Jesus was direct. He told the multitudes not to be like the Pharisees, and He named the precise problems that they had with giving, prayer, and fasting (Matt. 6). He also warned His disciples of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:12). He did not hesitate to call the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites” seven times in Matthew 23. He also generously supplied them with a few other unflattering terms, such as fools, blind, blind guides, serpents, and brood of vipers. Jesus also had a few choice words for lawyers as well (Luke 11:46-52).
Jesus was kind to the humble and the sinner but rather blunt with the proud. Peter was equally pointed and critical toward those who were leading God’s people astray. Peter did not assume that the men he wrote against were possibly mistaken; he called their teaching destructive heresies and accused them of denying the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1). He also called them presumptuous, self-willed, and like brute beasts (vv. 10, 12). Much more is said of them along these lines, such as they speak great swelling words of emptiness (v. 18).
Paul identified Judaizing teachers and condemned them in no uncertain terms in the book of Galatians. He said such men only wanted to get people entangled again with a yoke of bondage (5:1). He added that anyone who attempted to be justified by the law had fallen from grace (5:4). He also mentioned some specific names, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith (1 Tim. 1:18-20), or Hymenaeus and Philetus who said that the resurrection was already past, thus overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-19). Paul also wrote that some men were to be marked—those who caused divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine that they had been taught by the apostles (Rom. 16:17-18). In other words, most of the time, those who caused problems were known by their names or the error they promoted.
Today, however, “some brethren” are standing behind a wall of anonymity by using the phrase, some brethren, to refer to those with whom they disagree, and since they have chosen not to identify those concerning which they have so much negativity toward, that uninspired approach will be used for just this one article in an effort to answer a fool according to his folly.
The phrase, some brethren, does not appear in the King James Version of the Bible, although certain brethren does. In Acts 10:23 we read of “certain brethren from Joppa”; so they are identified by their location, but these were not troublemakers. The other occasion is Acts 17:6, but the “certain brethren” there were not guilty of wrongdoing in the church; these anonymous brethren were accused of turning “the world upside down” (in the NKJ both texts are rendered “some brethren”).
So how is it that today that “some,” instead of naming a brother or a location (or identifying a specific error) are using the phrase, some brethren? As with most things, there are reasons, and being vague carries with it certain advantages, which will now be explained because “some brethren” would not acknowledge it.
1. The use of the phrase, some brethren, avoids naming anyone specifically who might just want to give a reply. A person might read an article that appears in a publication or lectureship book by “some brethren” and conclude, “They are talking about me, although they did not have the guts to use my name.” But should he respond? A few years ago, “some brethren” wrote articles in which they tried to characterize “certain brethren” in an unflattering way. They denigrated these vague, “perceived” enemies and accused them of things they could not defend against since they were not specifically named. When asked for an identification, “some brother” said, “If the shoe fits…..” It did not, but “certain brethren” were left to wonder, “Am I being referred to even though the charges are false? Is “some brother” thinking of me?”
2. The second advantage of vagueness is that it allows the accuser of “some brethren” an automatic out. If someone were to protest what was written, it can always be affirmed that, “I was not speaking about you.” Of course, the mere fact that some people are obviously getting hurt by all of debris from some of these mortar attacks or hit by a bullet that ricocheted off of someone else ought to be a clue that the weapon of vagueness hits more targets than were aimed at.
3. Another advantage of harming someone’s name or reputation without specifically referring to him publicly is that, when those sympathetic to that writer ask privately who the object of his assault was, the offending party’s name can then be whispered. Yes, rather than call his name publicly—either to rebuke him or challenge him to a debate—“some brethren” will do their character assassination in private, sometimes embellishing the details.
Perhaps an example of this last point would be helpful. A gospel preacher was visiting congregations, trying to raise support for some men he was training to preach. He met with a congregation that received him very enthusiastically. Their initial response included a strong likelihood that they would be helping him, and they parted on best of terms.
But then “some brother” came to hold a gospel meeting at that congregation He was associated with a “certain school of preaching.” He whispered some negative things about the preacher seeking support for others. The elders of the congregation he had visited failed to contact him. He called both elders; they refused to call him back. What happened? If the elders now found fault with him, they should have been men enough to lay it on the table and discuss how he had offended them. They were too cowardly to take what was whispered in private and give him a chance to respond to it. “Some brethren” are like that.
These tactics, however, are wrong. When Peter came to Antioch and played the hypocrite, Paul did not get up and talk about “some brethren” refusing to eat with Gentiles. He rebuked him to his face (Gal. 2:11-13). The reason “some brethren” resort to vagueness is that they cannot defend their own actions; so they accuse “other brethren” of being the source of their problems. Whatever happened to openness and honesty? When did telling the truth regardless of the con-sequences become passé? Anyone ought to be able to answer a True – False question on a matter of Bible doctrine that is precisely stated. When “some brethren” refuse to do so, the rest of us need to ask, “Why?”
The Lord was forthright, honest, and to all
Did give an answer, though it meant His fall.
BACKSLIDING
Bruce Stulting
As surprising as it may seem, many do not think that backsliding is a Biblical term. In Old Testament times, backsliding was a continual problem of God’s people as shown in Jeremiah 8:5, which states, “Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.” To backslide is to turn away from God’s truth and return to one’s former wicked life.
There are many warnings in the Bible concerning the danger of backsliding. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Even Paul himself was not immune to the danger of backsliding. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul wrote, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”
In guarding against backsliding it is necessary to determine its cause. A little boy trying to explain why he fell out of bed said, “I just went to sleep too close to where I got in.” This simple illustration helps explain why some fall away from Christ after becoming a Christian. Upon entering the kingdom, it is necessary that one grow spiritually. It is sad that many refuse to grow, but remain close to where they entered the kingdom. We are exhorted in Hebrews 6:6 to “go on unto perfection.” Likewise, we are admonished in 2 Peter 1:5-7 to add to our faith: virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. By growing in these qualities, we will guarantee that we will not “go to sleep too close to where we got in.” In fact, 2 Peter 1:10 states, “if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.”
Many refuse to grow because they remain closely tied to things in the world. In the parable of the sower, Jesus spoke of some who allow the “care(s) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, (to) choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful” (Matt 13:22). To avoid this, we must sever our ties to the world and turn our full attention to spiritual growth. By pressing on to perfection, we will not “slide back” into the ways of the world which we left when we became Christians.
Reprinted in the Beacon, November 2, 2009
[Editor’s note: Speaking of vagueness, I was asked to enlarge an article (which appears on page 3) from a church bulletin for a brother visiting out of town. The name, place, or date of the bulletin was not on the part that was enlarged, but the article makes an encouraging point. It was not retyped; the page appears as it was—only enlarged.]
Thanksgiving
The giving of thanks should be often;
Remembrance of Him our hearts soften.
God’s blessings come not once a year;
Each day let Him our praises hear.
All right, so who would have more experience with megachurches than Jesus? He taught at least 5,000 on one occasion and 4,000 on another. Furthermore, since He is the Head of the church, which is His body (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18), He was head over the mega-church in Jerusalem, which numbered over 5,000. So, He spoke to large crowds and was Head over the very first megachurch.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to compare what is going on today with what Jesus did back in the first century? It just so happens that on October 11, 2009, the Orlando Sentinel published a brief article reporting on the Shepherd of the Hills Church in the San Fernando Valley in California. In the very first paragraph it describes the faithful as packing the “sanctuary,” where they were “clapping and swaying for Jesus as a band rocks the hall” (all quotes are from page A8).
Well, look at that. We haven’t even got to the second paragraph, and something is already strange. Anyone who has read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or the book of Acts would never find a meeting place described as a “sanctuary.” According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a sanctuary is “a sacred place, such as a church, temple, or mosque.” The second definition is: “The most holy part of a sacred place” (1148).
If God calls a place holy, then it is. Moses was told to remove his shoes when he went up to the mount because the place he stood was on holy ground. He would not have known that fact if God had not told him. The temple in Jerusalem was regarded as a holy place, and it contained a Most Holy Place, also, where the priest entered in only one day of the year. In the New Testament, however, Jesus did not say the mount upon which He taught was holy. Nor did the apostles describe the places where they met as “sanctuaries.” Such a notion came along decades later.
How interesting that things that were never mentioned in the Bible have come to be adopted by so many who are trying to be followers of Jesus today. If the Bible does not use such terminology, why do we? Certainly things change. Our society today bears little resemblance to what existed in the first century. We still have roads, but they are several lanes wide. We still have transportation, but the mode of travel has become much faster and efficient. Brethren can meet on a mountain or in a civic arena. The locale is not the important thing—or even the type of building, if there is one. But whatever it is, the Word of God never calls the meeting place a “sanctuary.”
Using such a term has given rise to various errors, one of which is that the church building contains a holy place. Where exactly would be the equivalent on a mountainside? When brethren rent a suite in a building, does it suddenly become holy? What if a classroom is available in a school building? Is it profane during the week but holy on Sunday?
People think there is something special about a sanctuary. They imagine that their prayers are more likely to be heard there—that somehow God’s presence is there in a special way. A building is just a building. Saints meet there to worship a holy God. They are not sanctified by bricks, wood, or stone. The worshipers have been made holy by the blood of Christ, which has cleansed their sins (Rev. 1:5; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Our holiness is tied to Jesus rather than to a place. For this reason the Christian needs to conduct himself properly at all times—not just when he is present in what he thinks is the “sanctuary.” His speech should not contain unholy words just because he is not in a “holy place.” His attitude of humility should follow him when he departs the meeting place. Certainly modest dress should be maintained, which must be difficult “in a land of sun worship” (part of the article title).
Handclapping, Etc.
Does everyone remember Jesus and the apostles scheduling a band to supplement Jesus’ teachings? Just think of the advertising promos for that wild event: Come hear Petra rock the mountain! Jesus did not entertain people and try to pass it off as worship. He taught the truth about God and Himself. He gave people principles to live by, such as the beatitudes. He addressed the problem of worry. He discussed what people’s relationship with God should be, as well as with one another. He taught that few would be saved but that many were going to expect salvation, although it would be denied them (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-27). He did not make inane statements, such as, “It’s faith only.” He stressed the importance of obedience to God.
People were not swaying like they were on a dance floor or doing the wave at a football game. They were not clapping their hands for anything Jesus taught or to serve as a beat if any songs were sung. How silly to think that, when Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” that Peter jumped up, applauding, and saying, “Let’s hear it for the Lord. Yea!” Apparently, our culture is so obsessed with entertainment that some just cannot think of worship without trying to add that kind of flavor to it.
