On Friday, February 19, 2010, courtesy of The O’Reilly Factor, the host revealed part of an interview that Dotson Rader of Parade had with Elton John for the Sunday supplement. The quote below does not actually appear in the February 21st article about John, but it is available on the magazine’s website. On page 5, a rectangular box informs the reader: “Elton John talks about love, drugs, and religion at Parade.com/el-ton.” Once at the website, several categories are provided on which the singer makes comments; listed below is “His take on Christianity”:
I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East—you’re as good as dead.
First of all, apparently many people subscribe to the logical fallacy that is usually called: “A Faulty Appeal to Authority.” Just because a greatly-talented singer and songwriter knows music does not make him an expert on the environment, nuclear power, homelessness, love, or Christianity. He might display abundant knowledge on composing, but what qualifications does he have in other areas? Concerning Christianity, has he ever read the Bible—or even the New Testament? He might want to read Genesis 19:4-5, Romans 1:26, and Jude 7 again, since they condemn his sexual experience. Certainly, there is no obvious connection between rock music and Jesus.
Second, where did Reginald Dwight (Elton John’s name at birth) get his description of the Lord? That He was compassionate can clearly be seen throughout the New Testament and is easily verified. Was Jesus “super-intelligent”? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1). Since Jesus is God, and since all “things were made through Him” (John 1:3), it stands to reason that everything man has discovered (plus the knowledge we yet lack) He already knew.
Third, Jesus did understand human problems; He demonstrated the ability to deal with all of them, telling people what they needed to hear—from the woman at the well to the rich young ruler to the Pharisees who acted hypocritically in many aspects of their lives (Matt. 23). He also understood human nature:
But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man (John 2:24-25).
Fourth, on the cross Jesus did forgive those who crucified Him, but this plea to the Father was not unconditional because He had already taught that repentance was necessary. “…I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). They were not forgiven in actuality unless they had a change of heart concerning Jesus, His Deity, and His mission. Many of the Jews who clamored for His death that day did repent on the Day of Pentecost. When they asked what they should do, having been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38). About 3,000 did repent and were baptized. The wicked elders and chief priests who condemned Jesus never showed any signs of repentance. Their sins will be brought up against them in the Day of Judgment.
Many people view forgiveness as something God just automatically dispenses (like soap), but it is not granted quite that easily. Many enjoy thinking about the benefits of forgiveness but have no thought of changing their thinking or their actions. God has always had conditions of pardon.
Fifth, Jesus does want people to be loving and forgiving. In fact, He said that the greatest commandment was to “love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). It may be that what many consider to be love does not fit God’s definition. Jesus taught His disciples: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). The Apostle John would later echo this definition: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 6). Some, when they speak of love, do not ever have in mind obligations and responsibilities; they only have in mind a vague sentiment of good will.
Therefore, if a person loves God and learns that walking in fornication is against the Divine will, he will cease having sex (with either gender) outside of marriage. Paul even makes this contrast:
Therefore be followers of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma, but fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not be named among you, as is fitting for saints (Eph. 5:1-3).
One cannot speak about the love of God apart from keeping His commandments. It would be like separating Adam and Eve or salvation from Jesus Christ.
Likewise, Christians are commanded to be forgiving. In fact, Jesus taught everyone to forgive others (Matt. 6:12); if we do not forgive men their trespasses, then neither will He forgive ours (Matt. 6:15). This doctrine, however, does not mean we are to be automatons, forgiving immediately upon being offended—be-fore the offender ever repents. The illustration Jesus gave in Matthew 18 involved the unwillingness to forgive when being beseeched by one who was trying to do better. It may be pride that keeps someone from forgiving another when he has been wounded deeply.
When Jesus met Peter after the resurrection, He did not tell him that he was through as an apostle. He knew of his immense regret over denying Him—how that he wept bitterly. He was willing to forgive Saul of Tarsus, although he had caused great damage to the church, His body, because He knew Saul was conscientious enough to lament his fanatical actions. He also knew that Saul would become the outstanding Apostle Paul! The Scriptures teach us to forgive those who have troubled us, even persecuted us—if they repent and ask our forgiveness (Matt. 5:43-45).
In these five observations by Elton John, he is exactly right, although he may not know the way some of these concepts are defined in the Scriptures. If he had only stopped with these observations about Jesus, then everyone could have agreed with him, but he felt compelled to go one step further and charge Jesus with being a homosexual, which is as preposterous as it is unprovable.
Jesus Was Not a Homosexual
Where would anyone even come up with such a vile thought? It seems that in the Scriptures, if two or more men are mentioned in any text without women being present, homosexuals are quick to claim them as their own. Some have asserted that David and Jonathan were “lovers” and that Paul was a repressed homosexual. The fact that Jesus trained twelve men and traveled with them does not constitute valid proof.
In the first place, no passage of Scripture remotely hints that any of these men of faith had the slightest wish to indulge themselves in such an immoral fashion. Second, many women often traveled with Jesus (Luke 8:1-3); one has just as much evidence to say that the Lord was intimately involved with them as with men—NONE! The problem with so many of what Paul refers to as “natural” men is that they cannot discern much, if anything, that is spiritual (1 Cor. 2:12-14).
They see two men who are friends or a man and woman (not married to each other), and they immediately conclude that something must be going on. Perhaps they transfer their own manner of thinking onto others. Just because they cannot have relationships with others without it becoming sexual does not mean that everyone else has the same problem.
We know that Jesus was not a homosexual for many reasons. First, had He ever been intimate with anyone of either gender, it would have violated the Law that He was born under. He Himself taught that the Law was not to be violated and that it would be in effect until He fulfilled all things (Matt. 5:17-20). Therefore, giving into the temptation of fornication would have made Him guilty of sin and disqualified Him from being our sacrifice for sins (1 Peter 2:22). He was the perfect Lamb of God, without spot or blemish (1 Peter 1:19).
Second, if Jesus had been such a carnal individual, He would have violated all of His teachings concerning self-control (Matt. 15:18-20). When Jesus taught on the principles of happiness in Matthew 5:3-12, He did not say anything about fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, which many in our age would advocate. In fact, the devil presented Him with the lusts of the flesh (and every other temptation) in the wilderness, but Jesus resisted them all. Men have been moved by His love for truth and purity for centuries. To suggest that He was little more than a carnal creature is despicable.
Third, to have taught one thing (lofty spiritual principles) while practicing something totally different in His life (fleshly indulgence) would have made Jesus the number one hypocrite of all time. The denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 would have been insignificant compared to what they in turn could have said of Him. Imagine Jesus’ enemies finding out that He was a homosexual! If they had any evidence of such outrageous behavior, they would have proclaimed it through the streets of Jerusalem so fast, the city would have been reeling with shock!
They would not have had to resort to crucifying Him; he would have been thoroughly (and rightly) discredited. Consider how ungodly those men were who opposed Jesus. They assigned to Him things He did not say, they tried to trap Him on a multitude of subjects; they even made up the story about the soldiers being bribed by the disciples so that they could steal His body. BUT THEY NEVER ACCUSED HIM OF ANY SEXUALLY IMMORAL ACTION! Even they had the decency to forego such a charge—even if Elton John does not. If Jesus’ detractors had found even a scintilla of information concerning moral corruption, they would not have hesitated to use it.
And how would such a corrupt individual have inspired His apostles to go and proclaim the Word? If they knew that Jesus was morally perverted, how can one explain that they taught the same principles of morality that He did? If the truth was that He was a practicing homosexual (or even heterosexual), they would have immediately become disillusioned and probably in disgust quit following Him. The world was already morally polluted. Had Jesus been like those individuals, He would have had nothing new to draw attention to His teachings. The fact is, however: “No man spoke like this man!” (John 7:46). Jesus inspired people to leave their sins—not to indulge them even further. Can anyone truly believe that the world was changed through a man of such ignoble character?
“You Thought That I Was Altogether Like You”
Why would Elton John make such a ridiculous statement? He could be trying to elicit responses from the “Christian community” such as has been given here, or perhaps he just wants to see if anyone cares any more about such insults to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Or he may have fallen victim to the same ideology that the contemporaries of Asaph had. For some reason, people want to think that God is the same way they are; perhaps they feel less condemned. The psalmist explains this rationale:
When you saw a thief, you consented with him, And have been a partaker with adulterers.
You give your mouth to evil,
And your tongue frames deceit.
You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will reprove you,
And set them in order before your eyes
(Ps. 50:18-21).
People misinterpret God’s silence for approval when, in fact, His purpose for delaying judgment upon them is to provide time for them to repent (2 Peter 3:9). The problem with creating God in our own image is that it runs contrary to reality. He does not love without expecting love in return—love that is willing to abide by His commandments. He does not forgive when we refuse to repent. And He does not fail to punish those who assign wicked human habits to the Divine Creator of the universe.
Mr. Dwight wonders why people are so cruel. God understands cruelty. No greater evidence of it has ever been demonstrated than when the innocent Lamb of God was beaten mercilessly and crucified. Most of us would not even treat an actual criminal in such a fashion though he deserved it, but God allowed His only begotten Son to be delivered over into the very hands of cruelty—to suffer man’s irrational rage against Him. It was not only Jesus that was rejected. In crucifying Him, they also showed their contempt for God.
What does Elton John mean by cruelty? He does not seem to be protesting what was done to Jesus. His only example is a gay woman in the Middle East. Why specify a lesbian? Is it not the case that most women are mistreated in the Middle East? And what about “honor” killings? Anyone born a Muslim who determines to be a Christian is in danger of death! Is that cruelty—not being allowed the freedom to think for oneself? What an outstanding opportunity to speak out on behalf of Christianity, but all Elton John can think of is sexuality.
God has always condemned homosexual behavior, and it has nothing to do with cruelty—any more than the condemnation of adultery or fornication. These are sins of the flesh, which defile us as human beings. Although it may be difficult for some to understand, God knew what He was doing when He put one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden. He did not design man to experiment with a multiplicity of partners (of either gender). He designed it the way it works best—the way He defines morality.
Does not the failure to practice God’s law involve cruelty to others? How much devastation results when a family is torn apart due to divorce? How many people feel cruelly treated when their unmarried “partner” decides to leave in favor of someone else? Is there not cruelty in betrayal and desolation? Is it not cruel toward God, Who made us in His image, to place the physical body and sensual pleasure above the vastly more important spiritual concepts we ought to be investing in?
“For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses His own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works” (Matt. 16:26-27).
Perhaps self-cruelty is worse than any other kind. How miserable will it make one feel to know throughout eternity that he is in torment due to his own choice! Jesus calls all to live up to the potential God gave mankind at the Creation. Everyone is invited to live by the high moral precepts that befit those created in the image of God. The opportunity for living righteously is available to all—if we just humbly obey God. Why do people refuse to do so? Why are we so cruel?
[Editor’s note: Following is the conclusion of an article originally published in The Journal for Better Christian Homes, edited by Robert L. Waggoner in September, 1990. It finishes reviewing books for “children” written by Judy Blume.]
Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great
The theme of disrespect flows through this novel as the title character proves to be a snotty, prideful girl who frequently lies to cover up her fears. She also experiences problems with inferiority which she eventually learns to handle in some measure. Although the story is fairly entertaining, Sheila’s parents do not discipline her—even when she kicks the closet door in someone else’s house and leaves a mark upon it. At other times, she defiantly taunts here parents with the age-old, “You can’t make me.” Unfortunately, they don’t.
Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing
Peter Hatcher is a fourth grader, whose main problem in life is his sadistic little brother Farley Drexel, otherwise known as Fudge. Little brother receives more than his share of attention; he fears nothing because his parents refuse to discipline him.
Superfudge
This sequel also relates basically a series of unrelated events. If anything, it was even funnier than the original, and (believe it or not), Farley Drexel gets disciplined when he fails to show proper respect for his new baby sister. Despite the fact that he calls his kindergarten teacher “ratface,” he has toned down considerably, which may be Blume’s answers to problems in life—just leave them alone, and they’ll eventually get better. The book also contains toilet humor and some crude language.
Blubber
Jill watches how the other girls bully the overweight Linda, who is insulted, embarrassed, and humiliated by the class leader, Wendy. Jill takes part in the cruel process, not suspecting that some day she might be the victim. The children do mean and vicious things to the fat girl they call “blubber.” Through a series of events Jill breaks up the class hierarchy, but there are few if any observable lessons.
The kids are characterized as rotten and callous in their treatment of one another; the adults never seem to know what is happening. The teacher leaves her classroom unsupervised (if you can imagine that). Parents are usually so involved in their own worlds they fail to notice what their children are doing or feeling. Such is usually the case in Blume’s writings. Seldom does one find an understanding, compassionate adult in her works. At school or on the bus, discipline remains absent.
The reader cannot help but notice several instances of foul language, unnecessary references to the girls’ undergarments and bathroom habits, passing around a National Geographic that showed a full page of naked people, and poems for the “john” (103). The doctrine of reincarnation is mentioned twice (110, 116). The book’s only strength is that it might prompt the reader to think about how we ought to treat others. It might also encourage consideration about why certain students are leaders and whether or not they should be followed.
