dear Ann Landers:
Your letter against pot last week was a joke. If you dryed up creeps want kids to believe you, who don’t you tell the truth? I like my hair long. It looks fine. I have yet to see a single letter in your column to tell the GOOD things about pot. Why is that? Because you are a bunch of fuddy-dudies who are scare us kids to death. Well, it won’t work. Most of us know more about pot than our parents and teachers put together. Getting turned on by Jesus is definately. I’m a 16 year-old girl who lives in a medium-size midwestern town. I have been smoking pot at least once a day for two years. It hasn’t hurt me at all. In fax it has done me a lot of good. Not only is pot-smoking fun but it has expanded my conscientiousness and opened my eyes to the beaties of the world and unquestionable. This proves the police are pigs.
Grass has not dulled my mind. It has sharpen it. My think is clearer than it ever was. I am more aware things I never noticed before. Objicts that used to look small look large, especially when I. When I smoke, I see mental imagines in color instead of black and white. I used to be too shy to speak up in a crowd. Now I am a brilliant conversationist. I get stoned but I am 100 percent lucid. I am express my inmost feelings brilliantly. Feet can be friends. When I finish this letter it will be a mastpiece.
If you fail to print it, I will know you are a Communist. In Russia they print only one side of the story. The side they want people to believe. I’ll be watch and waiting. –The Truth Will Win