When this writer was a boy of 11 or 12, he was invited to sing in the children’s choir of the Methodist Church, which he did. He asked the director (an elderly woman) if the choir was going to sing any popular songs that year (some suggestions were ready). She said rather succinctly and curtly, “No.” Her voice was filled with disdain, although he did not know what that was at the time. Had she taken the time to explain, she might have said, “Our purpose here is to glorify God (even though incorrectly, because of the organ)—not to entertain.” What would she think today, if she were still alive? The purpose of some “worship” today is to entertain those present—not to glorify God.
When Jesus spoke, His listeners reflected upon His teaching. No one walked away, commenting about how much more lively pagan worship was. Some are so shallow that, if they had been at Mount Carmel in Elijah’s day, they probably would have said, “Now this worship is not boring. Those prophets of Baal—whew! Now they really know how to put on a show. They leap and dance and cut themselves until they bleed. Wow! What a sight!” Not a word about musical programs is said in the Sermon on the Mount or on the Day of Pentecost. If Jesus or the apostles sang a song on the mount, it is not mentioned. Pentecost is also silent on the subject. It was a miracle that brought the Jews to-gether to see what was occurring—not the promise of a musical extravaganza. When Peter finished declaring that Jesus was both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), the people responded to his preaching. No one stood up and said, “That was a fine lesson. C’mon, folks. Give it up for the Lord’s apostle and his great oratorical skills.” Today we ought to pattern ourselves after the New Testament rather than our social customs.
The Emphasis
We read over and over again in the book of Acts of how the church was growing. Did they go door to door to see what kind of church the people wanted and would attend? No. Did they have musical concerts to draw big crowds? No. We read simply: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The people were drawn to a spiritual emphasis.
The newspaper article states that the Shepherd of the Hills Church, with its “energetic services,” offers “an instructive lesson about the growth of evangelical Christianity in California.” The pages of the New Testament offer better—and more Scriptural—instruction. Since the two approaches clash, which one is correct? To ask the question is to answer it.
California has 193 megachurches (defined as 2,000 or more members); Texas has 191. But what do they believe in? What do they stand for? Do they save anyone’s soul? When was the last time any of them preached what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost? Is worship about praising God or having a good time? After hearing Jesus say that the majority of people will be lost, probably few listeners walked away, saying, “He just uplifts me so much.” More likely, some, after hearing Matt 7:21-27, concluded, “This fellow seems awfully legalistic. He didn’t mention grace even one time in that sermon.”
Was Jesus or Paul ever a “celebrity pastor” like Rick Warren? Hmm. “The megachurches are expanding by adapting to changing times and tastes….” Really? “Many have jettisoned formal rituals, organs and hymns in favor of Christian rock music and overhead projection screens that display lyrics and prayers.” The problem is not that people are using technology; the problem is the emphasis appeals to the physical rather than to the spiritual.
Many critics refer (appropriately) to these groups as practicing “church lite,” but others are praising them for “reaching the unaffiliated or disaffected.” Uh, reaching them with what? Allegedly, these groups have turned “church attendance into a more comfortable, positive experience, bound by fewer rules or obligations than traditional churches.” How appropriate for this society! Few want to make commitments; so let’s form a church that says, “Loosy goosy is cool with us.”
Jesus did teach commitment—to the point where He said to count the cost (Luke 14:26-35). He also taught obedience (Luke 6:46). He did not give His life on the cross for a “be committed when you feel like it” religion. When someone becomes a Christian, it is a serious obligation. God’s promises are uplifting and inspirational, but other truths are sobering. Christians must be willing to examine themselves—to see if they are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5) and evaluate what they have been taught (1 Thess. 5:21-22; Acts 17:11)—concepts which are definitely not megachurchy.
THE RELIGIOUS DREAMERS
Marvin L. Weir
Those of denominational persuasion surely qualify as religious dreamers. They dream that their man-made churches and human creeds will please the Lord. They dream that they can vote to change or ignore doctrinal matters already “settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89). They dream that they can ignore part of God’s plan of salvation (baptism for remission of sins) and still be saved. Most denominational folks dream that if one has been saved, he can never sin so as to be lost.
The Bible vividly depicts God’s attitude toward the dreamer whose dreams are in opposition to His will. Jeremiah, a spokesman from God, incurred the wrath of the dreamers of his day. God said to Jeremiah:
I have heard what the prophets have said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies, even the prophets of the deceit of their own heart? that think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers forgot my name for Baal. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the straw to the wheat? saith Jehovah. Is not my word like fire? Saith Jehovah; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah, that steal my words every one from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah, that use their tongues, and say, He saith, Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams, saith Jehovah, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their vain boasting: yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; neither do they profit this people at all, saith Jehovah (Jer. 23:25-32).
One quickly learns that God is not impressed just because someone has a dream. Within the Lord’s church today, we have kinfolk to those of Jeremiah’s day who are seeking to impress people with their dreams.
Ø They dream about changing and restructuring the Lord’s church.
Ø They dream of uniting with the denominations!
Ø These dreamers dream of receiving God’s grace without having to comply with His laws.
Ø They dream that the church must change to comply with an ever-changing society.
Ø Today’s dreamers’ dream that the Bible is only a love letter—much like a letter a fellow might write to his girlfriend!
Ø They dream of using a chorus instead of congregational singing and dream of instruments of music to accompany the chorus!
Ø These dreamers also dream of women having a leadership role in the church.
Like those of Jeremiah’s day the dreamers scream, “I have dreamed, I have dreamed” (23:25), as if their dreaming constitutes Bible authority.
Brethren, man’s dreams may be exciting and interesting, but they are destitute of authority! Members of the body of Christ would be much better off if preachers and elders gave less attention to their dreams and more attention to the Word of God! Fearlessly and unashamedly proclaiming the precious gospel (Rom. 1:16) will save souls while broadcasting mere dreams will cause folks to forget the true and living God (cf. Jer. 23:27).
People will never profit by listening to the message of religious dreamers. The religious charlatans today both within and without the church devise their own message to “attract” folks and make them “feel good.” But God is still “against them that prophesy lying dreams” and those who cause his people “to err by their lies” (Jer. 23: 32).
Ø One who is a member of the Lord’s church should be able to recognize one who has the Word of God (cf. Jer. 23:28).
Ø One reason a Christian has been commanded to study is so he will know the difference between truth and error (2 Tim. 2:15).
Ø One interested in his soul will “prove the spirits [dreamers], whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
There is a tremendous difference between man’s dreams and theories and God’s precious truths. It is folly
and utter foolishness for one to follow a worldly dreamer into eternal torment. But many have no desire to “endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers (dreamers, emph. MLW) after their own lusts” (2 Tim. 4:3).
May there be an ever-growing number of saints who will gladly step forward and “stand in the gap” for God (Ezek. 22:30). Thus far too many have only dreamed about standing in the gap, and we have already observed that a dreamer’s dream is worthless! May we see the urgent need to stand firm for the cause of Christ and to speak out against religious dreamers!
(Bonham Street Church of Christ, Paris, TX; 8-15-09)
“For I have not shunned to declare to you
the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).
The Parade survey on “How Spiritual Are We?” published on October 4, 2009, asked still more questions that are of interest. One of those was: “What matters to you most about your own religion?”
40% – “I believe it is a source of truth.”
19% – Customs, traditions, and holidays
19% – It teaches morals and ethics to the children.
14% – It makes them feel safe and secure (4-5).
Not having seen the survey, we assume that multiple choice answers were provided which included the above choices and various others. At first glance, the 40% statistic seems impressive, but what does it truly indicate? Each person’s religion (whatever it is) is regarded as a source of truth? What are the other sources of truth—one’s own judgment, the National Council of Churches, or The New York Times? “Religion” is not the source of truth in the first place; the Bible is: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). Religion can only communicate the truth if it respects and honors it.
It is sad that nearly one person in five is attracted to traditions over truth, but it was so even in the days of Jesus. Even the most “religious” of all, the Pharisees, elevated their manmade traditions above the Word of God (Matt. 15:1-9). Many prefer pomp and pageantry to godly living and genuine faith, which means that, for them, superficial activities take precedence over substance. This would be analogous to visiting Goat Island at Niagara Falls and being entranced by the railing.
Another one in five see religion as teaching moral values and ethics, but some denominations are telling people that it is all right to live in fornication, practice homosexuality, gamble, imbibe alcoholic beverages, and in general live the way those who are worldly do—in fact, it would be difficult to determine those who are “religious” from those who claim no influence from God in their lives.
People enjoy feeling safe and secure, but how many fail to realize that their security system is not wired to the truth. They have permitted someone to install a “once saved, always saved” system that makes them feel secure, but it furnishes no protection. Instead of having a low battery, an erroneous religion has no battery in it. It is powerless to save. Many, like the rich man, will find themselves in torments. It was not that he did not have access to the truth; he neglected either to listen carefully to it or to judiciously apply it. Many today, rather than read the Bible for themselves, take someone else’s word that their soul is in grand shape. If only they would read the life of Christ for themselves, the book of Acts, and some of the letters of Peter and Paul (Philippians and Colossians), they would soon discover they have not been taught the ways of the Lord accurately. True security comes from knowledge of the truth—not a friend’s or relative’s assurances.
Fear of God
The presenter and interpreter of the data found in this Parade article is author Christine Wicker, whose current book is The Fall of the Evangelical Nation. She writes, with respect to certain data in the survey: “Fear of God is another staple of religious belief that is no longer as pervasive as it once was” (5). Most of us have already drawn that conclusion.
This irreverent attitude can be seen in the way people talk—as they take God’s name in vain, as well as the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Although such speech is a strong clue, worse yet is the way that people flout what God defines as sin. Many are proud of the fact that they are living together outside of marriage and procreating illegitimate offspring. Many enjoy displaying the sin of homosexuality. They behave lasciviously in parades; some are adorned in hideous costumes. Such as these have no fear of God and are de-scribed in 2 Peter 2.
Some “comedians,” such as Stephen Colbert, have even begun mocking God and profaning what God regards as holy. And if these were not sufficiently evil, theologians and religious leaders, such as Bishop Spong, have taken it upon themselves to fight against what the Scriptures clearly teach. People who practice corruption already stand in danger of hell fire, but those who fiddle with, manipulate, and twist the Scriptures to provide a mechanism or rationale for others to sin are doing so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16-17).
David, who was the anointed of God, as well as the sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam. 23:1), penned the following as his last words:
“The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
‘He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God’” (2 Sam. 23:2-3).