Deenie
Deenie is a beautiful girl whose mother is working very hard on her daughter’s behalf so that she can become a professional model. Tragically, she is diagnosed as having scoliosis and must wear a back brace for the next four years. She eventually learns to accept herself and her deformity, but at the beginning of the story she feels discomfort being around handicapped people.
This could have been a powerful and emotional story that everyone would have recommended to young people (and Blume did research scoliosis in order to accurately describe the problem and reactions to it), but the author also decided to present masturbation in a favorable light (59, 90-93, and 147-148). Deenie’s teacher says that it is normal and harmless, but of course, gives no practical advice concerning it or reasons why young people might wish to refrain from it. (The author herself is on record as stating that she frequently engaged in the practice as a young girl.)
Sexual awareness is one of the themes of Deenie; she main character wonders what it would feel like to have sexual intercourse (153). Blume encourages young people to be sexually aware. She seems to want them to know that (in her view) experimentation (without restrictions) is all right. Her position appears to be that sexual involvement is neither right nor wrong in and of itself.
Tiger Eyes
The best thing to say about this book is that if all of the unsavory aspects of it had been left out, it would have made a touching story. In fact, this book may well be the author’s best work—as far as plot and characterization are concerned. The story concerns a girl and her mother who must cope with the violent death of the father/husband. The family departs from New Jersey and lives in Las Alamos, New Mexico for a period of recuperation and a vast change of scenery. “Tiger Eyes” is the name “Wolf” gives to the heroine; he is a teen-age boy whose own father is dying of cancer. The problem of dealing with death is one of the most successful themes in the story.
BUT the vulgarities are numerous and varied; “Wolf” makes a crude remark the first time he meets the “Tiger Eyes,” and she responds in kind. Base humor and similar pointless remarks are included. Comments made about death are not excessively wise or accurate. One person wonders what it feels like to be dead; the other answers, “Peaceful” (9). Later on the comment is made that an afterlife is a nice idea, but it is difficult to believe in (164).
More disobedience to adults is spotlighted; in fact, the adults are usually wrong. In a discussion about sex education, her mother tells her she is too young to know about that (118). (We understand mom’s been through great trauma, but any conscious adult could give better advice than that). The kids drink all the time and drugs are easily available (95). Once again, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in Blume’s writings. Too many questions are left unanswered, and in most cases, the stories could have been written in a more tasteful fashion.
Forever
This book is classified more as “adult” literature, but it is read by girls in seventh and eighth grades, most of whom are not ready for the explicit sex involved. The story revolves around two young people who grow progressively intimate with each other. Michael’s sister and her husband (who often smokes marijuana) invite him and his girlfriend Katharine to Vermont to go skiing and do not at all object if they sleep together while there. Katherine’s grandmother also holds very permissive views of sex, probably indicative of the author.
In fact, the book not only reflects the humanistic philosophy; it’s pure propaganda for Planned Parenthood, whom Katherine visits in order to obtain birth control pills. The young couple practices fornication but ends up separated over the summer, at which time they realize they do not want to spend “forever” together after all. The reader might think, “Aha! A moral lesson at last! Stay a virgin because you may give yourself too freely to one you will not be marrying.” But no such obvious lesson is intended by the author. And even if it were, the story could have been told more tastefully.
Blume’s message is clear: “It’s all right for young people to engage in sex as long as they protect themselves, and it is part of a meaningful relationship.” This is by far the worst of her novels (for young people). Besides containing vulgar language and graphic descriptions, there is absolutely NO sense of moral value or conscience involved. The book could even be described as “preachy”—not for moral values, but the immoral ones. Blume has endorsed smoking marijuana, premarital sex, and Planned Parenthood. She seems to enjoy telling kids it is all right to do things they ought not to do.
For this reason, we would recommend none of her books, although she did write three for small children that are fairly harmless. The tendency that most of us have is to read additional novels by an author once the first one we try has proven enjoyable. It would be better for young people never to begin to read stories by Judy Blume, lest they wind up eventually being influenced by her secular humanistic philosophy.
[Editor’s note: Although this was the conclusion of Part 3, in Part 4. published in October of 1990, parents were warned about other books and authors. In the past twenty years, much more could probably be written, but the warnings against some are still worth mentioning.
In Rosa Guy’s Edit Jack, the heroine becomes pregnant after a brief fling with a playboy and decides that “the mature thing to do is have an abortion” (105). Surely, Christian parents would prefer that their youngsters read something else (4).
Among those books that opened the door for young people to consider homosexuality were John Donovan’s I’ll Get There, It Better Be Worth the Trip (1962), The Man Without a Face (1972) by Isabelle Holland, and from the same year Lynn Hall’s Sticks and Stones. Rosa Guy chimed in with Ruby in 1976, and Nancy Garden wrote an oft-recommended book in 1982—Annie on Her Mind. Other books promoting this sin are Trying Hard to Hear you, Hey Dollface, Happy Endings Are All Alike, and Bouquets for Brimble.
Three other books for adolescents should definitely be avoided. The first is Go Ask Alice, which, on the positive side, shows the reality of what drug-using is like, but it is filled with profanity. Two sex education books that have been highly promoted are Our Bodies, Ourselves; Planned Parenthood promoted this one for years. Judy Blume’s Deenie could have written it….Another book that was once frequent in libraries is Show Me. Although those who defend against all “censorship” will defend it, most would consider it overly graphic and in poor taste.
Certain subjects should be addressed by parents. Children do not belong to the state, and parents should not relinquish control of the education of their children. Parents are responsible to God for the rearing of their children and ought to be taking an active interest in what the children are taught and what they are required to read. Part of bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord involves overseeing their education.
Christians teach their children at a young age not to accept candy from strangers and are careful to keep poisons away from their bodies. Likewise they need to be protected mentally and spiritually until they can stand on their own faith.]
DELIVERED UNTO SATAN
Stephen Russell
Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they should deliver the erring brother to Satan that, “his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” This is strong language and it demands attention. We dare not take lightly the business of delivering an individual to Satan lest we find ourselves in danger of judgment.
So what should we do when a brother or sister strays from the faith? Let us note firstly that it is the faith that he has strayed from. It is not his loyalty to a group of people or any individual that is in question but his service to God almighty. There is no place for personal ego to enter when we are in a discussion of fellowship in God’s kingdom. So if it is the faith that is forsaken then it is the source of that faith that we should turn to. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). It is not man’s wisdom that we should use to appeal but the perfect word of God that is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). If we admonish a brother without making it very clear to him what part of God’s will he has violated then our admonition is pointless. Or perhaps it is our own will and not God’s that has been violated.
So how does the process work? Admittedly there is no specific way that we are to withdraw. We do find, however, principles that should guide us depending on the specifics of any situation. To begin with, attempts should be made to handle the matter one-on-one if possible (Matt. 18:15). It may be that this will not work so then we ought to take reliable witnesses with us so that every word may be established (Matt. 18:16). The writer here feels the responsibility to point out that the witnesses are to establish every word so that if a man is not reliable to remember what has been said then he is no good as a witness. If the brother still refuses to repent then the matter ought to go before the church (Matt. 18:17). This procedure, specified by the Lord, assumes that the sin was not public to begin with.
It should be a matter of common sense that at this point a reasonable amount of time should be given for the church, who has just been made aware of this brother’s actions, to make appeals of their own to the brother. If there still is no resolution the church must cut ties (Matt. 18:17). It should also be a matter of common sense that the individual being withdrawn from should be notified of the action so that it may have its effect. We would not want to find out through the grapevine that we are to be withdrawn from and this is our brother we are taking this action against (Matt. 7:12; 2 Thess. 3:15).
What is the purpose of such serious action? There are two main reasons given for withdrawal in the New Testament. One is concern for the soul of the one withdrawn from (I Cor. 5:5). The other is for the purity of the church (I Cor. 5:6). If we are withdrawing for any other reason, then it is sin. Withdrawal should not be political nor should it be used as a bullying tool. It is something done with concern for souls.
A final word. If we refuse to fulfill our responsibility in this area we are not somehow going to help the erring brother by continuing in fellowship with him. He will be lost whether or not he is in our church directory. The truth is, we put ourselves in danger of the severity of God when we refuse to act as He has commanded us to. Then there are those occasions when a brother is withdrawn from by those who love the preeminence as did Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9). These men should know that when they withdraw fellowship from godly men, they have not done one thing to change this man’s standing before God. They have, however, considerably endangered their own souls as well as all of the souls of those they persuade to follow them in their sinful behavior.
“But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:13-15).
[This article appeared in the bulletin of the Blue Spring (MO) Church of Christ on January 24, 2010, and was edited by Don Boyd.]
[In 1990, I wrote a series of articles for The Journal for Better Christian Homes, edited by Robert L. Waggoner. The five-part series was titled, “Christian Humanistic Values in Adolescent Literature.” I had not thought about it for a number of years until asked recently about “children’s” author, Judy Blume. My immediate response was that parents should keep their children from reading her works because of the content. One of her books, in this instance, had already been required reading in school, and the danger is, of course, that, once children like an author, they are likely to want to read more of that writer’s material, which is the problem. The books she wrote for the youngest age group are innocuous and very humorous, but the ones she penned for children just a little bit older take a decided turn toward humanism and sexual promiscuity. Below is a portion of the third article (Sept. 1990); additional comments are in brackets.]
Judy Sussman was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, in 1938. Her family (of Jewish background) consisted of an older brother, her mother, and her father to whom she was particularly close; he died when she was 21. That same year she married John Blume, a lawyer. After sixteen years of marriage and two children (Randi and Larry), they divorced. She remarried, divorced again, and has been living with a man for a number of years. Information about various authors can be obtained from Something About the Author, which can be found in the Reference section of the Children’s department in most libraries of any size. Significant quotations by them are also included. [According to the Wikipedia, she married in 1987 George Cooper. She has won more than 90 literary awards, including the Library of Congress Living Legends award. She has also written three adult novels, which have sold in the millions. Wikipedia has more about her in the censorship section than all the other headings, thus foreshadowing her controversial work. It is not that she discusses difficult subjects—but her attitude toward them.]
Like Beverly Cleary, Blume deals with a number of realistic problems, and she is frequently entertaining, but tasteful is not the appropriate adjective to apply to her works, neither do they contain proper values, nor will many adults feel “safe” allowing their children to read her books.
Her entire philosophy of life runs counter to that of Christians, and it show frequently in her writing. Her parent characters, for example, seldom exercise any discipline on their children. In many of her stories, the reader finds some sort of abnormal behavior, and an element of vulgarity characterizes each book. Few of her characters seem to subscribe to any kind of definable moral system. One senses that Miss Blume tends to make up her own system (whatever it is) as she goes along.
Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret
This is one of Blume’s books that has been removed from library shelves on occasion and not without reason. This story observes Margaret coming of age, trying to understand life. One of her friends proves to be a chronic liar; most of them think religion is boring, and they are all concerned about expanding their busts in order to be noticed by boys. In fact, at a poorly supervised boy-girl party the kids alternately “make out” and treat each other in an immature fashion.
What’s so objectionable about this story? The girls seem very sex-conscious. As Margaret changes into a swimsuit, she comments that Nancy (her lying friend) gives her “the creeps the way she sat on her bed and watched me” (6). Later, on that same page, Nancy tells her that she’s looked at the girls in her father’s Playboy and that she’s going to look like one of those girls when she gets older. Nancy also informs Margaret that all 14-year-old boys are disgusting and that they are only interested in two things: “pictures of naked girls and dirty books” (11), yet they do exercises with hopes of expanding their busts. At an all-girls’ party, they study the father’s Playboy (71); some of the girls confide that they have a brother or a father that walks around the house naked, and one had an aunt that spent a summer in a nudist colony (70).
Nothing is ever sorted out in the book as to what is myth and what is truth. Pornography is not condemned as being wrong or harmful; it’s presented as something that is normal and helpful. Do the girls get some factual advice from their parents? No, parents are generally despised. Consider this snooty remark: “My mother’s always telling me about when she was a girl. It’s supposed to make me feel that she understands everything” (24). Margaret decides on one occasion that her mother isn’t so bad—when she does what Margaret wants her to do (37). One girl states: “I hated my mother. I really did. She was so stupid” (124). Granted that young people occasionally feel that way or even go so far to say so to their friends, nothing in the story ever shows that such feelings are wrong, temporary, or even usually unjustifiable. But religion receives the worst treatment of all.
None of Margaret’s friends enjoy their religion. When Margaret informs them that she doesn’t go to Sunday school, they think she’s incredibly lucky (10). One laments, “I have to go to Hebrew school.” She would love to get out of it (34). When Margaret explains that her parents are nothing religiously, the response is, “How positively neat!”
The adults’ view of God and religion a la Miss Blume is pathetic. Margaret quotes her mother as saying that “God is a nice idea. He belongs to everybody” (14). The reason her parents practice no religion is that her father was Jewish and her mother Christian; therefore, to avoid confusion for Margaret, they decided to be neither (35). Their irrationality is that as long as they love each other, “…what difference does religion make?” (141). Her mother tells her on one occasion, “I just think it’s foolish for a girl your age to bother herself with religion” (56).
Margaret’s grandparents on both sides try to pull her into their respective religions. Margaret attends worship with both and prefers the Jewish a little, since she didn’t have to listen to a sermon (94). Her “Christian” grandparents tell her that a person doesn’t choose religion; they are born into it. They affirm that she was “born a Christian. You were baptized [sprinkled, undoubtedly]. It’s that simple” (133).
How does Margaret feel about all of this? Church doesn’t do anything for her. Attending worship didn’t make her feel close to God, even though she wanted it to (63). Later she says to God, “Why do I only feel you when I’m alone?” (120). At one point she gets mad enough to say that she doesn’t need anyone—even God (134), but then she concludes, “If I should ever have children, I will tell them what religion they are so they can start learning about it at an early age” (143).
What is so dangerous about Judy Blume is that she deals with things that young people are thinking about, but she gives no answers—unless it be that there are no answers. She presents only a hodgepodge of conflicting views but provides no guidance as to the right solution. One suspects that she does not believe that there are any solutions.
Sure, teens become interested in sex, but there are absolutes regarding it in the Bible (1 Cor. 6:18-20). Sure, teens invariably have conflicts with their parents, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t love each other. Sure, teens usually have questions about religion, but hopefully they can get better answers than the insipid, inane advice that flows from Blume’s adult figures.
God is not a nice idea that someone thought up, like Tinkerbell. God is reality, the Creator and Redeemer of all mankind. He is holy and just and will bring all men to account for their actions (and their ideas) some day. While a person might be born Jewish, no one is born into Christianity by physical birth. All are born into it by means of a spiritual birth (John 3:1-8). Furthermore, religion is not a matter of merely experiencing feelings (Pr. 28:26; Jer. 17:9); it is also a matter of knowledge and using one’s intellect.
There are always those who want to disregard the Bible in favor of making God into their own image. Such is evidently Blume’s philosophy. I tell God what I expect out of Him, and He answers my requests. Needless to say, however, He is not allowed to make demands of me or preach to me, or else I’ll get mad.
Is it any wonder that Christian parents get upset with Blume’s anti-Christian philosophy? Children can see through many things that adults miss, but on the other hand they lack the ability to discern between beneficial and harmful philosophies. If an author says it’s all right for children to look at Playboy, then they will likely agree. If an author’s attitude toward religion is blasé, that same attitude will likely rub off. It’s called influence, and without any hesitation, we say unequivocally that children would be better off without subjecting themselves to Judy Blume.
It’s Not the End of the World
Karen is the main character in this book, and her parents are going through a divorce. She fantasizes that she can say or do something to patch things up, but she eventually finds out she can do nothing. Her older brother Jeff also proves to be a problem. He disappears throughout most of the story but returns home at last.
The reader can sympathize with the girl’s problems—especially her thinking that the divorce is her fault, but the entire book is filled with anti-marriage sentiments which are never totally resolved. Her friend tells Karen, “My mother wants to marry him. Actually, my mother wants to marry anyone who is rich” (74). On another occasion her friend tells her that her father married her mother “because she was pretty and he wanted to show her off, like a new coat or something. He never really loved her,” she explains (110).
Karen begins the story, “I don’t think I’ll ever get married. Why should I? All it does is make you miserable” (1). She says of her teacher that, since she got married, she’s turned into a witch. We might see some humor in situations such as these—if Blume’s characters ever grew out of them, but they don’t. Karen affirms, “I’m not getting married” (79, 111).
[Something was omitted at this point in the published article, and we will skip the partial sentence, resuming with a parenthetical statement that completed the paragraph.]
(The trouble with these two “grown-ups” is that they act like small children and don’t even try to get along with each other.)
This book contains some profanity, some use of the Lord’s name in vain, and a smattering of disrespect for authority. Karen rejoices to herself in a smug way that her brother hitches rides all the time despite her mother’s warning against it. The very real dangers of hitchhiking never receive any attentions by the author or any of her characters.
[The remaining reviews of Judy Blume’s books will take more room than is available. Unfortunately, we have not yet arrived at the worst of them. Some might wonder what, therefore, in this genre could be recommended as safe and enjoyable for children to read. Below, by contrast, is a portion of the same article from the Journal (Part 3) which discusses Beverly Cleary and her “Ramona” series.]
Mrs. Cleary was born in McMinnville, Oregon, in 1916. She married in 1940 and has one daughter and twin sons. She has won several awards for children’s literature. In addition to winning the Newbery Award for Dear Mr. Henshaw in 1984, two of her other books have received the Newbery Honor Book Award: Ramona and Her Father in 1978 and Ramona Quimby, Age 8 in 1982. In her Newbery acceptance speech as recorded in the August, 1984 Horn Book, Mrs. Cleary credited her mother with some of her success: “My mother was an independent, determined, vivacious, intense woman, ambivalent about the life she led. She had an unshakable faith in the importance of books, reading, and libraries.”
In Mrs. Cleary’s books, the reader may be assured of a tactful solution to thorny (and sometimes tragic) problems which often occur. In Ramona the Brave, for example, our little heroine becomes so frustrated that she decides her only recourse is to say a bad word. She only succeeds, however, in making her family laugh at her because she doesn’t know any and therefore chooses a word that she thinks is bad but is not. (Had the story been written by Judy Blume, we shudder to think what the word might have been.)
Several of Cleary’s books have chronicled the adventures of the Quimby family. The word adventures does not refer to deeds of daring or journeys into the wilds but to the everyday happenings in this family’s life. Anyone who doesn’t think that daily household events can qualify as “adventures” just doesn’t know Ramona very well….
She learns that even though we cannot always excel in everything or convince everybody that we are “terrific” people we can nevertheless be accepted by others because everyone has some redeeming and endearing qualities. Young readers will probably see themselves in some of the things that occur and will benefit from the lesson described above.
In Ramona and Her Father, Mr. Quimby loses his job, which puts a strain on the entire family…. The funniest episode of all begins in a heated argument. Ramona’s older sister…complains that if the family is so poor, why doesn’t their father quit smoking. What follows is probably the most humorous campaign ever to get someone to quit smoking.
Ramona Quimby, Age 8 finds Ramona in the third grade, where she embarrasses herself severely by throwing up in the classroom. Later she gives a book report as it would be done on a television commercial. But the funniest episode involves Ramona [and her sister] fixing dinner all by themselves. What happens is more hilarious than most of us could imagine.
Beverly Cleary won the Newbery Award for Dear Mr. Henshaw in 1984. This…book concerns Leigh Botts, whose mother and father are divorced. Having been taught in school about writers of children’s stories, Leigh imagines himself writing to one—Mr. Henshaw. After four years of pretending to communicate with a writer, he is assigned (as a sixth-grade student) to write to an author, and he begins to correspond regularly with [the actual] Mr. Henshaw. He is surprised to receive a list of questions from the man in return for those he asked.
Eventually he begins his own diary and learns to enjoy writing. Encouraged to enter a contest, he wins third place and gets to eat dinner with a real author, though it is not Mr. Henshaw. The entire story is told in letter form. The sensitive subject of Mom and Dad being divorced is handled well, and Leigh must also learn to deal with other problems, such as his lunch being stolen periodically.
Cleary deals with a number of realistic problems that young people face, and she always does so in a tasteful manner. Proper values always underlie her books. They are safe for young people to read and entertaining for adults.
[This material appeared on pages 7-10 of the September, 1990, Journal, as mentioned previously. Hopefully the material presented herein may be of value to Christian parents in choosing what is appropriate and what is not for their children to read.]
Chris Jepson’s article, “I Have No Faith in Religion,” in the Thursday, January 10, 2010 Observer reflects his Darwinian evolution profession of faith; it is chaotic. He rambles all over the place in search of a thesis. One would expect that it would be a unified attack against religion, but instead it is a protest of religion-inspired war. Or is it? The reader is treated to a panoramic view of: religion is worthless, religion means war, the Muslims are fighting against us (but maybe it’s our fault), to the decline of Western Europe that implies our own doom. No one could successfully answer all that Jepson alleges, but a few false allegations need reply.
I have no faith in Darwinian evolution, which is unproven and unprovable. I am amazed when any thinking person actually professes a belief in it. I have never once found myself thinking, “I don’t know why I’m here, and I don’t care.” I find any reliance on evolutionary superstition an impediment to moral living (since evolution implies no morality). “If there is no God, everything is permitted” (Fyodor Dostoevsky). Apart from an objective source of revelation, the only morality anyone possesses is either what he invents or what he subscribes to. No other logical alternative exists.
It is nice that Jepson values freedom and humanism; Hitler valued humanism and control over others. On what basis is Jepson right and Hitler wrong? What anyone values is irrelevant. Perhaps Jepson is a product of his home environment, a slave to what he has been taught, or the result of his genetic makeup. Who cares what he values? Apart from God, Who created man, no objectivity exists; everything is subjective, and according to postmodernism, everyone has a right to his own interpretation (unless it is Christian or conservative in nature). Morality cannot exist in such an environment because people’s values always clash.
Jepson claims that Mother Earth gave birth to man (was there a midwife?) and that he shares a common ancestry with modern apes of 6 to 8 million years ago. Yawn. He could just as easily believe that Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy populated the earth 75 million years ago. Both lack substantial evidence. That the Bible is the Word of God, however, is demonstrated by the testimony of reliable witnesses and supernatural proofs, such as the resurrection that convinced a world of pagans in the first century.
The charge against religion for creating wars is an old, not to mention, tired argument. To be sure, many have fought wars in the name of religion, but many have also been fought in the name of atheism. Perhaps Mr. Jepson would like to describe Hitler’s theology. Could it be that he was influenced by, hmm, Darwinian evolution? How many millions did Stalin kill, and in the name of what God? What was the religion of Mao Tse-Tung, and how many millions did the Red Chinese exterminate? Comparing the Spanish Inquisition to one of these “purges” is like comparing a candle to a powerful searchlight.
Those who have fought wars in the name of Christianity were wrong to do so, violating the very teachings they professed to believe. Perhaps Mr. Jepson can produce the New Testament passage that is comparable to those in the Qur’an that instruct its adherents to kill their enemies (Jews and Christians). He might recall that Jesus taught that men should love their enemies and do good to those who hate them (Matt. 5:44).
How gracious of Mr. Jepson to condescend to allowing people to believe something he has judged to be worthless. His imagination is so lacking that he cannot accept the idea that anyone would believe in God unless they were so confused and frightened by life that they were driven to it. Apparently, he has never heard that some people believe because that is where the evidence takes them. Did we come from God or goop? Let’s make a brief comparison test.
Is it possible that intelligence made this universe, or did it just pop into existence on its own? The universe does show intelligent design, and in all of our accumulated human experience we have never noticed anything just creating itself. In fact, we have some scientific laws that oppose that idea.
If we were to land on Mars and see houses or cities, we would immediately deduce that intelligent life had once been there, yet we look at the amazing universe and say, “It just happened”? Yes, out of chaos came order that is so precise that we can send a man to the moon and bring him back—because of all the “natural laws” that just “happened” to develop. And how marvelously has the human body evolved, with all of its complex systems! Ain’t “chance” grand! And Jepson thinks that the idea of God is fantastic? Sigh.
Christianity, if followed, has always been good for mankind. False religion usually has provided man with conflicts. Some of today’s false world religions teach violence, but Christianity does not. Those who possess a warlike mentality may do so in the name of religion, but they have also done it in the name of a political philosophy—or in neither. Prior to the Flood, the earth was filled with violence (Gen. 6:11), but none of it was commanded or taught by God. And, rats, they had no ape ancestors to blame it on, either.
Man, without compelling motivation, has no reason to live at peace with all men (Rom. 12:18). Conflicts will continue. Man also is at war against himself. For that reason Jesus offers peace (John 14:27). People are hostile towards others, themselves, and God frequently because they do not know the truth or possess spiritual knowledge. And Mr. Jepson was kind enough to present us a column that demonstrates that we are at war with our own ignorance.
Excerpts from Chris Jepsen’s Column
[Editor’s note: The column is too long to reprint in its entirety, but portions to which I responded follow below.]
I have no faith in religion. Quite candidly, I am amazed when any thinking human expresses an allegiance to one particular religion over another. It seems inexplicable (to me) that one is Catholic rather than an Episcopalian, or a Missouri Synod Lutheran as opposed to an American Lutheran. But then again I’m not versed in the intricacies of specific religious dogmas.
I have never once found myself asking, “What is God’s plan and how do I fit in?” …I find any reliance on religion and/or superstition an unnecessary impediment to living….
As a believer in Darwinian Evolution, I believe Mother Earth bore us out of her fertile primordial juices and that once upon a time we shared a common ancestor with modern apes (6 million, maybe 8 million or so years ago)….
…most Americans subscribe to a level of religious nonsense that is laughably absurd. Of which I am, for the most part OK with. If life is so formidable, so frightening, so confusing, so “unbelievably” miraculous that no other explanation but “religion” gives it (you) meaning, well, go for it….