Those who govern nations (not excluding ours) should take these words to heart and try to pass laws that uphold what the Scriptures teach rather than contradict them. Courts would do well to follow the same advice, since all justices will one day face the Judge of all mankind. Those who free child molesters and give light sentences to dangerous criminals may escape answering to the American public, but they will not escape giving an account of their decisions to the One who regards such crimes as abhorrent (2 Cor. 5:10).
Christians have been granted no exemption to the consequences of sin, either. Paul wrote:
Therefore, having these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:10).
Psalm 111:10 teaches: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (cf. Pr. 9:10) and Proverbs 1:7 tells us: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” No wonder foolishness and evil abound in this society. Many people possess no knowledge of the Word of God and no wisdom in discerning right from wrong or good from evil. The fear of God continues to dissipate and disappear.
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil” (Pr. 8:13), and “by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil” (Pr. 16: 6), yet many in the entertainment media embrace wickedness. People in every country need to think seriously about making that departure because the results of fearing God cannot be matched. “The fear of the Lord tends to life” (Pr. 19:23). “By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life” (Pr. 22:4). “In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence” (Pr. 14:26). The confidence of many is due to their own abilities or the amount of friends they have—neither of which can sustain anyone before God. Finally, the “fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Pr. 14:27). Restoring the fear of the Lord to society will bring spiritual prosperity.
Prayer
About half of those who participated in the poll said that they prayed daily. Of this number, only 15% said that they prayed because God expects them to, which may not be a negative. It would be better if people prayed because they had the desire to do so. 67% said that they pray because it brings them comfort and hope, which makes sense. Those who know that God exists expect Him to listen and answer their requests.
What is it that people are praying for? A rather large 72% are praying for the well-being of others, which is both Scriptural and thoughtful. While 60% are praying for forgiveness, what are the other 40% doing? Do they think they have no need of forgiveness? Possibly they do, since hardly anything is regarded as sinful any more. A hefty 27% pray for success (Joel Osteen does have a large audience), and 21% pray for money and other material things (5). This is not necessarily wrong, but people do need to be careful that they do not pray for such things to spend it on their own pleasures (James 4:3).
Church Attendance
Wicker writes: “As a concrete measure of religious commitment, nothing beats counting how many bodies show up at worship each week” (5). For many years church attendance on any given Sunday remained near 40%, but now only 30% attend once or more every week. Wicker adds a rather strange comment following the giving of this statistic:
But keep in mind that academic researchers who actually count the number of participants believe that only up to one-half of those who claim to be in their houses of worship are actually there (5).
What? Is she saying that half or more of religious folks are lying? Surely they would not! If the claim is true, the implication is—well, one of the options below:
a. The respondents are lying, which then makes suspect all of their other answers. Do they really only pray for others 36% of the time? Maybe 42% pray for money or material things for themselves.
b. They are forgetful. Every other week they are sick or out of town, but they felt like they were in worship anyway. Would not only having written 26 contribution checks at the end of the year serve as a clue to their absences?
c. The older members are suffering from dementia and just imagined they were present for worship.
d. Their spiritual self-esteem is so high that they just naturally rate themselves better than they are.
e. Either the church some people are worshiping with is on television, or they stay home during times of bad weather to watch a worship hour on television.
Nothing is known of the researchers, but surely in America we have more than 15% of the population worshiping each Sunday. If 15% were the case, we would be approaching the attendance level of Europe, which does not seem likely.
Organized Religion
On a related topic, of the 45% who referred to themselves religious, 70% said they participate in “organized religion sporadically or not at all” (5). Again, the majority has decided to trust in their own judgment rather than follow the Bible or even the manmade doctrines of religious denominations. “Organized religions” have been diminishing because in some cases they no longer uphold Biblical morality; some “religious” groups are leading the way into moral poverty. Many Americans can no longer support their own religious denomination. When those groups begin ordaining homosexuals as “priests” and performing homosexual marriages, they lose members. The message of many modern-day churches has nothing to do with sin or salvation; many are emphasizing social programs and entertainment. Few, however, can compete with the show business approach of the megachurches.
Only 17% of those surveyed said they would turn to a religious leader for guidance with their problems; 55% said they would lean on family members (5). It is good that family members can be close enough to handle most situations; this statistic is not necessarily a negative one. Sometimes, however, it is good to discuss a particular circumstance with someone who has had experience dealing with the same or similar conditions.
Religion and Politics
If ever the devil has been successful in getting a slogan accepted by the general public, it has been with this one: “Religion and politics don’t mix.” 58% of those polled affirmed that oft-repeated maxim (5). Has anyone ever asked, “Why?” Most of our founding fathers were religious men, and they recognized that government works best when it is undergirded by moral principles. What was so oppressive about our country when there was a greater influence of religion in the government? Was it not the adherence to Biblical principles that led to the end of the practice of slavery?
Are we really concerned that we will have a church-run state? Has some religious group threatened a forthcoming coup? We would all be opposed to such an atrocity; why are we not equally opposed to the fact that the religion of secular humanism insists on dominating the government? Would our founding fathers agree that the Bible should not be mentioned in public schools and that public prayers cannot be uttered? Everyone ought to know the answer to that question. Look what taking Biblical morality out of government has accomplished. Politicians know full well they are lying to the American people; what is worse is that we know they are lying, also, yet we choose not to hold them accountable. We ought to be demanding that the people we elect believe and uphold the Scriptures.
It would be refreshing to have someone in office who could speak the truth about what he believes. If he cannot speak on a matter of national security, all he needs to say is, “I cannot comment on this subject at this time.” Voters might appreciate knowing where a candidate actually stands, even if they disagree on a certain issue, over hearing continuous Doublespeak. Some politicians have discovered that they can use religion to manipulate people; we must beware of them since they are the most dangerous and evil of all.
Miscellaneous Matters
It is gratifying to know that two out of three people are not interested in mediums or “psychics.” Only 12% check their horoscopes on a daily basis (5). The public’s interest in such things flares up at times, but most realize they have no legitimacy.
Respondents were asked to select their favorite spiritual film; 25% selected The Ten Commandments; other choices were Ghost, The Sixth Sense, The Exorcist, The Omen, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The DaVinci Code. The next most popular movie of these came in only at 15% (5). It is odd that they did not provide as one of the choices Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
Only 43% of those surveyed said that they “thought people go to heaven or hell depending on their actions on earth” (5). Since 62% think they will join loved ones after death, it probably would have been more instructive to ask two separate questions: “Do you believe in heaven?” and “Do you believe in hell?” Obviously, a place of eternal torment is not nearly so popular as a place of eternal life. What these responses reveal is that people believe what they want to believe rather than what the Bible teaches. This tendency further implies that people are using their own subjective feelings about spiritual matters rather than the objective Word, that is inspired of God.
The Questions Not Asked
Few doctrinal questions were asked, and it would be interesting to see what people might have answered. Below are a few topics of interest.
1. Do you believe that children are born depraved?
2. Do you believe that all people have sinned and are in need of salvation?
3. Do you believe that people are saved by “faith only” and that repentance, baptism, and faithfulness are not required?
4. Do you believe that once a person is saved, he cannot be lost, no matter what?
5. Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
These questions would indicate how much people really believe in the Bible as the Word of God.
Parade Magazine had a picture of a small church building on its October 4, 2009 cover, and the inside, related story is titled, “How Spiritual Are We?” The two-page article contains information comprised of a poll, but the reader searches the six columns in vain to find how the data was accumulated. It appears in the fine print underneath the border on page 5:
The PARADE Spirituality Poll was conducted by Insight Express among a national online panel of adults ages 18 and older. Surveys were completed by 1,051 respondents May 8-12, 2009.
The reader might wonder how representative those in this online panel were. Were they, for example, from all 50 states? Were they all from major cities, such as New York or San Francisco, or were they a cross-section of America, including smaller towns and rural areas? Also, no margin of error percentage was provided; so we will assume the figures could be higher or lower by 5%.
The first statistic cited is that 69% of Americans believe in God (4). Can that be correct? Most polls have usually registered about 90%. A decline of 21% would certainly be significant. Even more puzzling, however, is that the very next paragraph argues that Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Hitchens’ god Is Not Great have not made a significant impact on society despite their popularity because only 5% of those surveyed “didn’t believe in God” and 7% “weren’t sure about the existence of God” (4). The way math used to be taught, 7 + 5 = 12, and 100 – 12 = 88. Starting with 100% of the respondents and subtracting the 5% who definitely do not believe in God, along with the 7% who style themselves as agnostic, should leave 88% who believe in God, but we were already told that the number was only 69%. Theoretically, the remaining 19% could have omitted commenting on that topic, but then why answer the rest of the questions if that one is too tough?
Equally cryptic are the first two bits of information taken together: “69% of Americans believe in God”; “77% pray outside of religious services” (4). Uh, who are those extra 8% praying to? Apparently, these two bits of information are unrelated. The second statistic may mean that of all of those who believe in God and attend worship 77% pray outside the worship, but it is an odd juxtaposition.
The third piece of initial information is that 75% believe that “it’s a parent’s responsibility to give children a religious upbringing” (4), which tells us what? Obviously, atheists would not believe that children should have a religious upbringing, period. Of those who believe in God, is it only 75% who think parents have this responsibility? Who should do it, then—private religious schools, churches, the state? In the Scriptures, God holds parents responsible for this work (Deut. 6:4-9).
Spiritual But Not Religious
In recent years, more and more people have been referring to themselves as spiritual, when it was obvious that they did not know what the word meant. It is as vague as the word religious, and both of them mean mostly what each individual means by it—which is anybody’s guess. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word religious means “pious” or “godly”; other definitions include “extremely faithful” and “conscientious.”
The word religion is used in the Bible as the way one relates to God. It includes how God is to be worshipped, as well as the doctrines that man is required to follow. Paul lived according to the strictest sect of the Jewish religion (Acts 26:5). James ties one’s daily conduct to his religion: “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (1:26). He then defines pure religion (v. 27):
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
The notion of pure religion suggests that the way that some people practice religion is not pure. When people allow themselves to be tainted by the world, they become impure. Religion, as taught by God, requires obedience to His commands and living a life that is pleasing to Him. Some who call themselves religious have made no attempt to conform their lives to His Word, which amounts to a misuse of the term.
The word spiritual is used with greater frequency in the New Testament than the words religious or religion. That which is spiritual is contrasted with that which is natural and that which is carnal (1 Cor. 2:11-14). The natural man has no spiritual inclination. He fancies himself as practical and therefore has no use for religion—unless he can use it to make a profit or to manipulate others. He is only concerned about matters pertaining to this world. The carnal individual may be somewhat attracted to spiritual concerns, but he is mainly motivated by the things of the flesh. Many who refer to themselves as spiritual fall into one of these other two categories.