Our religions have always been killing us. It’s been one constant slaughter. I won’t even say one after another because there has never been a break. It’s relentless. Invent a God. And the slaughter starts anew. Or rather resumes under a new name. A variation on the “infinite” theme: Allahu Akhbar?
Perhaps it’s just a pretext. We are genuinely nasty little monkeys after all. Is it that our real pleasure is found in killing (maiming, torturing, raping, slaughtering ad infinitum, ad nauseam) one another? And doing so in the name of God, well, a mere ruse. Which came first? The slaughter or the “excuse” for the slaughter? Maybe that is religion’s function: to give meaning to our relentless, mindless slaughter of one another. We can’t be killing for no reason!?! What God would want that? Hmmmm? The human kind, perhaps.
… But where does America find itself today but at the vanguard of a religious war with Islam [which the United States is not fighting in the name of religion, GWS]. President Bush actually invoked the word “crusade” in describing it. Sigh.
The very values I place a premium on—freedom, humanism, relativism, a societal respect for the infinite diversity of ideas, freedom from religion—have all made Europe vulnerable….
Yes, we are at war. Forever. With our own ignorance. Religion, by any other name.
[The introduction / conclusion were printed as above.]
CULTURAL CRISIS OR
DEFIANT CLASH WITH GOD’S WORD?
Marvin L. Weir
The Tuesday, December 21, 2004 Dallas Morning News has an article in the Metro section by Kent Fischer about an 18-year-old honor student at Trinity Christian Academy who was forced from school because he is “gay.” The student was active in practically every activity at school and well liked by everyone. However, upon discovering that the teen “had created a Web site where teens chat about homosexuality,” the administrative board gave him a choice to “leave quietly or face expulsion for ‘immoral behavior’.”
While we would disagree with much of the doctrine of this religious group, we do applaud them for standing firm against the sin of homosexuality. The school’s decision has caused quite a stir by people within and without the school. Let us consider some of the things that are being said.
First, the newspaper article states, “students, teachers and administrators at Trinity Christian are left debating whether forcing the withdrawal of a popular lifelong student was the ‘Christian’ thing to do.” I must ask, “Would these same people be questioning this decision if the teen had been “unpopular” and a relatively new student? Do you get the idea that people are treated differently because of who they are? Does this same thing not occur time and again today with popular, overpaid athletes? Is it right when some people are exempt from rules that should apply to everyone? This problem is far reaching in our country—from the halls of Congress to the oval office of the White House!
The second part of the quote really needs exposing. Was forcing this popular student out of school “the ‘Christian’ thing to do?” So many today go the extra mile to leave the impression that Christianity has the obligation to accept sin and wrongdoing. Where does one read in the Bible where Christians are to embrace sin? Where does the Bible teach that Christians are to show compassion for willful sin? Does Jesus teach that sin is to be ignored and tolerated? Does the Bible teach that man has the right to do as he pleases regardless of what he chooses to do? Absolutely not! The Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles “all things” (John 14:26) and guide them “into all the truth” (John 16:13). Paul, an apostle, taught that homosexuality is a sin and that those who practice such will not inherit Heaven (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). It is never the Christian thing to do to bid “Godspeed” to error (2 John 9-11).
Second, the student says, “I feel completely violated…. The big lesson here for me is that you can’t really trust anybody. That, and I should have kept my mouth shut.” Here is a perfect picture of the warped, twisted thinking of today’s society. The student chooses a sinful, homosexual lifestyle while attending a “Christian school” and then claims he has been “violated” when the school administration asks him to leave. The thinking of many today is that religious groups must tolerate any type of behavior from their members. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that church discipline is to be respected and exercised (2 Thess. 3:6).
Third, the newspaper article states, “simmering under the surface are questions about forgiveness, compassion and redemption.” Let us consider these subjects one at a time.
Does the Bible teach that we are to forgive those who sin? Yes, but only when they repent of their sins! It is “repent or perish” (Luke 13:3). There is a “sin unto death” for which we are not to make request unto God for forgiveness (1 John 5:16). This is any sin one refuses to turn from (repentance) or give up. The “sin not unto death” is any sin that one will confess and cease to practice. For this person one can certainly pray for forgiveness.
Those who have no desire to give up sinful activities are fond of making a plea for “compassion.” The homosexual’s ideal of compassion is for one to feel sorry that some reject his ungodly lifestyle.
One cannot live in sin and expect to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. People today toss around the word redemption as if it belongs to everyone regardless of the way he has chosen to live. Impenitent sinners will not be in Heaven among the redeemed. One can be forgiven of any sin that he turns from or ceases to practice (1 John 1:9).
Fourth, “the student said several school administrators and teachers, in an attempt to help keep him from being expelled, coached him on how to handle the situation.” It appears that the Trinity Christian staff is not all on the same page. Let sin rear its ugly head and you will quickly separate the chaff from the wheat! Even in the Lord’s church, some will buck popular sentiment and stand with Christ, and some will not. The homosexual problem may be called a “cultural crisis,” but in reality it is a defiant clash with the Word of God (Lev. 18:22; 20: 13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10).
(Bonham Street Beacon,
Paris, Texas, December 20, 2009)
[Editor’s Note: The above article provides an excellent analysis of the situation. Consider also these points:
1. Private schools provide a student a handbook, which includes a section on discipline. Various offenses are listed that require punishment, suspension, or expulsion. While every offense possible may not be specified, the handbook includes moral principles which cannot be violated, and homosexuality certainly falls within that description. Furthermore, either the students, the parents, or both are asked to sign a statement of compliance with all that is set forth in the handbook. The student in question, therefore, knowingly and willfully violated the moral principles he had agreed to defend.
2. A second additional point is the hypocrisy of those who chose to defend the young man’s actions. If he had been found guilty of theft, would the newspaper and other students still defend him? What if he had cheated on tests and was selling papers to other students to turn in as their original compositions? How about if he was hosting drinking parties while his parents were out of town or was supplying marijuana to other students? What if he had seduced three young ladies?
3. Probably the newspaper would take no interest in the story if they involved those things. They would immediately recognize that a Christian school has standards and that the administration was right in exercising whatever discipline they thought was appropriate. The problem with the news and entertainment media is that they refuse to believe that homosexuality is a sin and do not want Christians to say it is, either.]
David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell accomplished a great deal of good in the previous two centuries for the cause of Christ, but this fact does not mean that everything they taught or wrote was correct—especially when a topic was more related to opinion than to fact. Just as Apollos was mighty and eloquent in the Scriptures (but nevertheless inaccurate as it pertained to the baptism of John he was teaching), so it may be the case that brethren of the past or present may be mighty in the Scriptures but inaccurate in a matter or two.
Few today, for example, agree with Lipscomb’s view that Christians should not even vote because politics is so corrupt. He was right on his assessment of politics, but that is precisely the reason that Christians should vote. If we do not like what is happening to the country, we should elect new representatives, new senators, and a new president. If they too fail to do the will of the people, then we should vote them out until the message is received that the people of this nation are more interested in our government serving us than the will of lobbyists, special interest groups, and secular humanists. The non-involvement of Christians in this arena may have led to the sad condition that we now face.
Lipscomb and Sewell wrote a book titled Questions Answered, and on page 667 appears the heading, “SUPPER, INTOXICATING WINE IN THE LORD’S.” Three questions are all stated first and then answered in succession. This review shall deal with them one at a time, beginning with the first:
Was the Wine Used in the Last Supper by the Savior
Intoxicating or Non-Intoxicating?
His first sentence in reply to this question is: “I think beyond doubt that it was intoxicating.” He listed several reasons, but the first thing we ought to ask ourselves is: “In those texts that deal with the Last Supper, is there something that would lead to this conclusion?”
Neither the word fermented appears in any of the texts (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20), nor does the word wine! In fact, the word wine does not appear anywhere in the entire passage related to the Last Supper, although it is found 33 times in the New Testament. So what is the rationale for drawing this conclusion? Below is the answer which was given in paragraph form, but this reviewer has assigned numbers to each argument.
1. “I think so because the wine spoken of as generally used was intoxicating.” Was the wine commonly used by many in New Testament times usually fermented? Such was probably the case, but does that mean that no fresh wine was available? It does not. William Patton had published Bible Wines in 1874, and it provided a detailed study of methods used to prevent fermentation. Lipscomb could have seen the book in the 40 years he lived after it was published; if so, he does not specifically comment on it here.
2. “The new wine supposed to have been used on the day of Pentecost would make drunk, and that used in the Lord’s Supper by the Corinthians made drunk.” The word translated “new wine” in Acts 2:13 is gleukos. The word “new” is not in the text; it was probably chosen because it referred actually to (and would be better translated as) “sweet wine.” Why, then did the translators choose new? The reason probably is that the wine that was fresh from the grape was not intoxicating. The new would also be the sweetest; so the two concepts were equal in their association.
Gleukos [1098] is used only on this occasion in the New Testament, but it is related to glukus, which is used four times and translated “sweet” three of those times (James 3:11-12; Rev. 10:9-10). In James 3: 12, it is translated in the King James as “fresh” and contrasted with salt water. The idea in either word form, then, is “sweet, fresh, new.”
But why would the crowd say that the apostles were “full of new wine”? Understandably, when they heard the apostles speaking in different languages, they might assume that they had consumed too much alcohol and accuse them of being drunk—but drunk on “sweet wine”? McGarvey, in his Original Commentary on Acts, citing Hackett, suggests that a process was used to allow the wine to become powerfully intoxicating yet maintain its sweetness (27).
Another explanation is possible, and that is that the critics of the apostles are using hyperbole (exaggeration) to add to the jeer. In other words, these people sound so strange, they must be drunk—yes, and on sweet wine at that. Those who jeered in Nehemiah’s day did something similar: “Whatever they build, if even a fox goes up on it, he will break down their wall” (Neh. 4:3). This would not actually happen; this kind of exaggeration simply expresses the contempt of God’s enemies. So the charge leveled in Acts 2 may not have been made seriously.
What about the charge that the Lord’s Supper made the Corinthians drunk? The verse in question reads: “For in eating, each one takes his supper ahead of the others; and one is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Cor. 11:21). It is certain that methuo [3184] and its cognates [3178, 3182, 3183] usually refer to drunkenness. Methuo itself is used seven times in the New Testament; five of them refer to intoxication, but the other two refer to being filled in the sense of being sated, not inebriated. The other passage involves the wedding feast of Cana where the master of the feast says that the good wine is usually served first “and when the guests have well drunk,” then the inferior wine is brought out, but the best (that which Jesus made) had been saved for last in this case.
Some have actually taken the position that the wedding guests were drunk and that Jesus made them more intoxicating wine so they could become even more smashed. This writer has zero tolerance for such a worthless notion. In order to believe such an error, one would have to first believe that Mary, a woman so virtuous and morally pure as to be selected as the mother of the Lord, saw the wedding guests stumbling around and demanded that her Son make even more of the intoxicating stuff so that what—they should pass out entirely?
And Jesus, Who was free of sin, then contributed to their drunken revelry by serving as a stumbling block and putting liquid temptation in their way? Such actions ought to strain even the credulity of hardened sinners. In John 2, the host of the wedding had embarrassingly run out of the juice of the grape. Everyone had drunk nearly their fill. They were sated rather than inebriated, but they still wanted more. Jesus made more (plenty more), and the problem was taken care of. To insist that methuo here means drunken rather than filled with drink is to open oneself up to a host of problems.
Likewise, the Corinthians were not drunk, and the contrast in the verse clarifies the problem. One was hungry and another was well filled, sated, well drunk. If the Corinthians were actually getting drunk during the Lord’s Supper, can anyone imagine that the apostle would have remained silent about it? He rebuked them for all their other sins. Would Paul have let this sin (one that is included in several lists) go unchallenged? His remonstrance is due to their unwillingness to share food and drink with their brethren—not for being soused. Lipscomb and Sewell do not appear to have given sufficient thought to these matters.
3. “No reproof was given for the wine that does intoxicate.” The assumption is made that they used intoxicating wine, and then it is noted that there is no reproof for doing so. No reproof would be needed for another reason—if what they used was not intoxicating in the first place.
4. “Then, again, Timothy clearly, as a matter of conscience, refused to use wine because of its evil influences. Paul told him to take a little for his frequent sickness.” If Paul does refer to the intoxicating beverage, all that the passage would do is authorize the fermented wine as a medicine (many of our modern-day medicines have an alcoholic content). But many are not willing to concede that Paul means anything other than the juice of the grape, which by itself has good effects upon the stomach. Lipscomb assumes that Timothy did not want to drink fermented wine because of his conscience (drinking something alcoholic), but it could just as easily be the case that he did not wish to do so because of the association it had. Others might think he was imbibing in something fermented; to avoid anyone drawing that conclusion, he simply abstained from it altogether.
“The theory that says unfermented juice of the grape was used says this is harmless in general use. Timothy did not think the wine of that day was harmless; neither did Paul. It was intoxicating, else it could not lead the brother into sin.” The same answer in the preceding section applies. No one said that intoxicating wine was harmless—that is the reason to avoid even association with it. Also, the text does not say that Timothy was in danger of being led into sin. If he were tempted by alcohol, the worst thing Paul could have suggested was that he drink “a little.” A little often leads to a lot.
5. “Good, clever people spend time and much research and ingenuity in striving to fix up a theory that will banish fermented wine from the Lord’s table.” The question should not be one of, “Does the New Testament banish fermented wine from the Lord’s table?” As always, the question should be, “Does the New Testament authorize the use of fermented wine at the Lord’s table?” Where is the passage that convinces us without a doubt that Jesus or His church used intoxicating wine to observe a holy remembrance of His death? Assumptions are not proof.
6. “A few will take the position under stress of the evil of intemperance; but the consensus of the learned and the common sense of those who study the Bible hold to the idea that is [sic, the word should be it] was fermented wine, for only fermented wine is free from the leaven or ferment. The fermentation works out the ferment.” As mentioned previously, Patton had done considerable research and published his results in 1874. Lipscomb states no reason for failing to recognize the arguments of those who disagreed with him. His last argument is unintelligible. Fermentation works out the ferment? No, the damage is already done. Is this equivalent to saying that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, but once the whole lump is leavened, we need not worry any longer? Of course not! The leavening agent has already done its work! The bread is leavened! Lips-comb continues in this same vein with respect to the second question, but these words should be sufficient to answer whatever point he was being made.
If Intoxicating, Could the Supper Be Now Observed
Properly by the Substitution of a Nonintoxicant?
What a great question! If we “think beyond doubt” that the fruit of the vine “was intoxicating,” then how could brethren use anything else? Notice the inconsistency in the reply: “While I am sure that the fermented juice of the grape was used, I am not sure that the presence of the intoxicating property is an essential element of the wine to be used.” Why not? He will answer that we are safer to use unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used; so if we know that He used intoxicating wine, why are we not safer to use fermented wine? Lipscomb knew that such a condemnation would not set well with brethren; so he crawfished on this one.
He says rightly: “It is never called wine in connection with the Supper. The juice of the grape was the thing used, the fruit of the vine in the cup.” Nothing suggests fermentation. Here he goes off again into the fermentation argument of number six (above). So, while not condemning the non-intoxicating juice, he says he thinks it is safer to use that which has been fermented, “just as Christ and the apostles used it…” (667-668). His “proof” only consisted of his opinion, and some of those were wrong (see #2).
Was It an Accident that the Bread Used
On the Occasion of the Institution of the Supper
Was Unleavened? If Not an Accident, Do You Think
a Proper Observance Can Be Had Now
With Leavened Bread (668)?
1. “… There is no doubt but the first supper was served with the unleavened bread of the passover [sic]. It grew out of the passover [sic].” This point is entirely correct. The Jews were not supposed to have leaven anywhere near their houses at the time of this feast. Jesus and the apostles used unleavened bread for a certainty. Why would someone insist that the bread is unleavened but that the wine was leavened (fermented)? Would it not be a matter of consistency that both would be free from defilement? In fact, Lipscomb unwittingly made this comparison himself in his answer to the second question, when he wrote, “…but the ferment—the leaven—is there and active, none the less” (668). He is talking abut the fruit of the vine and fermentation—yet compares it to leaven. Yet he did not realize the inconsistency of leavened grape juice and unleavened bread.
“… The use of the leavened bread grows out of the indifference that neglects to prepare for the observance for the supper.” This may be true, or it might be that men just do not care and do not think it makes any difference. Some have made the argument that Jesus used unleavened bread simply because it was handy and that the bread is the important part. Paul writes that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). He was the spotless Lamb of God. His body and blood were pure, also, or else He could not have been sacrificed for our sins. Why then would we want to use anything corrupted to represent Him? The bread is unleavened (untainted by leaven), and the fruit of the vine is unfermented. It is true that what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5 is metaphorical, but the metaphor is based on what they knew about the Lord’s Supper.
“It is important in all service to God to be on the safe side—that about which there can be no doubt. If a man will always start to act on this principle, he will never wander from God, and all who act on this principle will walk together in harmony and peace. Let us all resolve to be on the safe side in all religious service.” While all of us would agree with this conclusion, we may not find agreement on what is “safe.” In the judgment of many, the safe thing is to use the unleavened bread and the pure juice of the grape as part of the Lord’s supper. But for Lipscomb and Sew-ell, the “safe” position called for unleavened bread and fermented wine.
What do we know? We know that unleavened bread was definitely used during the Passover feast. Scripture does not say that juice of the grape was fermented or unfermented, although the usual word, wine, is never used of it. The New Testament uses either the cup or the fruit of the vine, which could be significant. We know that people in the first century had methods of keeping the fruit of the vine fresh and free from fermentation. If the bread representing Christ’s body had to be free from contaminants, why should not the fruit of the vine representing His blood likewise be pure?
If some insist that the cup be fermented, then they cannot rightly fellowship those who use the fresh juice. It would be sad to form a division—especially over a position (the intoxicated version) that cannot be proven or established in the New Testament. The body of Christ is one and is not to be divided. Paul wrote to the brethren that they all be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Unity is more important than opinion or personalities.
It is difficult to take the booklet, Amazing Mysteries of the Bible, seriously when it says in the “Introduction” that it hopes these stories might “increase your faith in God, not your skepticism” (3) when: 1) there are so many allusions in the booklet to flying saucers; 2) miracles almost always need to have a natural explanation; and 3) the “scholars” referenced (but not named) are all modernists.
The Bible and Flying Saucers
Already introduced was the subject of UFOs, which the writer, Ed Manzi, seems to have on his brain. Not only did the second “amazing” Bible story have them; so do a few others of the 25 he reviews. The sixth title in the booklet is: “Mystery of the 12th Planet,” and it begins with the absurd question: “Are We The Sons And Daughters Of Space Beings?” (15). Once again, some Bible “scholar” had written a book based on “the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament” and some translations of the Sumerian.
This statement itself brings to mind some interesting questions. Are all of the English versions (KJV, etc.) based on poor copies? How did this “scholar” get the original version? Were no other scholars interested in the original? Hmm. How accurate is the Sumerian translation? When was it done? What is the earliest copy we have of it? In fact, how many Sumerian manuscripts are there?
All that aside, however, we are faced with “the sons of the deities” (no one translates this phrase this way) described in Genesis who were “cast down” to earth at some point before the Flood. Manzi does not say what Scripture this is, but he must be referring to Genesis 6:2, where we read “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful….” Nothing is said about anyone being cast down from another planet or from heaven.
Yet the “scholar” who produced this book theorizes that these beings, Nefilim, came to earth in search of minerals, particularly gold (15, 17). They set up bases at major rivers, and through the evolutionary process somehow created mankind. Anyone who thinks this “scholar” has been smoking something strange has not heard half of his bizarre theory yet. The Hebrew word, Nephilim (nobody spells it with an f) is found twice in the Bible (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). Some linguists think it means “fallen,” but Gesenius says of the Hebrew word [5303]: “I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters…falling on, attacking…” (556). He also mentions that those who thought the angels intermarried with human beings (the usual false teaching of this text) considered these men fallen (not from a 12th planet) but in the sense of rebels or apostates.
In the first place, what kind of theory is it that discounts Genesis 1-2? The text clearly says that God created Adam from the dust and Eve from one of his ribs. No theory of evolution fits these facts—whether it involves apes or aliens. Man did not evolve, period. The “sons of God” (not deities) refers to the godly seed line that developed through Seth; the “daughters of men” are those who descended from Cain and the other offspring of Eve, “the mother of all living.” Their intermarriages led to the contamination of all mankind, so that God determined to destroy it. Mighty men resulted from the mixing of the gene pools, which also occurred after the Flood (Num. 13:33)—unless the Nephilim came back for more gold (just kidding).
It would take too long to go into all the other fantasies about the number 12 and the alleged 12th planet, but one misstatement needs to be corrected. Manzi alleges that “120 years is referred to as the lifespan granted mankind” (16). What an odd deduction, considering that men were living into the 900s. Man’s days being 120 years (Gen. 6:3) indicates the time from this pronouncement until the Flood comes upon the earth.
One reads seven more sections, in hopes that the flying saucer theology has come to an end, but it has only been delayed until “Ezekiel and Strange Beings.” This time it’s a NASA rocket engineer who has written a book. Actually, the description in Ezekiel does lend itself to UFO-type thinking, but one cannot observe one or two verses without considering the entire context.
Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself, and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures (Ezek. 1:4-5a).
One can almost hear those famous five notes in the background; however, not one verse mentions Ezekiel sculpting mashed potatoes (Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Manzi mentions that the four living creatures had “four wings and a pair of human hands” (36), but for some reason he omitted that each creature had four faces. What follows in the way of an explanation is very fanciful, but why would someone in a flying saucer be interested in having the nation of Israel repent? Despite the vivid descriptions provided in Ezekiel 1, the book is written to God’s people with messages relevant to their time and circumstance.
The theory behind the NASA engineer’s book is that extra-terrestrials “were studying humans” and trying to exercise an “intellectual influence on the development of human civilization” (37). If so, they failed. Ezekiel’s generation saw the city of Jerusalem destroyed (586) and then spent 50 additional years in captivity. The only lesson they learned was that disobedience to God merits punishment. Since that time, however, that lesson has never been passed down to succeeding generations in such a way that mankind ever profits from it. Even though it has been clearly recorded, mankind has never generated enough intelligence to profit from it.
Although the next Bible “mystery” concerns Elijah’s ascension into heaven, apparently Manzi had not read any “scholar’s” book concerning that event involving a spacecraft. But the succeeding story more than makes up for it: “The Manna-Machine.” It begins: “The Bible tells us that for 40 years, 600 families, guided by Moses, roamed the wilderness” (40). 600? We read in Exodus 12:37 that there were “six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children.” One wonders what version Manzi uses.
But guess what. This time he has found a book written by two scholars, who must have tripped out together. They concluded that “manna could have been a form of algae, cultured in a machine and given to the Jews by spacemen” (40). That the Keebler elves did it would make more sense. The details of the operation are grotesque. Somehow, as in a dream (or nightmare), this machine becomes the ark of the covenant, from which the Philistines received radiation poisoning (42). “Hello, earth calling.”
Just when one is confident that nothing could possibly get any more bizarre, the next title is: “The Lost Tribes From Outer Space: Fact or Fiction?” Can we guess before reading these three pages? This theory came from a French scholar, who believes that “the Jews have been persecuted throughout history because, as God’s chosen people they are not from this planet…” (43). Jesus said that His apostles were not of this world; who knows when we might expect a book from a scholar that discusses the various planets the apostles came from?
According to this theory Adam was just the first Jew that God created; more brutish beings already lived on the planet. With yet another interpretation of Genesis 6:3, this “scholar” said that God’s complaint was that his people bred with the more “primitive stock,” which lowered their lifespans. The Flood was an effort to purge their genes.
The theory continues that Jesus wanted to end the segregation between Jew and Gentile, which was against God’s wishes. What? Yes, and He wanted to rebuild the Tower of Babel so that the Gentiles could ascend “into the kingdom of Heaven when God returned one day in spaceships to take the Jews safely to another land” (45). However, He failed.
Besides just being “far out,” this French guy has some specific lessons that go with his theory. First is that it is wrong to be anti-Semitic—not just because prejudice is wrong and condemned in the Scriptures—but because it will precipitate the end of the world. Second, persisting in the space program will have the same result because God fears that the human race is a potential competitor for “conquering the universe” (45). These types of theories are starting to make Alice’s adventures seem normal. One could see how all of the manna machines, spacecraft, and aliens that are allegedly referenced in the Bible would increase a person’s faith. Undoubtedly, everyone is already feeling much stronger.
Do Miracles Need Natural Explanations?
Not every “amazing story” is about UFOs; it just seems like it. Some just mention something mysterious and then comment that we have no solutions, which is true, such as the section on the Queen of Sheba (10-11). For certain topics, however, the author feels a need to explain miracles in natural terms. This is obvious from just the title of: “The Parting of the Red Sea: What Caused It?”
The Biblical description of what occurred there is presented, and that should answer the question: The Lord parted it (Ex. 14:21). Apparently, this explanation is insufficient for Manzi, who asks: “What caused the Red Sea to part?” A judge would rule, “Already asked and answered,” but the author suggests a storm did it or a volcanic eruption or (wait for it) a UFO. He does acknowledge that God was responsible—but that we do not know how He did it.
Why does God need a way to do it? God is all-powerful. The psalmist describes the creation of the universe rather succinctly: “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9). He could have said, “Part!” and the waters would have parted. He could have said, “Waters, stand up!” and they would have. As it happens, He did use a way to accomplish this particular miracle—the east wind, which blew back the waters all night long and made the land dry. So why do we need another mechanism (such as a volcanic eruption or a UFO) to further assist the mechanism already described? How does this attitude build up someone’s faith?
The author then says: “The rest [these alternate explanations, GWS) is left to the mystery of faith” (50). Faith is neither mystical nor mysterious. Faith, in the Bible, is based upon evidence. God is to be believed because of the proof He provides. God gave Pharaoh ten good reasons to believe what He said, and if he had not allowed his logic to be overridden by emotion, he would have had the good sense not to send his troops into the midst of the sea after the Israelites.