Those who are genuinely spiritual must, like those who are serious about religion, link themselves to being faithful to God. Paul wrote: ”If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Once again, the Scriptures speak of a correlation between having faith in God and expressing that faith in the way we live (observing the teaching in the New Testament).
The dictionary contains several definitions of spiritual, among which are: “Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul”; “Of, from, or pertaining to God”; “Of or belonging to a church or religion.” These definitions were valid in 1969, but those who use this designation today have re-defined the word to mean something entirely different, which is the reason that 24% have placed themselves in this new category—“spiritual but not religious.”
What people mean by this phrase may vary; it “means different things to different people.” In fact, one can go so far as to say that people describing themselves in that manner have “combined diverse beliefs and practices into a personal faith that fits no standard definition” (4). In other words, it is an adaptation of the philosophy, “If it feels good, do it.” In this instance, the maxim is, “If it sounds good, believe it.” This approach makes the individual the sole judge and arbiter of his own belief system. People who have never read the Bible have become their own theologians. To be sure, many who have studied it thoroughly have come to the wrong conclusions, but what chance does the person have of getting it right who thinks the epistles are the wives of the apostles?
Regardless of what people mean when they call themselves spiritual, they invariably share in common three characteristics: 1) They do not intend to submit to what the Scriptures teach concerning character; 2) They do not intend to live a holy life; and 3) They neither know nor care about anything doctrinal. The way the Parade article put it was that “they aren’t legalistic or rigid” (4). The translation of these two words is simple. Legalistic to them means they do not feel bound by the commandments and the laws of God. In other words, they are lawless. They may agree with God some of the time, but when they disagree, God just needs to take a back seat to their “wisdom.” Not being rigid means that they will not stand for truth because, as they view it, truth is subjective. They will not abide by the objective morality that God teaches in His Word. For that reason, such people who may drink alcoholic beverages, use drugs, pepper their language with profanity, gamble, commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or view pornography will still affirm, “I’m a spiritual person.” Perhaps the best response to such individuals is to ask them to define what they mean and point out that loving this world and the flesh is directly opposed to the definition of the word they are abusing.
The Only True Faith
“A scant 12% of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith” (24). Such is the effect of our Postmodern, politically correct society! The other 88% should be told: “If you don’t believe you are part of the one true religion, then leave it and find the one that is!” Why would anyone want to be part of something they were unsure was true? Would anyone take medicine from the pharmacist if he didn’t think the doctor prescribed it for him? “Excuse me, sir,” he says to the druggist. “This is not my name.” “The smiling face in a white coat smiles and say, “Take it anyway; some of the ingredients are bound to do you good.” Who would accept those terms—and pay for it? Yet people have bought into the notion that all religions teach some good things; therefore, it doesn’t matter which one you select.
God reveals the truth concerning salvation and worship. When someone obeys that truth, God writes His name in the Book of Life. No one’s name gets into that Book unless he does what God commands (Acts 2:38, 8:35-39; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Peter 3: 21). Satan has authored many counterfeit plans: some of them say that Jesus’ atonement was insufficient and that man must pay an additional price. Some say that repentance is not necessary, that baptism is not necessary, that faith is not necessary, that obedience is optional, or that all of the Bible can be ignored because people can be saved on their own merits.
There is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4: 5). Those who are not confident they are in that one faith need to devote themselves to seeking it, and those who are in it need to devote themselves to explaining to others how they know they are (1 Peter 3: 15). The Bible is our only standard of authority.
Tolerance
Not surprisingly, 59% of the participants in the survey said that all religions are valid. Really? How would that work out in mathematics? Suppose the problem called for factoring x2 – y2, and the four multiple choice answers were: a) (xy)(xy); b) (x-y)(x+y); c) (x-y)(x-y); d) (xy)(x-y). Suppose further that the class percentages for each answer was 45%, 2%, 33%, and 20%. Would any teacher in his right mind say that all the answers are valid? Then why is it that when it comes to the answers of life, people act so frivolously as to say that all of the answers are valid? Some might say that the most popular response was the correct one, but it is not. Does the fact that the correct response only received 2% of an affirmation mean that it is less valid? No! Truth is right regardless of the number of people who agree with it!
How far does this religious tolerance go? 82% said that they would consider marrying someone of a different “faith” (the Bible says there is only one, Eph. 4:5), but 78% said they “would never consider converting to another religion” (4). How inconsistent is this? 59% say that all religions are valid, but 78% would not switch. If it doesn’t matter what a person believes, why is it so difficult to change? Are people saying that they are more tolerant than they really are? Or is the influence of one’s early childhood religious experience just too dominating to break?
This statistic is a sad one, if it held up, because it would mean that people do not intend to change even if they learn the truth. What kind of allegiance is this? Would we admire people who were raised in idolatry for remaining with what is patently false? Would we revere Ruth if she had chosen to continue to worship Chemosh rather than becoming a follower of Jehovah? If Saul of Tarsus had told Jesus on the road to Damascus, “I cannot leave the religion into which I was born,” would we know him as the beloved apostle Paul? To change is noble if one is wrong. Perhaps this percentage is high because it asks what they would do instead of what they have actually done.
Of course, it might be that tolerance is a one-way street. As with political liberals, so religious liberals believe in tolerance—so long as tolerance is defined as others agreeing with them and allowing them to do whatever they wish. In Mike Demory’s October Iowa Messenger, e.g., he describes the situation that a young man of 23 found himself in. He was living in a denominational “mission” facility, which required residents to attend Bible study on Sunday afternoon and Wednesday evenings. Apparently, it was not sufficient that he attend worship, period; it had to be with them. Eventually, they scheduled a woman to teach; the young man explained to the head of the housing that he could not take part because of what the Scriptures teach about the role of women (1 Tim. 2:8-15). They told him that was his opinion and that he was still required to attend. After ten minutes he arose and left; the “tolerant” folks there expelled him from the housing.
One might think that, when a certain practice violates one’s conscience, those in charge might be “tolerant” enough to forego forcing someone to practice something contrary to what the Bible teaches, but, no, tolerance for many only works in their favor; they do not intend to extend it to others. Those who operate such a “mission” should be ashamed.
How Important Is It?
According to the survey, 24% said that religion was the most important thing in their lives (4). This would be a higher percent than in most nations. The disconcerting statistic is the next one: “22% said that religion was a part of their lives but that it was not that important” (4). A good follow-up question would be: “If religion is not that important, why do you bother with it at all?” We could provide multiple choice options for them to check:
a. My family members would not like it if I quit attending worship.
b. I have just enough fear of God to avoid quitting being a Christian altogether but not enough confidence in Him to do things His way instead of mine.
c. God is important to me but not as important as myself. Religion cannot be counted as important as family, job, or recreation.
d. I don’t want to burn any bridges; so I leave the door open to God in case I need to get back in. Someday I may have more time to devote to Him.
e. Other (please explain).
Do people think they do more for God than He does for them? He gave us “life and breath and all things” (Acts 17:25). He provided marriage and family life at the very beginning (Gen. 1:27-28). He gave the first work order so that man would have a sense of worth (Gen. 2:15). He provided a Paradise, which had to be altered because of sin (Gen. 3 and 6). He has made truth available to all of us so that we can know what pleases Him. He tells us the purpose we have for living (to glorify, honor, and serve Him) and what will happen to us after this life has ended. He gives us our daily bread and will forgive us of our sins when we repent and obey Him. He, through His providence, grants us opportunities to come to know Him better. Jesus died so that we might be saved from the sins that condemn us to an eternity apart from the goodness of God. Now, what is it that is more pressing than religion (our relationship to God)?
Another 22% said that religion was not a factor in their lives at all. The sad thing is that on the Day of Judgment, when everyone appears before the judgment seat of Christ, “religion” will be the key factor between salvation and damnation. It will suddenly become the most important thing to everyone, but a lifetime of ignoring God will not go unnoticed. A few seconds in His presence cannot undo or change the patterns of a lifetime. The time for the right priority is now!
Gary: Your argument on John 4:23-24 is incomprehensible. [Biff had said that God doesn’t put restrictions on worshipping in spirit and in truth by adding “and in one voice.”]
Your speculation on instruments [not being used be-cause of persecution] lacks merit. Persecution from Rome did not arise until the New Testament was nearly completed. There was no persecution in Jerusalem for several weeks—plenty of time to form several “gospel” bands. There was no persecution when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. People could have used flutes and other portable instruments quite easily. You have dismissed the significance of this Biblical fact without adequate thought and without citing any sources to establish your “thoughts.”
Actually, I never drink coffee or tea [Biff argued that we have no Biblical authority to consume caffeine]. But they are not authorized as religious acts or worship. If you replace the fruit of the vine with coffee and the un-leavened bread with pizza, you are wrong because there is no authority to do so. You should be able to recognize that Paul was speaking of things that Christians do as part of their religion and as part of their worship—not whether they wear pink or drive a Mercedes.
Biff: Also, talk of covenants and law aside, why would a God who previously enjoyed the sound of His followers worshiping with instruments and voice suddenly turn and despise all instruments?
Gary: No one said He suddenly despised all instruments, but the Old Covenant was decidedly more fleshly and the New is decidedly more spiritual.
Biff: So, I am having a good time learning and discussing with you about covenants and such, but in the end, I believe there is something that we keep glossing over which is the crux of the conversation.
Even if I take your view that the Old Testament is useless as a moral guide, I am still confused. Why would you assume that every single thing that we do must be mentioned in the New Testament [Colossians 3:17 is not an assumption, GWS]? Just because Jesus or the apostles didn’t do it doesn’t mean that we can’t, either. The examples in the New Testament are put there for us to learn from, not to reenact. Did the New Testament authorize you to use that computer you’re on? Did the New Testament tell you that you are allowed to wear anything but sandals? The answer is no. This is the main problem with your argument. If you were to follow this to the letter, you would be wearing sandals and robes living in the Middle East and preaching in synagogues.
The New Testament offers plenty of guidelines, but where it is silent, we must be silent.
Gary: It looks like the crux of the matter is that you have no desire to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18).
You also seem to have no desire to pay attention to anything that I explain. I already showed that we need authority for the way we worship and for what we teach, and all you can do is complain about the use of computers and being stuck wearing sandals. Do those have anything to do with the way we worship God as He has commanded? Exactly how do they relate to spiritual principles? You really need to find a way to discern these matters. You give no indication whether or not you understand the need for authority, period, let alone Colossians 3:17.