The last of the 25 “amazing mysteries” is titled, “The Enduring Enigma of the Gospels.” Manzi’s disposition toward the Scriptures is reflected in this sentence: “Few scholars now believe that all four books came directly from Jesus’ followers” (64). He theorizes that the stories of Jesus “were edited orally and rewritten as they were passed from believer to believer” (64). Why, how clever “the scholars” are to have arrived at such a “Let’s leave God out of the process” conclusion. In order to reach this conclusion, a person need only ignore all of the passages that claim inspiration. How shrewd is that?
Jesus promised Matthew and John (along with the other apostles) that the Holy Spirit would bring to their memories all that Jesus had taught them (John 14:25-26). Others could also speak and write by inspiration. John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas for a time; Luke also traveled with Paul later on. Both could have received a spiritual gift from Paul that included accurately writing of the events of Jesus’ life. None of these men spoke or wrote information that was changed by others. The “scholars” that Manzi refers to are modernists who do not believe in inspiration in the first place; therefore, they always seek other explanations to undermine the Truth.
This posture is further seen in the suggestion that Matthew may have copied Luke or vice versa. He then wonders if Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have copied from another document (or list of sayings) that has now been lost. Modernists refer to it as Q. “A majority of scholars now believe there must have been a list, but many uncertainties exist, and the debate is complex” (64). These are the final words of the booklet; can anyone see how this booklet would build up anyone’s faith (despite its lame claim to this goal)? The debate is not complex at all. Either the New Testament is inspired, or it is not. It says that it is—end of discussion!
More on “The Scholars”
Throughout the pages of this error-ridden booklet, the author refers to the scholars. The only men he ever names are those who have written books on UFOs. Otherwise, he does not list a single individual that he considers a scholar. How convenient! If some of them were named, we might know how far out and flakey they are on other matters. The reader may conclude that everyone is in agreement with these views, but few major commentaries would agree with any of the wild interpretations that are touted as “scholarly.”
After doing a credible job at summarizing the book of Esther, Manzi says, “the scholars stress that it is highly unlikely, looking at the tradition of the times, that a Persian king would even consider a marriage to a woman of unknown lineage” (14). Really? The word unlikely suggests the “scholars” cannot disprove what the Bible teaches. Do they have some other notion of the origin of the Feast of Purim? How interesting if the Jews began observing a feast of deliverance but had not been delivered! And Jesus did not bother to inform the Jews of this error? How pathetic the “scholars” can often be!
After summarizing the life of Samson, Manzi writes: “The incredible human feats of strength…should not be taken literally” (30). What? On what basis should his strength not be taken literally? This is as groundless a statement as those that try to turn the rich man and Lazarus into a parable. Neither is told as a parable, and neither can be representative of anything else. This is just another wild, reckless assertion.
In “The Perplexing Death of Abel,” Manzi writes: “Many scholars believe that the story of Cain and Abel reveals tension between the way of life of farmers and semi-nomadic shepherds” (33-34). Apparently, scholars will believe anything. Manzi and “the scholars” (maybe the top ones or some lower down) miss the point entirely in this story of two individuals. They do not see how it relates to blood (foreshadowing Christ) and that it was offered by faith (Rom. 10:17; Heb 11:4; 12:24).
The reader also faces this malevolent assessment: “Top Bible scholars now know that Elijah stories were written down in the form in which we read them 200 years after his lifetime…” (38). Now this statement by itself is not the problem. After all, Moses wrote of Adam and Eve 2,500 years after the creation. But since he was told by God what to write, it matters little when it was actually recorded. The problem is the next sentence which avers that the “stories were shaped, the scholars believe, by generations of retelling in Israel and Judah” (38-39). Apparently, the top scholars have never read 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which answers their frivolous quibbles:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
In 1993 a tract-sized booklet of 64 pages was published by Ed Manzi; it was printed by Globe Communications Corporation in Boca Raton, Florida. More information than that about the author is hard to come by. He lists no educational degrees, no religious background, and no endorsements (that part is not hard to figure, considering the contents). The front cover has only the title, Amazing Mysteries of the Bible, and a picture of Eve handing Adam a piece of red fruit, while a snake sticks out his forked tongue at her. The back cover contains the same picture, only considerably smaller and these words:
The Bible is full of strange and amazing stories that have puzzled experts for thousands of years. Read what some of them say inside.
This promotional blurb certainly makes the information inside sound interesting. On the two inside covers, however, are advertisements: the one on the front is advertising a health magazine with a Super Vitamin Guide; the one on the back is for The Big Super Word Book. Perhaps the inclusion of these two secular offers should serve as a hint about the religious nature of the booklet.
Introduction
The brief “introduction” lists as a purpose for the publication the goal that the reader might “learn a little more about the Bible” (2). They do acknowledge that a few stories that pertain “to UFOs and outer space” just possibly might “seem a little outlandish…” (3). Really? But they explain—they have tried to include the views of a number of writers, researchers, and scholars—none of whom they name! Although a few book titles or authors are mentioned, not one source is documented properly in the entire booklet, nor is there a list of Works Cited at the end. The reader is supposed to take the author’s word that he has consulted scholars even though he lists no credentials and does not provide the name of even one “scholar.”
Can it be tongue in cheek that the following sentiment is expressed: “We hope you keep an open mind and that these stories increase your faith in God, not your skepticism”? To borrow a little Internet lingo, LOL. What follows are 25 “Amazing Mysteries” of one to four pages in length.
Where did Adam and Eve go?
No, it is not what the reader expects. People frequently ask where Adam and Even went after God made them leave the Garden of Eden. The Bible does not name a location. It only assures us that “He placed cherubim at the east of the garden” in order to keep them away from the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). The next verse begins a description of the children Eve bore (Cain and Abel). No name is associated with whatever place this might have been; all we know for sure is that it was on the outside of the garden.
So what is the mystery? The only relevant comment provided regarding this “mystery” is that the “book of Genesis does not provide an answer…” (4-5). Manzi could not resist, however, adding the phrase, but according to one apocryphal story…. Unfortunately, he did not say where he obtained this apocryphal story. Who wrote it (and when) would be nice to know. We know that it was not recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. Was it written in 200 B.C. or 1985?
According to the made-up story of dubious antiquity, Adam built a hut, in which he and Eve lamented their sin for seven days. Apparently, they notice after that time, that they had no food; so Adam began searching for some. Since he could not find any, he decided that they should do penance so that God would forgive their sin.
First, God had already proclaimed their punishment to them, and it did not include starvation. Second, He had promised the coming of One who would bruise the head of the serpent, which indicated His willingness to forgive them (Gen. 3:15). Third, where would Adam and Eve have gotten the notion of penance if God had not forgiven them? The notion of self-imposed punishment (penance) had not been introduced at this time into the world.
The punishment the first pair allegedly chose for themselves is very strange. They both decided to stand in a river up to their necks in water. Eve chose the Tigris and planned to stand on a rock for 37 days, while Adam decided to tough it out for 40 days in the Jordan River (5). Since these two rivers are hundreds of miles apart (the Jordan not being anywhere near the Garden of Eden), one wonders what caused Adam to choose a river he had never seen in a far-away place he had never been. Also, how did they expect to communicate with each other during this time without e-mail, a cell phone, a post office, Morse code, or even the pony express?
Alas! Poor Eve. She only made it 18 days when the devil invited her to eat food he had brought her on the riverbank. Adam interrupted his penance to rebuke her for falling into the snare of their adversary. She became sorrowful all over again. How did Adam, who was nearly 500 miles away know what Eve had done? Was he clairvoyant, or did a little birdie tell him? If he began traveling 30 miles a day the moment he knew it, it would have taken well over two weeks to arrive. One can readily see why this tale is called apocryphal: it contains no ring of Biblical truth, does not make any sense, and has no apparent purpose. But there is more!
Satan told Adam that it was his fault he was thrown out of heaven. “When you were formed I was expelled from the presence of God and banished from the company of angels” (5). Even if Satan were telling the truth (which would be rare), Adam had nothing to do with either of these two events. Also no Scripture remotely hints that Satan’s expulsion from heaven coincided with Adam’s formation. According to this tale, Adam appealed to God to send Satan far away from them, which He did. Then Adam finished his penance. Why was it wrong for Eve to interrupt her penance, but not Adam? This entire scenario is truly an “Amazing Mystery,” but it is not one that is found in the Bible, which is a strange way to begin the booklet.
“Flying Saucers: The Bible Connection”
The second Bible mystery quotes Bible “scholar” Barry Downing who wrote the book, The Bible and Flying Saucers (1968). Take almost anything that involves a light in the Bible, and it is transformed into a Flying Saucer story: the burning bush, the pillar of fire by night, the smoking mountain at Sinai, the star that the wise men followed, the mount of Transfiguration, the Ascension—it may be that Scotty beamed Him up!
In order to believe this theory, one must simply discount what the inspired writers said. The bush was on fire without being consumed; it was not a UFO. Does Downing not think Moses could have described a machine? And why would God need to use a flying saucer to do any of these miraculous things? What comes next—a submarine helping Jesus to walk on the water? No doubt, and it probably prompted the fish to appear twice, also. Probably, it rocked the boat when it was almost swamped with water. Maybe it released red dye into the Nile River. Hah! It makes as much sense as the UFO theory.
The point is that the miracles are not Bible mysteries. If God created something as vast as the heavens and the earth (and He did), then why is any miracle which involves a limited area within the earth considered too hard for Him to perform without extra-terrestrial help? The only purpose of such efforts is to attempt to remove the supernatural from the Holy Book.
MODERN FAMILY?
Randy Robinson
This is the title of a television program on the ABC network that debuted in September. Those who operate television networks attempt to convince the public that their programming merely reflects society at large, but anyone who has the capacity and the willingness to examine this claim objectively can see through that subterfuge and accurately conclude that television, as well as the rest of the media, is an eager participant in molding and shaping our culture.
Modern Family does nothing more than glorify rebellion against God’s will. God created the family when He created the man and the woman (Gen. 1:27). He brought the woman to the man and united them (v. 22). He then arranged for them to procreate (3:16), which they did (4:1). God’s intention was and is that the marital relationship be a permanent one. This is implied by the statement: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24—emph. RR). It is also explicitly stated by the Lord Jesus when, in quoting this Scripture, He added, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6).
Some have unfortunately concluded that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together, but then we must ask: “Why would the Lord issue a warning against doing something that cannot be done?” In all dispensations of time, mankind has disregarded God’s will concerning the permanence of marriage. The Lord provided one exception to God’s prohibition against divorce and remarriage:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).
The patriarch of Modern Family is a character named Jay, played by Ed O’Neill, who interestingly enough, previously portrayed the apathetic moron, Al Bundy, on FOX’s Married With Children, another program notorious for its portrayal of family life that was completely opposed to God’s expectation and approval. Jay is recently married to Gloria, a native of Colombia, who is at least thirty years his junior. Gloria is described as “a passionate and sassy divorcee who comes with an 11 year-old son.”
Jay’s first wife has also made a loud, boisterous appearance and was portrayed as someone who obviously has some emotional issues. While the audience is not made privy to the details of either Jay’s or Gloria’s divorces, it is not a stretch to presume that it is highly likely that neither of them have a scriptural one. The vast majority of those involved in television could not care less what the Bible says about anything, much less marriage. Not to mention, many of them have also been involved in multiple marriages and “blended” families themselves.
Jay’s son, Mitchell, is a homosexual who is in an un-godly relationship with a man named Cameron. They have adopted a baby from overseas. Regardless of the feedback from the public at large, the media elitists are determined to shove homosexuality in our faces and portray it as “normal.” At this juncture, thirty-one states have voted against sanctioning homosexual marriage and yet these arrogant elitists presume to lecture us about “intolerance.” Why is it that tolerance seems only to run one way with these people? It would not matter one bit if every state in the union voted FOR this measure; God has called it SIN! It is an “abomination” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The word abomination is translated from the Hebrew word tow-a-bah, and is defined as: “something disgusting” and “an abhorrence” (Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary 123).
Jay also has a daughter, Claire, who has been married to Phil for some sixteen years, and they have three children. The oldest child, a daughter, is described as “growing up too fast,” which presumably is a euphemism for “wild and rebellious.” The middle child (also a daughter) is a stereotypical nerdy, smart, “good girl.” The youngest is a son, also a stereotypical little brother who annoys everyone in the family. Apparently, Claire was somewhat of a “wild child” herself, but has now overcompensated for those days and is portrayed as being rather “uptight.”
On the other hand, her husband Phil has a roving eye and prides himself on being “the cool dad” (which he is obviously not, although he desperately wants to be). We can only imagine how different the world would be today if entire generations had chosen to actually parent their children rather than treat them like pals. Nor can we accurately gauge the damage that has been done because many parents have sought to be their children’s peers rather than respected by them.
Not surprisingly, ABC hails this as the “best new show of the season.” They have also garnered the expected praise from liberal television critics and other media outlets, etc. The media is determined to make the world over in its own sick, twisted image. We need only examine how they have glorified sin, while at the same time they mock and scorn anyone or anything that does not comport with their world view. Simply look at how those that are against abortion, homosexuality, or even casual sexual relations are portrayed on television. It is always—always, as the mean-spirited, intolerant, buffoon who is blinded by his/her own bigotry.
It is not mean-spirited, nor intolerant to uphold what the Bible says about any subject. Think about what those who make this accusation are actually saying. In essence, they are saying, “Overlook this, turn a blind eye to it and accept it as normal. And whatever you do—stop referring to it as sin.” Is this not, in a larger sense, merely another effort (or part of the same attempt) to remove God from our collective consciousness? We must not be mean or rude to those who have disregarded God’s will concerning the makeup of the home, but at the same time we must not cower or shrink from declaring what God has, through His Word, declared His will to be.
Two of the Lord’s closest disciples, John and Peter, through inspiration penned these warnings:
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (1 John 5:19—emph. RR).
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 Pet. 2:11—emph. RR).
There is a war going on right now—a spiritual battle for the souls of human beings. Those of us who are determined to take a stand for righteousness are clearly outnumbered, and the enemy has perhaps the most powerful weapon ever invented in spiritual warfare—mass communication. However, we have the gospel of Christ which the apostle Paul described as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” (Rom. 1:16).
Furthermore, we must not be discouraged by the seeming disadvantage that we face as we persevere in this battle. Regardless of how bleak the outlook is, God has promised us victory if we remain faithful:
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15: 57, cf. 2 Cor. 4:17; Rev. 2:10).
By heeding God’s will concerning marriage and the home, we can make the “Modern Family” an intact family, and one focused on obedience and service to God.
From The Richwood Reaper (Richwood, Texas)
November 15, 2009
Most Christians who are serious followers of Jesus would never entertain being guilty of the types of sins listed in passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. We know adultery, fornication, idolatry, theft, and being a drunkard are wrong. The church would withdraw fellowship from anyone persisting in such sins. But how often do certain types of behavior go unnoticed and uncondemned? Since brethren rarely say anything against them, they might be called “respectable” sins. One of these is the sin of silence.
One finds two aspects of this sin in the Scriptures. The first type of silence is that which is prompted by guilt or fear—from behavior which has no defense. It is not necessarily the silence that is sinful—but the sin that led to the silence. Consider some examples.
1. Adam and Eve, in order to forego having to answer any questions, hid themselves (unsuccessfully) in the garden (Gen. 3:8). They did so because they knew they had done wrong by violating God’s commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were fearful of the penalty of disobedience. They would not have to defend themselves, explain, or be held accountable for their actions if they could just hide. They were right in being fearful but wrong in dodging the issue.
2. In 1 Kings 18:21 Elijah tells the Israelites present at Mount Carmel to choose whom they were willing to serve—Jehovah or Baal. “But the people answered him not a word.” Why were the people so cowardly? Were they afraid of answering in King Ahab’s presence? Were they even more afraid of offending the queen? One thing is certain: They do not yet fear God nearly enough! Where is the boldness like that of Peter and John when they would later say, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)? They failed to commit themselves because they did not want to wind up on the second-place team. Their silence means that they think they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
3. In Matthew 22:12, a man invited to be a wedding guest was dressed inappropriately—without a wedding garment. Whether anyone said anything to him or not about his inappropriate apparel is not stated, but when the king saw him, he asked: “Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?” The man was “speechless” because he had no defense for his actions.
A preaching friend stated years ago that brethren do not justify immodest dress or mixed swimming; they just do it. He was disturbingly correct. Two articles on this subject were written last year and put on the website (see www.spiritualperspectives.org, articles, 2008, 8-10 and 8-17). The challenge has been giv-en for anyone who holds a different view to set forth a rationale that would authorize immodest dress or mixed swimming. To date, no one has attempted a reply.
Many who use instrumental music in worship often cannot give a coherent reason for its use—except “I like it.” In so saying they acknowledge that there is no defense of their use of it.
Likewise, if you ask certain prominent brethren today for their position on elder re-evaluation and reaffirmation, they become as silent as a clam with lockjaw. Who are they afraid of? Apparently, it is not God who is feared.
The same response is achieved when many are asked, “How it is that they can fellowship a false teacher?” Is the silence one prompted by guilt, fear, or just plain cowardice?
4. In Matthew 21:23-27 the chief priests and elders of the people asked Jesus by what authority He was doing the things He did? It was a fair question, but Jesus knew that they would try to turn the truth against Him; so He said He would answer their question upon the condition that they answered one of His. He asked where the baptism of John was from—Heaven or men? He had trapped them, and they knew it.
If they answered that John was authorized to baptize by Heaven’s authority, the next question Jesus would ask was: “Well, then, why didn’t you obey him, since God authorized his message?” If they answered that John baptized by his own authority, they feared that the crowd would turn against them since they regarded John as a prophet. Therefore, they chose—silence. They claimed (disingenuous-ly) that they did not know the answer. Is that the reason so many choose silence today—they fear they will be in trouble with someone no matter how they answer?
5. Jesus knew that many were watching Him to see if He would heal someone on the Sabbath day, so on one occasion, before doing anything He asked the question: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” The question is not difficult to answer. “But they kept silent.” Why?
Perhaps they did not answer because Jesus would have proved to them that they were wrong. They would have had to reason with Him and explain their position. They were silent out of fear of being shown wrong (Mark 3:1-5). Frequently, people hold to a view based on emotion rather than logic. These people did not even try to defend their position, and Jesus “looked around at them with anger” (Mark 3:1-5).
The kind of silence examined thus far, then, is that which persists as a result of being unable to defend oneself due to guilt, fear, or being in the wrong.
Another Kind of Silence
A different kind of silence also springs from fear, and it involves refusing to say what ought to be said (James 4:17). The four lepers recognized that principle in 2 Kings 7:3-9. They realized that withholding good news of abundant food from those who were starving would be sinning. Is it possible that Christians are withholding “the good news,” (spiritual nutrition) from those who need to hear it?
1. What did Jesus command His disciples in Matt. 28: 18-20? He told them to go into all the world and make disciples of all, teaching them all the things that He had commanded them—which includes the very instructions He just gave them.
Yet some say such strange things as, “Oh, that command was only for the 11.” Is that the way the church understood it in the first century? When the persecution became intense in Jerusalem, was it not the members of the church that “went everywhere preaching the word,” while the apostles remained in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1, 4)? They did not protest that it was only the work of the apostles to preach.
And what was Stephen doing preaching in Acts 7? He was not an apostle. What was Philip doing in Samaria in Acts 8? He was not an apostle. Why did Paul write in 2 Timothy 2:2 that “the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit those to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”? Did they not understand that Jesus was only speaking to the 11? And why does Hebrews 5:12 admonish brethren that it was time for them to be teachers—not time for them to be fed with milk all over again? Christians absolutely can not be silent concerning the gospel and salvation.
2. Neither can we be silent on moral issues. A good example is imperative; Jesus talks about the necessity of His disciples being salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), but model behavior must also be accompanied by words. Silence is not going to change sinners into saints. Many people do not know what the Scriptures teach about the sanctity of life (Luke 1: 41, 44; 2:12, 16). They certainly do not know that homosexuality is called a sin—one that is vile and against nature (Rom. 1:26). They will not pick that information up from Oprah or American Idol. Letterman is not yet giving lectures about how sinful adultery is. If Christians are silent about the moral issues of any age, who will stand up for righteousness?
3. Christians cannot remain silent concerning Truth and sound doctrine versus error. Only truth can sanctify Christians (John 17:17). Who is going to tell people that God never authorized denominationalism if we keep silent? How will people understand the flaws of premillennialism unless brethren show them? How will people resist the “hereditary total depravity” error of Calvinism unless we teach the truth about it? Who will explain the difference between baptism as taught in the Scriptures and that practiced by men today (with respect to the form and the meaning of it), if we do not?
Did Jesus revolutionize the world through example only and silence? Of course not, and neither did His followers. The world in the first century was not turned upside down by silence. We cannot be silent with respect to the word of God
The Sound of Silence The Sin of Silence
Paul Simon Gary W. Summers
Hello, darkness, my old friend; Hello, selfishness, my friend;
I’ve come to talk with you again, I’ve come to talk to you again.
Because a vision softly creeping Because the minister was preaching
Left its seeds while I was sleeping, And said things while he was teaching,
And the vision that was planted in my brain And the vision that he planted in my brain
Still remains Still remains—
Within the sound of silence. Disturbs my sin of silence.
In restless dreams I walked alone, In worldly pleasures I did walk,
Narrow streets of cobblestone, Actions of mine betrayed my talk.
‘Neath the halo of a street lamp Accumulating things all for me,
I turn my collar to the cold and damp I turned a deaf ear to those in need.
When my eyes were stabbed But my heart was pierced
By the flash of a neon light By the love of Jesus Christ
That split the night Who paid the price
And touched the sound of silence. To loose my sin of silence.
And in the naked light I saw And by the Word of God I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more— Ten thousand brethren, maybe more–
People talking without speaking, Souls worshiping without thinking,
People hearing without listening, Souls singing without meaning,
People writing songs that voices never shared Preachers writing sermons that hearts
No one dared Will never share, and no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence. Accuse the sin of silence.
“Fools,” said I, “You do not know “Wait,” said I, “This is not right.
Silence like a cancer grows. Silence befits not the light.
Hear my words that I might teach you; Saints are compelled to speak the Truth;
Take my arms that I might reach you.” From older members to the youth.”
But my words, like silent raindrops fell, But my words the people did refuse:
And echoed in the wells “You can’t abuse
Of silence. My right of silence.”
And the people bowed and prayed And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made, To Mammon; they were unafraid.
And the sign flashed out its warning Because it promised comfort here on earth
In the words that it was forming, And so who cares about a second birth?
And the sign said “The words of the prophets But the words, “You have been weighed
Are written on the subway walls And are wanting found,”
And tenement halls To you are bound.
And whispered in the sound of silence.” What good’s your sin of silence?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
But to the wicked God says: “These things you have done,
“What right have you to declare my statutes, And I kept silent;
Or take My covenant in your mouth, You thought that I was altogether like you;
Seeing you hate instruction But I will reprove you;
And cast My words behind you?” And set them in order before your eyes.”
(Psalm 50:16-17) (Psalm 50:21)
Having already discussed the preamble to the Manhattan Declaration, along with the first two sections of it, we now turn our attention toward the portion that comprises around 40% of the total, and that subject is marriage. The first Scriptures quoted are Genesis 2:23-24, followed by these comments:
In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation…. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society…. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.
These observations are stated well and are completely harmonious with the Scriptures, and anyone familiar with the Word of God knows the truth of these words. So what is the application?
Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits – the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.
Do we not have sufficient data and experience to demonstrate the truth of this statement? A society is stable when the husband is committed to his wife and the wife is committed to her husband. When couples remain married to each other and are determined to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, communities benefit. Not every marriage or household will be perfect, but a norm is established.
So what has encroached upon this ideal situation? What or who has assaulted the family? First, recognition is given to the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Fifty years ago it was 5%; today it stands at 40%. This is a significant change and reflects a careless and casual attitude toward marriage. That is not to say that many women who have made mistakes do not recognize their error or devote themselves to recovery, but the statistics do reflect a society that has grown permissive. The Declaration, not unfairly, associates with this high rate of illegitimacy such social problems as “delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair.”
An even greater threat to marriage—cohabitation— receives scant attention in the Declaration. The percentages of those living together outside of marriage have risen dramatically in the past thirty years, which further reflects an erosion of respect for the Bible: All who choose this arrangement are living in fornication, for which they will be condemned (Heb. 13:4). The widespread acceptance of this sin shows that society as a whole has lost respect for God’s arrangement; young people are either not being taught or else are rebelling against God’s wisdom.
Divorce
Divorce receives slightly more attention, but the following paragraph is quite an admission.
We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.
That denominations have too easily embraced “the culture of divorce” is obviously true, as have some congregations of the Lord’s church. In almost every area of the country one will find a “church of Christ” that has departed from the faith and is known as the place where all the unscripturally divorced and remarried couples are. In the Peoria area one of “our” churches with 150 members once had seven such couples. In one instance, both a divorced husband and wife of a previous marriage had remarried, and both new “families” were attending the same congregation! Anyone with the IQ of a kumquat would realize that, while both husband and wife might be guilty parties, both could not possibly be innocent.
The Lord’s church has been plagued by the Bales’ doctrine and the Hicks’ heresy (see the seven part series on this Website beginning 10-9-05). At least faithful brethren have fought these errors, and godly preachers of the gospel are among the few who have actually opposed divorce. But many in denominationalism have easily succumbed. Popular authors like Chuck Swindoll have opened the door wide for acceptance of the divorce culture. Many who are prominent among them are actually part of a second or third marriage. The above statement is right on the mark, and we pray that all who have signed this Declaration are sincere in their repentance. Everyone should watch to see if religious denominations begin to take a stronger stance against unscriptural divorce and remarriage.