It is not MY view that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant: The Scriptures so declare. If you are going to take issue with them, fine. Explain why they don’t mean what they say, but don’t make it sound like I made these things up.
The Scriptures teach that we must be silent when something is not authorized. Have you considered Hebrews 7:11-14 yet? This example illustrates Colossians 3:17. There was no authority for one from Judah to be a priest. According to your view, Jesus could have said, “People from Judah were not told they couldn’t be priests.” That is not the point. Where is it authorized? It was not, and therefore Jesus could not be a priest until the law was changed. Where is the verse that states your view—that says, if you can’t find anything about it in the New Testament, you have carte blanche to do it?
Biff: Sorry for not responding for so long my friend, it was quite a hectic weekend.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I have one more question, the answer to which may or may not lead to more questions. You said that we need Jesus’ authority for everything we do in worship or anything regarding our spiritual lives, but not regarding whether we wear sandals or use computers etc, and you cite Col 3:17 to make that point? I’m just trying to condense our conversation to better understand it Thank you!
Gary: Yes, but Hebrews 7:12-14 illustrates how the need for authority in religion works. The Levites were authorized to serve as priests; no one from Judah was. God had to change the law in order for Jesus to be high priest.
Biff: I see. I get what you’re saying about the law having to be changed to allow Jesus to become our priest; that makes sense. The reason I brought up Col. 3:17 is that, if that verse is in fact saying that everything we do must be specifically authorized by the New Testament, then it seems that “whatever you do in word or deed” means just what it says, as you said earlier; there is nothing excluded here. If that verse is to be interpreted the way you interpret it, then ALL things that you do must have been authorized in the New Testament, not just our worship practices, right?
The reason I asked why you quoted Col. 3:17 earlier was that the way I have always interpreted that verse was that everything we do we should do for Jesus, like what is said a little later in Col. 3:23—”And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men.”
Gary: There is no issue with your understanding of Colossians 3:21—or with Colossians 3:17, if you apply other Biblical principles properly. For example, you brought up wearing certain types of clothing and sandals. It is the wearing of clothes that is authorized—in fact, modest apparel. The Bible never specifies WHAT clothing to wear. If it did, we would be bound by a particular design, but all manner of clothing was worn in various cultures, and not a word was said about it. What you were failing to distinguish before was between general and specific authority.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever traveled by bus, train, or airplane. Are those not authorized, therefore? Since they walked, rode a beast of burden, or traveled by boat, there is no specific mode of transportation authorized. All legitimate forms of travel are, therefore, authorized by the command to “GO.”
They had, however, instruments of music, and the fact that they did not use them is significant. If they were authorized, then any musical instrument invented since the first century would be all right to use. If God had said, “Make music,” they would be authorized, since one can definitely make music with instruments. But God only authorized singing in the New Testament.
Perhaps these few thoughts will help clarify the application of Colossians 3:17.
Biff: Hmm, that seems like a real stretch at this point… If I replace some words in your sentence, it still works just as well.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever worshiped with pianos nor guitars. Are they not authorized, therefore? Since they sang, met together in large places, there is no specific mode of worship- authorized. All legitimate forms of worship are, therefore, authorized by the command to “WORSHIP.”
At this point, you’re no longer using scripture or examples from the Bible to back up your position, you are making a large doctrinal statement based solely on your own supposition. That is where I again come back to when the Bible is silent, we must be silent.
Gary: I don’t mean to be unkind, but you simply refuse to see the point that the Holy Spirit makes through the inspired writers. This is not MY argument; these are not my words. The writer of Hebrews made the case that Jesus was not authorized to be a priest. Silence did not give Jesus permission to be a priest; it forbade him. Please study this passage carefully.
Biff: I don’t understand what you mean. I said I agree with the fact that the law had to change for Jesus to become our high priest. I’m not advocating that the Bible be silent. In fact, I’m advocating that the Bible be the only thing that we listen to. You’re right when you say, “Silence did not give Jesus permission to be a priest; it forbade him.” The problem is that God through the writer of Hebrews changed that law Himself. God was the one to speak, not man.
When you assume that your point of view is God’s point of view is when you get into trouble. Is it possible that the way you view this is incorrect? I am willing to say that my point of view could be false, and I would gladly renounce my view if I find that I am wrong. What about you? Are you humble enough to admit that you might be wrong?
Peace and love.
Gary: Yes, you admitted that the law had to be changed, but you’re still failing to see the Biblical principle of authority, which I have pointed out time and again to you from Colossians 3:17, as illustrated by Hebrews 7.
Your contention all along has been that silence gives us liberty to use the instrument in worship. Hebrews 7:12-14 says that silence does not grant liberty for their use; silence forbids their use.
“That is where I again come back to when the Bible is silent, we must be silent,” you say.
The silence of God regarding someone from the tribe of Judah being a priest did not authorize Jesus to be one. Had anyone tried to be a priest from Judah, God would have told him that His silence did not mean approval but prohibition.
Similarly, God’s silence in the NT regarding instrumental music does not constitute approval, but it prohibits their use. They are not authorized under the NT covenant.
If you understand this principle, you should be able to see which one of us is applying it correctly.
Of course, truth is the only thing that matters. If we have been taught incorrectly or arrived at an erroneous conclusion, the only appropriate thing to do is to harmonize ourselves to the truth—not try to get the truth to state our position.
Biff: So, if the New Testament had not included Hebrews 7, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to be our priest, because the Old Testament forbid it, right? If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then you just proved my point as well. The Old Testament approved of instruments being used for worship, and God did not change His stance on that; otherwise He would have said so, just like He did when he changed the law regarding the lineage of priests.
Gary: If the NT lacked Hebrews 7, which is a silly hypothesis since God included it, there would still be Colossians 3:17, which requires authority—not silence. The Bible also contains the same principle in the Old Testament. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire to the Lord, which He had not authorized (Lev. 10:1-2); fire went out from the Lord and devoured them. I fear that fire will consume you, also, since you are dull of hearing (Heb. 5:12).
Biff: I still don’t think you hear what I’m saying. If the Old Covenant only authorized Levites to be priests, then God had to specifically change that law for Jesus to be our priest. Likewise, if God did not want us to use instruments after changing the covenant, He would have said so. He authorized the use of it in the Old Covenant, so when the New Covenant came, He would have had to specify the change. Show quoted text.
Gary: Your conclusion is false. No one was authorized under the Old Testament to be a priest from the tribe of Judah, either—before God ever changed the Law. It was not authorized then, either. It is not wrong because God changed the Law (your point); it was wrong because it was never authorized.
God never said to quit worshiping on the Sabbath day, but He authorized a new day for worship—the first day of the week.
God does not need to name everything that came to an end under the Law. He did away with the whole Law. Forget all of it. Now, what does the New Covenant tell us to do?
I pray that some day you will see the point about needing authority for what we teach and practice (Col. 3:17).
[Editor’s note: Biff made no further reply. Whether he ever understood the point or simply could not respond to it is anyone’s guess. His main argument was that the New Testament should have to say that some practice (such as the use of musical instruments in worship) has ceased and is no longer in effect. Yet when it was pointed out to him that the New Testament nowhere says that Sabbath-day worship had come to an end, he had nothing to say. In Part 1, page 2, column 2, several things were listed that we do not have authority to use in New Testament worship: golden candlesticks, incense, a Most Holy Place. All of these were used under the old covenant, and not one of them was forbidden in the New Testament. This argument runs contrary to his position, and he never dealt directly with it.
He also failed to realize that Hebrews 7:11-14 was simply explaining the principle which had always been the case. God did inspire the writer of Hebrews to record this passage because He wanted it known that the Old Covenant was no longer in force. It had not been in force for years—whether or not He provided an explanation. It was wrong under the Law of Moses for someone not a Levite to be a priest, although God did not specifically say so. When Jeroboam made priests of just anyone, it was wrong because he had no authority from God to do so.
We have no authority from God to use instruments of music today, although they were used under the Law. If a person realizes that Jesus never worshipped with them, he should ask why not. If he further realizes that neither the apostles nor the church used them, he must consider that the reason is that they lacked Biblical authority for using them and therefore abstained from doing so.]
Biff: Hello my friend. I stumbled across your article on instruments being used in worship, and I find that I must disagree with at least this statement:
There are other verses which also mention singing. BUT there is NOT ONE that authorizes the use of musical instruments to accompany the singing. NOT ONE!! [Biff did not cite the article, but this statement obviously refers only to New Testament teaching.]
Maybe I am missing something. If so, I’d love to learn what it is in order to follow Christ in the way he would want me to.
Gary: Thank you for writing. Before I answer your question, so that I don’t waste time for both of us, may I ask you if it is your view that the Old Testament serves as a pattern of worship for us today?
Biff: It is my view that the Old Testament is valid un-less overwritten by the New Testament. God is unchanging, after all.
Gary: Yes, God is unchanging, but His covenants have changed. If you doubt that, I am willing to come look at the ark you are building. Prior to the Flood, God never authorized man to eat animals; that changed after the Flood (Gen. 9:1-2). He forbade certain meats under the Law of Moses, but He allows everything today under the Christian system (Acts 10:9-20). Did God change when He changed these laws?
Part of the Jewish covenant was the practice of circumcision, but that religious practice was not bound on Gentile Christians (1 Cor. 7:17-20; Acts 15:1, 4). Did God change when He changed the law?
Hebrews tells you that, in order for Christ to be a priest, there had to be a change in the law, since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and Moses had not authorized anyone but the Levites to be priests (study Hebrews 7:11-14).
The Law of Moses was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Did God change? No. People erroneously think that if He has different covenants for different ages that He has changed, but His unchangeable nature has nothing to do with the methods that He uses or the laws that He commands at a given time.
Today we are under the New Testament, and we must have authority from our covenant for everything that we teach or practice (Col. 3:17).
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever sang hymns with instruments of music. Why not? No church or group of Christians in the New Testament ever sang with musical instruments. Why not? We do not have any authority in the New Testament to use them—but only to sing.
We have no command to use instruments of music; we have no examples of them being used. There is nothing that implies their use. It is a simple matter of lacking Bible authority for the practice. If God wanted us to use them today, He would have authorized them.
Please think these things through carefully. Thank you for your correspondence.
Biff: I am not saying that God changes when the covenant changes, quite the opposite. In all those cases you cited when God changed the covenant or rules governing his followers, God specifically said that this is the way you should do things now, and the old way is no longer valid. In the case of worship and musical instruments, God never specified that there should be a change in operations; so it appears to me that the Old Covenant way of worshiping God with instruments is still valid.
Gary: I see that we are having trouble with words. You said: “It is my view that the Old Testament is valid unless overwritten by the New Testament. God is unchanging, after all.” What is the point of the last sentence, if it is not that the covenant cannot change since God cannot change?
You also ignored everything I presented—or else just considered it superficially. The entire Law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)—not just portions of it that God decided to replace. If the peculiar view you expressed were true (and you have not given a Scripture that upholds it), we would be spending months trying to figure out which portions of the old were true and which had been “replaced.”
The truth is that we are under the gospel—not the Law. Is it possible that you have never read Romans, Galatians, or Hebrews?
Biff: Hmm, I see. The way I’ve always looked at this was that Jesus came to complete Moses’ law, not abolish it. Or, in other terms: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17, KJV). I’m no expert, but I am pretty well versed in Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. I see the point that you’re making, that the law is dead, and all we have now is the New Covenant. To an extent, I agree. The law is chains, and the Holy Spirit is freedom, and that’s where I think that bringing up these books may have been a detriment to your argument. The new covenant gives us freedom. It seems against logic to say that the new covenant frees us from the law, yet because the New Testament Christians are never mentioned using instruments, we create a new law?
Also, I thought I had addressed the examples you gave by saying, “In all those cases you cited, when God changed the covenant or rules governing his followers, God specifically said that this is the way you should do things now, and the old way is no longer valid,” but I can see how the point I wished to make could have been lost in the poor sentence structure. What I mean is that in all the instances where God changes a law, He makes it clear that the law is changed.
Let me explain in more real terms. When God authorized humans to eat animals, He told Noah to go and subdue the earth. When God authorized humans to eat forbidden foods, He told Peter to rise and eat. When He did away with circumcision as a requirement, He told us specifically through the Divine inspiration of the apostles and had Luke write it for future generation’s reference. At no time did God inspire any apostles to write that we should not use instruments in our worship to God. It seems to me that if the New Testament is silent about an issue, then we must refer back to the laws God had previously established.
I appreciate the healthy discussion we are having on this topic. Thank you for being willing to share information with me on your views. I just don’t want to let something like this healthy discussion to turn into anything unhealthy.
Gary: It is good that you see the point about the Law; you seem to have an open mind. I am evaluating your statements as well. Let me add a little bit more to the preceding point. Since the Law was entirely taken away and replaced by the gospel system, we can only do those things authorized in the new system (Col. 3: 17). One cannot go back to the old to borrow something from it, since that covenant was terminated.
Jesus did fulfill all that was written concerning Him (Luke 24). Having fulfilled it all, it is no longer in effect. Nailing it to the cross is a powerful statement regarding its current ineffectiveness. We cannot have two covenants in effect at one and the same time (no man can serve two masters). The old has fallen away; we are under the new.
I can see why you might want to go to the Old Testament for a precedent, but it cannot work that way–especially as it pertains to worship. We do not have seven golden candlesticks in our church buildings; we do not burn incense day and night—or even in our Sunday worship. We do not have a holy place and a Most Holy Place separated by a veil. Where in the New Testament does it say to quit doing any of these? You argued that the New Testament makes it clear when something has ceased. My answer is that it does not do so because it is not necessary to do so, since the old covenant is fulfilled and finished.
We derive our authority for our teachings and practices from New Testament commands and teachings, from the approved examples that we find, and from implication. The use of instruments of music to accompany singing is not found in any of those.
And do you not think that this fact is significant—that they were accustomed to using instruments to praise God? Why did they suddenly and thoroughly cease using them—so that there is not a single mention anywhere?
Biff: Let me address this paragraph by paragraph. [He repeats the entire first paragraph and then says]:
“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, [do] all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him”? Is that the verse you meant to cite? It seems rather irrelevant to this topic to me. And as far as the last line in that paragraph, I think this is the main place that we disagree, the covenant was not terminated, it was completed. It was not destroyed, it was fulfilled. This is why I quoted the verse: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17, KJV). I quoted the whole thing again because it seems that one of us is either misunderstanding what Jesus says here or ignoring the basic facts. [Apparently, he could not grasp that, if it is fulfilled, it is no longer in effect. Concerning that explanation, he quoted the second paragraph and then commented]:
Again, “fulfill” does not mean that it has been destroyed, rather completed. The law was incomplete without Jesus’ sacrifice. Now with Jesus being nailed to the cross, the law was nailed with Him; so we no longer have to shed blood as a sacrifice. This does not mean that the entire old covenant was done away with, rather the condemnation that comes along with it (Rom 8:1). This is not two separate covenants, it is the old one being completed, creating a new covenant. (By the way, I was thinking about the statement, “We cannot have two covenants in effect at one and at the same time,” and the covenant with Noah comes to mind…. Do you suppose that God’s promise to Noah that He would not flood the earth again is void? Just a side thought…)
{After copying the third paragraph, he wrote]:
But it does. In John 4:21-24 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
In this passage, Jesus is saying that no longer do people have to worship God in one place in one way, soon everyone can freely worship God wherever they want in spirit and in truth. Notice, He doesn’t put restrictions on that. It doesn’t say, “and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth and in voice.” [After paragraph 4 he wrote]:
Again, I believe that if the New Testament is silent on an issue, we should refer to the Old Testament. [His final comments were]:
it probably had something to do with the fact that Christians were meeting illegally underground in house churches at the time, and instruments would draw attention to their gatherings. Also, instruments were not as widely used in that time anyway, so they most likely would be an afterthought when it came to planning their worship services.
In the end, it comes down to this: There are no Biblical grounds for your belief that all things must be specifically authorized in a positive way in the New Testament to make it right. There are hundreds of things that aren’t specifically authorized in the New Testament that we all do every day, including you. Did Jesus or the apostles authorize drinking caffeine [This approach seeks to trivialize God’s principle of authority, gws]? I haven’t found that verse yet, but I’ll keep looking. Yet I assume that you enjoy beginning your day with a hot cup of Folgers? My point is that if there are no teachings, examples or implications that something is wrong or sinful, then why place it in that category?
Gary: The best statement (and most pertinent one) that you made is that you do not understand the relevance of Colossians 3:17, though I have used it and cited it practically every time I have written you. It is not difficult, but here it is parsed. “And whatever you do [is there something excepted here?] in word [that means what you teach as the Word of God] or do [that means whatever you practice religiously], do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [that means by His authority; in other words, where does He authorize it?], giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”
This is the covenant of Christ, not Moses; it is given to all nations and people everywhere—not to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. It works like this: Do I have authority to sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs? Yes (Col. 3:16). Do I have authority from Jesus to sing these songs with musical accompaniment? No. There is no authority for it. There could not be anything more relevant to this discussion. Instead of glossing over it, why don’t you seriously think about this principle?
The Law is fulfilled and therefore done away with. God abolished it (Eph. 2:15). The Law was nailed to the cross. Where do you read in these words that a part of the law was nailed to the cross? Look at the context.
The covenant of which you speak regarding Noah was made with him AND his descendants AND all flesh (Gen. 9:9-11). Furthermore, there were no terms of obedience; it is a covenant of promise.
The Law of Moses required certain things; the Jews found more than 600 laws in it. The New Testament has different terms of obedience. These two covenants conflict with each other. They did not have the Lord’s Supper; we do not have an annual Day of Atonement. They were supposed to annihilate the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-5); we have no such command. Since the New Testament is silent about this, shall we go on a Crusade to kill any survivors? They had dietary restrictions, and we do not. They had the Sabbath day; we have the Lord’s day. The two covenants are DIFFERENT. We do not have a modified version; we have a different covenant, period. [Space prohibits the entire reply; the remainder of the correspondence will follow next week.]
Richard Dawkins, world-renowned atheist, appeared previously on The O’Reilly Factor when his book, The God Delusion, was popular. Their conversation on O’Reilly’s program was reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives on May 13, 2007. Now Dawkins has a new book that attempts to provide evidence for evolution, and he was on the Factor on Friday, October 9, 2009. The host began by playing a clip of part of the conversation from Dawkins’ former visit.
O’Reilly: Jesus was a real guy. I could see Him. You know, I know what He did, and so I’m not positive that Jesus is God, but I’m throwin’ in with Jesus rather than throwin’ in with you guys because you guys can’t tell me how it all got here. You guys don’t know.
Dawkins: We’re working on it.
O’Reilly: When you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.
O’Reilly began this new conversation between the two of them by advocating an untenable position: “I believe in creative design. I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power….” What?
Theistic Evolution
Why would anyone claim to believe in both creative design and evolution (at least, macro-evolution)? This claim sounds like someone trying to appease both sides of the debate. What is even more bizarre is that later in the interview Dawkins said: “You may think that God oversees evolution, and that’s a point of view you could probably defend….” Do our ears deceive us? Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and author of books that are anti-God and pro-evolution, is claiming that the position of theistic evolution is defensible? How wishy-washy is that? Of course, he does not believe theistic evolution for a second, but for him to assert that the position could be defended is incredible!
The position cannot be defended for the following reasons. First of all, it is false. Second, it is not logical. The proof of these two statements follows. Does the creation show design? Yes. There is no other way to say the following (nor does there need to be): If the creation shows design, then there must be a designer! If not, why not. Disorder and disarray do not produce design. Chaos does not generate a genesis. Has anyone ever left a messy living room with pizza boxes, soda cans, newspapers, and snacks strewn all over and entered the room the day after the Superbowl to find everything put into its proper place? The boxes and cans have somehow gravitated to trash cans; the popcorn bowls have washed themselves and returned to the cupboard on their own—without even having to be told to do so.
Has anyone ever seen a preacher’s cluttered office (no names, please) restore itself to proper order? Overnight, the books replaced themselves on the shelves, and all the papers were put in the appropriate folders and filed. If such simple disarray cannot order itself to a previous pattern of design, how much less likely is it that the office would deign itself in the first place? And yet evolutionists claim that the order in the universe and the precise conditions for life to exist on earth came from a huge explosion? That scenario is about like engineers blowing up part of a mountain only to find when the dust cleared, there was a paved road already laid down from the debris. Order is not so magically established.
So, O’Reilly is right to note that a design gave us the order we now perceive and enjoy. BUT, a design necessitates a designer. Now who might that be? The God of the Bible claims to be that Person in the very first line of His Book: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Are there claims for other deities? There are, but mythological explanations are not rational.