One solution to the various attacks made on the family thus far is to “stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity” and to exalt the “holiness of faithful love.” That brings us to the source of most of the glamorization of sin, and that is television, which the Declaration does not mention. From where do citizens get the idea that fornication, adultery, and “unilateral divorce” are acceptable? They do not read that God approves of these things in the Scriptures; they watch it on various television programs. Those who flaunt God’s laws of moral conduct through this medium are not heroes or role models worthy of imitation. In fact, most of the weekly fare that is broadcast into our living rooms contains dialogue that sounds as though it were written by high school sophomores around the lunch table. All Christian households would do well to severely limit the amount of screen-gazing that goes on every night. Even Wheel of Fortune had three contestants one night during the week of November 29th that were poor role models—one was a lesbian, one was a fornicator (living with her boyfriend), and the other was a young divorced man. The man won, which was gratifying—at least he might have had a Scriptural divorce.
We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.
The Manhattan Declaration is correct in its assessment. Next it moves on to a controversial topic.
Homosexuality
Almost one-third of this document is devoted to the topic of homosexual “marriage” or multiple partner (polyamorous) relationships. The Declaration states that acceptance of either of these practices as “marriage” “reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law.”
With the other sinful practices, such as fornication, adultery, and divorce, the Declaration was not nearly as careful to avoid offending anyone, but with this perversion they use kid gloves. They claim that there are some who are “disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct” (as opposed to being “born that way”), but they quickly add that they are no more “disposed” than others are towards different “forms of immoral conduct.”
They add: “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings….” Apparently, in a politically correct universe, it is not acceptable to just call a sin a sin—not that every human being is not unique and of possible worth to God, but no mention was made of this point when discussing adultery, fornication, divorce, or out-of-wedlock births. In fact, they make it clear that they want to “refrain from disdainful condemnation of those” who practice such things. This kind of flattery may appeal to a few but probably not to most, since most folks resent being told they are wrong about anything. God’s philosophy is to declare what is good and what is evil. If people are not told in no uncertain terms why something is a sin, what motivation are they going to have to depart from it? Such revelations need not be harsh or based on the wrong motivation, but they should be factual.
They do, however, take issue with the idea that all of these alternatives should be regarded as legally acceptable. They argue that “marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.” They further affirm: “No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage.” Since the Bible is our basis for marriage, it only makes sense to abide by what it teaches in that regard, and as almost anybody knows, God’s design was one woman for one man for life (Gen. 2:18-24). Men do not have the right to tell God that He got it wrong because we want the right to live out our fantasies. Rather it was God who told Sodom and Gomorrah that they got it wrong (Gen. 19)! The Declaration rightly says concerning the attempts of those in power:
First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends.
The final sentence of this section of the Manhattan Declaration serves as a smooth transition to the final subject discussed: “And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”
Religious Liberty
This is the section that has drawn some media attention; although it does encourage civil disobedience, which sounds like strong language, it would be more accurate to say that those signing this Declaration have agreed that government does not have the right to impose its will against the freedom of religion as defined by our Constitution. After some introductory remarks, the following idea is set forth:
No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
One would think this insight would be self-evident, but many laws and courts have already infringed on Christian liberties. Some seek to impose upon pro-life hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and others the demand that they participate in or perform abortions. No one should ever be faced with such a dilemma. Let a bureaucrat or a justice come in and take the human life that means nothing to him. No one in the health care community should be required to violate the Hippocratic Oath, the Scriptures, or his conscience.
Second, “anti-discrimination statutes” should not be imposed “to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business.” In Massachusetts a court imposed same-sex “marriage” upon the populace, and:
Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than com-ply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.
These are not things that alarmists are alleging could possibly happen in the future; these tragic events have already occurred! Certain “hate-crimes” legislation may lead to putting preachers in prison for speaking out against sin in America, as it has already occurred in Canada and Europe. It looks as though the forces of secular humanism are winning, although most people do not subscribe to that belief system. Therefore, it is time for the citizenry of this nation to make its voice heard. Those in the Congress and the Senate who are promoting these ideas need to be voted out of office—regard-less of the economic incentives they bring to their states to keep them in office. Those promised economic stimuli are nothing more than bribes being financed by taxpayers! Hello! No governmental official is going to help a state financially distressed with his own money. He is attempting to buy votes with the money of voters.
The Declaration is Biblically correct when it states:
As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical ad-monition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
Citing Acts 4, when Peter and John declared that they would disobey the command not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, the writers of this Declaration affirm that “Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.” They could have cited Daniel disobeying the king’s edict to pray to no one but him (6) or his three friends who refused to bow down and worship the king’s image (3). Christians in the first few centuries went to their deaths rather than obey the law to worship the king. Likewise, today, Christians cannot bow to the secular humanist requirements of the state.
The Declaration states that Martin Luther “King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.” The final paragraph of this document speaks eloquently.
Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
Although this document is not without a few flaws, presumably all who call upon the name of the Lord can and will say, “Amen!” to its main intent.
E-Mails containing this document have been circulated recently, and it has been mentioned publicly on some television talk shows, also. “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was drafted on October 20, 2009 and released on November 20th. As of December 2nd, more than 233,000 people had put their signatures on it. Those who composed the message were Robert George (McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University), Timothy George
(Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), and Chuck Colson (Founder, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview in Lansdowne, Virginia).
Some of the original signers included: Dr. Daniel Akin (President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), Randy Alcorn, Leith Anderson (President of National Association of Evangelicals), Dr. Mark L. Bailey (President, Dallas Theological Seminary), Gary Bauer, Jim Daly (President and CEO, Focus on the Family), James Dobson, Dinesh D’Souza (whose debate with Christopher Hitchens at UCF was covered in Spiritual Perspectives on September 27, 2009), Dr. Michael Easley (President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute), Dr. William Edgar (Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary), Josh McDowell, J. I. Packer, Dr. Cornelius Plantinga (President, Calvin Theological Seminary), Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Timothy C. Tennent (President, Asbury Theological Seminary), and over 130 more. Most are prominent in the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations.
We have not included the names of these original signers of the document to impress ourselves with the academic credentials of those involved or in any way to endorse division or the concept of denominationalism, which is condemned in the Scriptures. They are mentioned to show the unity of the participants in this matter, which itself is an amazing feat. The declaration contains five sections: Preamble, Declaration, Life Marriage, and Religious Liberty.
Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.
Thus the document begins in a positive way. The rest of the paragraph is almost a response to Hitchens and other atheists who claim that religion has had a bad effect on society. After briefly acknowledging that Christian “institutions” have had “imperfections and shortcomings,” many of the positive benefits that have come from those who claimed to be Christians are listed. The two things that atheists generally bring up are the Crusades and the Inquisition, which probably rate higher than “imperfections” (how about “disasters”?). But how often are the good things noted, which have impacted society in a positive way?
Cited are “Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denounced the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide,” those who remained “in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues,” and those who “combated the evil of slavery.” “Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.” “In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings….” Several other accomplishments are also included, but the upshot of it all is that those following New Testament principles have made “a profound contribution to the public good.”
Declaration
This section explains that the declaration was agreed upon by “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians” and that it is set forth “in light of the truth that is grounded in the Holy Scripture, in natural human reason…and in the very nature of the human person.”
This statement comes as a profound surprise—that those who signed the declaration actually believe this sentence. First, it proclaims that the light of the truth is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, which is reminiscent of John 8:31-32 and 17:17. Members of the body of Christ have believed that the Word of God is truth for centuries, but it sounds strange coming from men who approve of denominationalism despite the truth taught in the Bible, which makes a few pertinent declarations of its own. Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, adding that the result of unity was that the world would believe (John 17:20-21). Paul condemned those who instituted division among brethren (1 Cor. 1:10-13). So why do so many accept division rather than seek the solution to the problem?
Furthermore, Paul wrote that there is “one Lord, one faith [not 200 faiths, GWS], one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). In the preceding verse, he also affirmed that there is one body. What did the apostle mean by that? The word body is the same word used previously: “And He has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). In the same epistle, Paul writes later on: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). It is clear that the body of Christ is the church of Christ, and Paul says that there is one. All of the denominational doctors with all of their degrees can not deal with these Scriptures nor explain what justifies denominational bodies.
It is good that they hold in high regard the Scriptures, but they need to believe all of them and define a strategy for dealing with disagreements, such as discussion, debate, research teams, etc. While it is true that all have the desire to fight against Satan, we need to recognize all of his successes, including the deception that division among those professing to be Christians is acceptable.
The second surprise in the “Declaration” section was the emphasis on “natural human reason.” The part omitted in the three dots when quoted earlier contained this additional parenthetical phrase describing reason: which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God. Why is this surprising? For years, many denominationalists have argued that faith is sufficient and that human logic is not necessary. Most often this faulty notion is expressed in encouraging those unconvinced of the truth of Christianity to take “a leap of faith.” Many have long ago tried to make a rational defense of Christianity, and some have no interest in Christian evidences.
How refreshing to see an acknowledgment that God has created human beings with the capacity to reason and think critically—to evaluate what we hear (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Of course, if everyone practiced correct reasoning, religious denominations would disappear, since God never authorized even one of them. It would be wonderful if correct reasoning made a comeback.
Ironically, while all of these religious leaders signed a statement saying they are in agreement with this document, including what was just mentioned about human reasoning, certain academic brethren among us have been decrying its use and calling for a new hermeneutic (which apparently does not require the use of logic). Liberals in the churches of Christ are always a half-century or so behind the denominations. They are always falling into the pit of apostasy about the time our denominational friends are climbing out of it.
After lauding truth and reason, the declaration goes on to say that the composers and signers of this essay
are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
This is a very comprehensive and well-phrased paragraph that explains in a nutshell the entire purpose, although clarifications are forthcoming.
Our final two criticisms are here mentioned so that such interruptions need not be made later on. The first of these involves their use of the New International Version of the Bible. This version has never been acceptable to serious Bible students. See the chapter that can be found on spiritualperspectives.org. Click on Articles (top left), then click on Bible, and finally look for “A Review of the NIV.”
The other objection is to the following statement:”We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation – to speak and act in defense of these truths.” As already stated, since we believe in the truth, we cannot step across “ecclesial lines” to work with those who do not respect truth enough to work toward the eradication of denominationalism.
While we are in full sympathy with most of the aims of this declaration (as articulated in the paragraph quoted above), we decided many years ago not to join inter-denominational groups in anything because it will be immediately assumed that, besides expecting that everyone will accept the NIV as a translation, everyone believes in “faith only” salvation and is comfortable with the use of instrumental music. Those who do not teach what the New Testament teaches concerning salvation are not brothers, and we cannot work together. Many of these people are devout and sincere, but for us to fellowship their errors in what would otherwise be a good cause cannot be entertained. We can advocate the moral stances they take without joining with them.
Life
Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense.
No specific instances are supplied here, but they could easily have been. Former Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius (now head of the Department of Health and Human Services) had no desire to prosecute Dr. George Tiller, called by many “Tiller the Baby Killer,” since he had no qualms about performing late-term abortions, by which is meant that the baby was fully developed and close to the time of birth. The declaration continues:
The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion – a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.
The writers of the declaration did an excellent job showing that this is not a party issue. Many of us decided years ago not to support a candidate of either party who did not respect life in the womb. Both medically and Biblically, that tiny human body has life and must be considered a human being (Luke 1:41, 44; Luke 2:12, 16). If politicians will not protect those who are most vulnerable and unable to protect themselves, how much will they actually care about the rest of us? Although the economy is an extremely important election issue, nothing can take precedence over the injustice of terminating the lives of those about to be born. The same is true regarding Supreme Court nominees and other judges (no one wants lenient appointees).
This section goes on to decry “therapeutic cloning,” which results in “the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues.”
Some may not have read about the way cloning works and how many embryos end up being destroyed. This is truly an area which ought not to involve human beings. One wonders what kind of “thriller” Mary Shelley would write if she were alive today. There are, however, other life issues as well.
At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”
Once people begin determining what lives are not worthy of living, as Hitler and his henchman actually did, it may be a surprisingly short amount of time before this category becomes much broader than anyone would have imagined. It is frightening enough that “health” care proposals have provisions in them to weed out those “unworthy,” of treatment. Our president is on record as saying that the elderly should just take pain killers rather than have surgery or a pacemaker put in.
One affirmation concerning life is: “We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.” This is the kind of commitment that all who call themselves Christians ought to have. Although the news and entertainment media have been overwhelmingly in favor of abortion for 36 years, more than 50% of Americans now hold a pro-life perspective. The more that people have come to know the facts, the more certain they have become that the child in the womb is a human being—despite propaganda to the contrary.
Commitment in this cause means stating the facts to people who have not seen them and speaking up in conversations about the subject. Quite often a conversation can be turned entirely around with the presentation of irrefutable evidence—Biblical and medical. One cannot view embryo development and conclude that “the product of conception” is not a human being. Christians must be ready to make the argument or have material ready that will make the case for them.
Finally, the declaration states that the writers and signers are concerned about more than what is just happening in the United States. They are concerned also about genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” the innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, racial oppression, religious persecution, and “the sexual trafficking of girls and young women.” The preaching of the gospel (and its acceptance) would eliminate every one of these evils in the world. We who profess Christianity have been idle too long; we need to repent.