The Bible describes God creating the universe by the power of His Word: “For He spoke and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9). The world was not hatched from a giant, flying egg (which came from what, a giant, flying chicken?) or anything so equally absurd. Neither did life come from matter which was not living—something which is not only absurd but unscientific (since it has never been observed in any experiment—even with all of our technology).
Therefore, if the Bible claims to be from the One who created everything (which it does), and that explanation fits all the known evidence and contradicts neither established facts nor science (which it does not), then mankind has a decision to make. Either the Bible is the Word of God (as it claims), and should therefore be taken seriously and heeded, or it is not, in which case it is filled with lies throughout and should be discarded. No middle ground exists. To claim that the Bible is not really from God, but it contains some marvelous truths is to place its acceptance on a purely subjective basis. Who is the one who decides which parts are true and which are false? Such an outlook transports us back to chaos.
If the Bible reveals the truth about God (and it does, since He is the author), then we have an account of the creation from One who was there. Scientists attempt to learn all that they can about this universe, including its origin, and they should because we are all curious about the details. But regardless of the way God did it, the fact is He did it. Furthermore, He did provide some details of the way that He went about it, which are recorded in Genesis 1, which is not an allegory nor full of symbols, as the book of Revelation is. It is a straight-forward, no-spin, matter-of-fact description of what occurred. He created everything fully grown (capable of reproducing) and did not use an evolutionary process over millions of years.
The Bible plainly sets forth the truth, eliminating the need for the process of evolution. Besides, if God is the all-powerful being that He claims, why would He use a process that He neglected to tell us about, which contradicts the Genesis account—and which accomplishes what He could have done instantaneously in the first place? In other words, the position O’Reilly took means that the following occurred: God created some primordial muck and over billions of years He supervised the entire project until, at long last, man evolved. Despite this actual occurrence, however, when He decided to write it all down, He said that He did it all in six literal days and even based the Sabbath day observance on this fabrication. Adam and Eve are even treated as the first couple all throughout the Bible.
If God is powerful enough to create and oversee the development of all things over billions of years, He is powerful enough to create the world in six days just the way He wanted it in the first place. Evolution does not account for sin, the conscience, or the soul. Certainly, it requires no salvation. Only the Bible explains the origin of those concepts.
The Human Condition
Dawkins’ reply to O’Reilly’s opening statement was that it is not logical to throw in with Jesus just because science does not have all the answers. He said that at least science is working on them. Okay, it is the job of the unbiased scientist to discover the truths and facts that are available. Evolution, however, is scientific theory, and creationism fits the facts even better. The real clash is not the evidence but the way the evidence is interpreted. Evolutionary atheism is just as much of a religion as the Bible is. O’Reilly replied:
Here’s the problem that I have with throwing my lot in with science: Science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way, and Jesus did. And if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, we’d almost be an idyllic civilization. Am I 100% certain that Jesus is God? No, but I choose to believe that, because the man was so extraordinary in what He did in 33 years on earth [that what He did, GWS] still resonates to this day.
O’Reilly is right in the first part of his comments. Jesus and Christianity do advance the human condition because they teach that God had requirements of us as it pertains to the home and society (as well as the church). If people did not act selfishly but truly loved one another, we would need neither police nor prisons. Evolution, however, does not advance humanity at all. If it were true that man descended through animals, then we cannot be certain that we possess a soul that lives on after death. No Day of Judgment is suggested by the theory of evolution, and if man is a pure product of nature, morality is just a figment of his imagination. Objective standards cannot exist in such an environment. Death means extinction; so this life is the only time that we ever have a chance to attain pleasure and get what we want. Obviously, civil law stands no chance of being obeyed if Divine law does not exist.
However, a viewer could understand why Dawkins takes O’Reilly to task. He is not 100% sure that Jesus is God? How does one make a confession of faith with this attitude? “I believe with 75% of my being that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Is that what Timothy confessed in the presence of many witnesses (1 Tim 6: 12)? Either the evidence concerning Jesus is conclusive, or it is not. Either faith is based on evidence, or it is not. The evidence remains available in the Word.
Dawkins answers: “Why would you muddle up the question of giving you a moral compass for life, which is important, with the other question of explaining the nature of the world and life and the universe? That’s what science is about.” O’Reilly answered, “I understand that, and I don’t think my belief system contradicts science….” A better way of making this point is: “The Bible does not contradict genuine science.” But he might have asked, “If evolution is true, where does the idea of a moral compass come from? Why is it important to have one? And who determines what the moral compass is?” These would be interesting questions for the evolutionary atheist to answer.
Looking Down on Believers
Moving on to another topic, O’Reilly said that it seemed to him that people like Dawkins seemed “to look down on believers.” Dawkins did not deny the notion, but he tried to blame the arrogance of evolutionists on believers. He avowed there was a problem when theists
Try to say that, because you believe what you do, because of a holy book, and because of the way you’ve been brought up, therefore, that entitles you to go into science classes and tell teachers what they can and cannot teach.
Whoa! Who is it that tells teachers what to teach? Evolutionists will not allow for any other explanation than theirs although the evidence strongly supports the creation model. Many who are Christians today did not “inherit” the belief; they became persuaded because of the evidence. Dawkins is full of assumptions. O’Reilly shot back:
It’s not fair to leave it out of the science class if the science class is incomplete. You, by your own admission, say, “We don’t know how it all began.” So if the science class is gonna say, Evolution only, but I really don’t know how it all got started,” that gap has got to be explored.
Dawkins responded by saying that it illogical to say that, because science cannot fill a particular gap, people must turn to Christianity. O’Reilly interrupted, “You don’t have to turn anywhere; just present it.” Dawkins continued: “Just because science has a gap in its knowledge, that does not entitle you to turn to any other particular alternative. Pick on a better science.”
This statement is somewhat disingenuous. Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens stated what most atheists and Christians agree upon: Only two major explanations for the origin of the universe exist—creation or evolution. It is not science that has a gap; science has no vested interest in the outcome. It can only experiment and test a hypothesis. Evolution contains the gaps, and Dawkins attempts to prejudice the audience in his favor by always using the word science when he means evolution—as though the two were the same.
O’Reilly was having none of Dawkins’ assertions. He answered, “No, that’s Fascism. For you to say that you can’t mention… [There is always a few seconds of delay between the interviewer and the guest when the guest in not in the studio. Dawkins reacted to O’Reilly’s charge, but it took him until the word mention to do so. Suddenly, in the middle of O’Reilly’s sentence came an incredulous response: “Fascism?!” O’Reilly affirmed that he had heard correctly and then continued with his point by starting over again.]
“You can’t mention brilliant men…who do believe in a higher power…. You insist that you can’t even mention it. That’s Fascism, sir.” Dawkins primarily repeated that, “if a particular science theory doesn’t work, do some better science.” How true! The theory of evolution does not work; it falls flat on many levels and cannot explain gaps all over the place. So, why not allow the theory of intelligent design or the position that is set forth in the Bible to be taught? O’Reilly opined that, since the vast majority of people believe in the Bible, that it should be presented.
Superstition?
The closing comment on Round II of this subject was given to Dawkins, who said:
Science is unique in that it does base itself upon evidence rather than upon superstition, upon authority, upon holy books, or upon revelation.
If science were content to base itself on evidence, Christians would have no problem with it, since we too are interested in the truth. Some of the great scientists in the past believed in both science AND the Scriptures, and they found them to be compatible—not at odds with one another. The theory of evolution, however, is just that—a theory that has never been verified. Could continuing in the position of Darwin, although most of what he speculated upon as to the way evolution works has now been debunked, possibly constitute “authority”? Is The Origin of Species a holy book?
The Bible is not, as inferred, a product of superstition. It bears no resemblance to the tales of mythology. It deals with real peoples living in real places in real time. It dwells greatly on causality rather than happenstance. It actually avoids the superstitions of the times in which it was written and instead contains wisdom and practical advice that people to this day cannot fairly disagree with.
The Bible is a holy book and a Divine revelation; the only way we can learn certain portions of the truth is through the Supernatural One who created all things; we will never arrive at everything we need to know empirically. It is true, also, that the Word of God is authoritative, but if it is what it claims to be, how could it not be? Could God give any commands unless He had the authority to back them up? Who else has the knowledge and is capable of communicating the truth?
“In the beginning, God….” This is not guesswork or superstition. The natural world proclaims intelligent design, which necessitates a designer. From the Supernatural world comes the proclamation of truth. Both proclaim the existence of God. it is not a matter of superstition but of logic and evidence (see Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-20). The reason that people believe the Bible is that it is harmonious with what is revealed through nature and it is consistent with life’s truths and harmonious within itself. Were it simply a compilation of myths and superstitions, it would be as disregarded as Ovid’s The Metamorphoses. It also answers life’s questions.
By now most have undoubtedly heard of the two events referenced in the above title. Three attributes of these events link them together: 1) they both involve men whose views of life would be considered liberal; 2) they both involve immoral actions; and 3) they both have elicited pleas for tolerance toward the guilty. The one huge difference is that what Polanski did was not only immoral; it violated laws of decency and of society.
Letterman
David Letterman has hosted the Late Night Talk Show for CBS for more than fifteen years. His humor sometimes crosses the line from “all in good fun” to vicious, but he has millions of fans and has popularized the Top Ten List. On Thursday, October 1, he announced on his show that he had over the years engaged in sexual relationships with women staffers much younger than he is. Why would he announce such a thing?
A producer of 48 Hours attempted to blackmail Letterman for two million dollars. This producer’s live-in girlfriend was formerly a staffer for Letterman, and she had kept a secret diary of what had occurred. The producer had threatened to write a screenplay of the entire affair, including e-mails of a prurient nature that were exchanged. Letterman went to law enforcement authorities, and the producer was arrested in the act of felony extortion.
What the producer had learned (and which others must have known) was that Letterman had a special room, nicknamed “the bunker” at the studio in the Ed Sullivan Theater where he “entertained” these younger women. Letterman’s wife is tremendously upset, even though they have only been married since March; they lived together for several years prior to their marriage and have a 5-year-old son. What a moral mess this entire thing is to figure out.
It is difficult to find any nobility anywhere in this situation. First of all, blackmail is ugly, and no one should allow another to have that kind of power over him. Letterman did the right thing in stopping it before it began. Surely, he could afford the two million, which is probably less than 10% of his annual salary, but money is not the issue. Would it be a one-time demand? Would others follow suit? It is better to admit what one has done wrong than to constantly wonder when the next demand is coming or from whom.
However, the immorality that led to the blackmail is disgusting. There was a time in this nation that a man keeping such a room in a studio probably would have been fired immediately and lost most of his fans. On Monday evening (October 5, 2009), however, Dave came out to a standing ovation with a couple of rounds of cheers for support. It shows something about the decline of this nation when a person who has disgraced himself continues to have his job and popular support
The young women were, apparently, willing accomplices in these trysts; the woman who kept the diary went on to become someone else’s “live-in,” and the wounded wife—well, how many years did she live in fornication with Dave before they married? Has no one heard that it is dangerous to participate in carnal pleasures outside of marriage (Heb. 13:4)? Their child is too young to comprehend all of what has been occurring, but he will know when he is of age. What kind of example does this sordid situation set for him?
This exposure of wrongdoing proved not to be ruinous for Letterman as he came out to face a crowd that enthusiastically greeted him. His jokes were actually funny, considering his dismal circumstance; for a change they were made at his own expense. He commented, “Right now I would give anything to be hiking on the Appalachian Trail” (did he mean that he wanted to be in Peru and have an aide alibi for him)?
“I got into the car this morning, and the navigation lady wasn’t speaking to me.”
“It’s fall here in New York City, and I spent the whole weekend raking my hate mail.”
“It’s cold, too—chilly outside and chilly inside my house.”
“Normally, when I’m shaken down for money, it’s my relatives.”
Despite the humor, there was an undercurrent of sorrow. Letterman acted as if he had some news about Bill Clinton, but then he stopped. Of course, the audience knew how many times he had targeted the former president’s escapades. Then he acted is if he were about to say something about South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford (who was not hiking on the Appalachian Trail) and paused again. To complete the trilogy, he mentioned the name of former New York governor, Elliott Spitzer (who used government funds to pay for a high-priced prostitute).
Having made a living at other people’s expense, now is it his turn to become a byword with respect to his problems? Will people henceforth refer to Letterman and his bunker? On a serious note, he later mentioned how hurt his wife was and that it was going to take a lot of work to regain her trust.
Many people sympathize with the one who must endure such torment, but at the same time justifiable anger also surfaces. People always agonize—when they get caught—when evil actions become public knowledge. Did they never realize that it was always a possibility that their sins would find them out? Anyone thinking about echoing this kind of behavior should first think of the effects of their actions.
“How will people react when they discover what I’ve been doing? Will someone feel betrayed? Will others be disappointed? Will it forever alter certain people’s views of me? How will I explain my actions? Do I expect everyone to approve? Would I approve if my wife had done what I’m doing? How would it affect how I look at my best friend?” No one has to wonder what view God takes of the matter; He has been explicit on both adultery and fornication.
What Dave (and others like him) is guilty of is selfishness. What else is it when someone puts aside the feelings and reactions of everyone else (especially those close to him) in order to engage in sensual pleasures with various women of his choosing? And why is the person in this position usually only penitent once his actions are known? Could disclosure not be foreseen? Evidently, the prospect of gratification in the present is worth the enormous risk of being discovered later. If Letterman is very fortunate, his wife may forgive him, but it is doubtful that their marriage would stand a recurrence; so he had better be serious concerning the termination of his philandering. Others should take fair warning: All that is held dear is the risk taken for selfish sexual satisfaction.
Roman Polanski
Although Letterman’s actions were immoral, at least they involved consenting adults. Roman Polanski perpetrated his immorality on a 13-year-old girl. His actions were not only despicably immoral, they were also illegal. Polanski has never taken responsibility for his actions (although he did bestow upon his victim a cash settlement), and he has never paid for his crime civilly because he fled the country.
Prior to the date of this attack on a minor, Polanski was a sympathetic figure. He was a survivor of the Holocaust, which would scar most people. In 1969 his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by Charles Manson and his cult. Both of these engender great compassion for one who had endured such tragedies. But they cannot excuse his assault upon a girl barely in her teens; in fact, they make the matter worse, since he, of all people, should have avoided harming a fellow human being in any way.
He has had great success as a filmmaker, known for Rosemary’s Baby (1966) and Chinatown (1974). The Pianist (2002) won three Academy Awards, including Best Director. However in 1977, at the age of 44, he plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne mixed with part of a Quaalude tablet and abused her sexually. He fled the country before sentencing, and now, three decades later, he has been arrested in Switzerland to see if the United States desires to extradite him.
It has been interesting to see how Hollywood celebrities have fallen all over themselves to defend Polanski. Some think that since it was so long ago that we should forget about it. Does the passage of time absolve him from what he did? However long it might be until the Day of Judgment, God will not forget his deeds. Like everyone else, Polanski will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, give an account of himself, and receive the things done in his body (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). Time is good for many things, but it does not change guilt into innocence. Genuine repentance, however, would be of great value.
Being a celebrity cannot excuse unlawful, immoral behavior, but most of the Hollywood crowd has leaped to Polanski’s defense. In fact, 100 Hollywood supporters signed a statement, saying that the whole matter should be dropped. Among them were Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, who referred to the event as a “so-called crime,” Whoopi Goldberg, who said on The View, “It wasn’t rape rape,” and Martin Scorsese, who produced the blasphemous movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. According to Roger Hedgecock’s October 5, 2009 column, a”high-powered Washington lawyer (and friend of Attorney General Eric Holder) has been retained to fight Polanski’s extradition.” Holder lost all credibility when he refused to prosecute two Black Panthers, one of which was armed with a club, who were intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place. He did choose, however, to investigate CIA agents who prevented terrorist attacks on America.
Not everyone, fortunately, feels like defending Polanski. Kirstie Alley stated the fact plainly: “There is NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUAL SEX with a 13- year-old girl.’
Comedian Dennis Miller said on The O’Reilly Factor, Wednesday, September 30, 2009 that initially he had thought that the state of California should just accept a couple million dollars from Polanski in fines and call it even. Then he read the transcript of the trial and concluded that, if the state of California needs to use its last cent to extradite and incarcerate him, it would be worth it. He encouraged all who are interested in the case to read the transcript of the trial and then make a decision regarding what ought to be done.
On October 1, 2009, comedian Chris Rock, on the Jay Leno Show, said:
People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies? Are you kiddin’ me? He made good movies 30 years ago. C’mon. Even Johnnie Cochran don’t have the nerve to go: “Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?”
Although made humorously, this is an excellent argument. Just because someone has a talent in a certain area does not absolve him from crimes he may commit. A man may be a community leader and an entrepreneur. If he has brought 100 jobs to the community and revitalized the town, will those good deeds exonerate him if he kills his business partner? Of course not. While everyone can rejoice in the productive actions of others, those kindnesses cannot be viewed as a license to kill—or to commit other horrible acts against one’s fellow human beings.
John Gacy was a businessman and a political activist; he had his picture taken with Rosalynn Carter in 1978—shortly before being arrested for the murders of 33 boys. One wonders if, had he been able to flee the country along with Roman Polanski, how many today would be saying that what he did was such a long time ago. While he was on “death row” for fourteen years, he managed to paint a number of pictures. Could his painting redeem him from being one of the worst mass murderers in American history? We will never know because, when they were auctioned off, 25 of them were burned—destroyed. Some, including family members of the victims, did not want him to be famous for anything else.
Of course, the good film work that Polanski did is already in the public eye, but he is not worthy of being remembered for anything but his crime—so heinous was its nature. Nadab and Abihu may have accomplished outstanding things for God, but they are remembered for their transgression. Achan may have been a valiant warrior, but he is remembered for his theft. Who knows how many miracles Judas worked or how many he might have baptized? He is remembered for betraying Jesus.
So let it be with Polanski. It was not as though he made a tiny error—committing adultery on the spur of the moment with a consenting adult and regretting it immediately afterward. No, he actually said that he did not think he had hurt anyone by his actions. He deserves what little earthly punishment his crime merits—and to be remembered for his perversion.
“The memory of the righteous is blessed,
but the name of the wicked will rot” (Pr. 10:7).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HOW TO BE PERFECTLY MISERABLE
1. Think about yourself.
2. Talk about yourself.
3. Use “I” as often as possible.
4. Mirror yourself continually in the opinion of others.
5. Listen greedily to what people say about you.
6. Expect to be appreciated.
7. Be suspicious.
8. Be jealous and envious.
9. Be sensitive to slights.
10. Never forgive a criticism.
11. Trust nobody but yourself.
12. Insist on consideration and respect.
13. Demand agreement with your own views on everything.
14. Sulk when people are not grateful to you for favors shown.
15. Never forget a service you may have rendered.
16. Be on the lookout for a good time for yourself.
17. Shirk your duties if you can.
18. Do as little as possible for others.
19. Love yourself supremely.
20. Be selfish.
Over the years some men have always been at the forefront of advocating fellowship with error. In the 60s the leaders of apostasy were W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett. They were joined in the 70s by Mission Magazine. In the 80s Rubel Shelly defected to the ranks of those who desired to fellowship denominations, and the Joplin Unity Meeting went along for the ride. Many of the Christian colleges climbed on board, and sailed on Max Lucado’s Fellowship. Who would have thought having all this loose fellowship with unauthorized religious denominations would eventually result in seeking out Muslims?
On Saturday, September 19, 2009, the Orlando Sentinel published just such an account: “Some Christians Join Muslims in Fasting during Ramadan” (all quotes are from page A13). What kind of pinheads would do such a thing? Try to keep your teeth in your mouth: the answer is Ben Ries of the Sterling Drive Church of Christ in Bellingham, Washington. No, this is not a joke; neither is the truth particularly funny, either.
According to the Associated Press article by Eric Gorski, the “pastor” of the Sterling Drive Church of Christ sought out local Muslims to join with them in their Ramadan observance. He fasts by day and meets with them in the evening “to find fellowship and break the fast with a handful of dates and a welcome glass of water.” This nightly meeting has opened his eyes “to their graciousness and hospitality.”
Ries said that he was questioned by members “of his flock.” One can only pray that someone in this ”church” might be better spiritually informed than this man is. The first question should have been: “What are you thinking?” The second one should be: “When are you going to repent and quit such a practice?” Can anyone honestly imagine Jesus participating in any religious practice begun by a false prophet? Anyone who actually can has not been reading the New Testament.
Jude, the Lord’s brother, advised brethren to contend for the faith, not compromise the faith (v. 3). Paul marked false teachers and encouraged brethren to do the same (Rom. 16:17-18). The chief priests, elders, and scribes crucified Jesus because He admitted to being the Son of God. Muhammad could have participated in that action because he denied the Deity of Jesus, also. The Qur’an records:
…Christians say, “The Messiah is a Son of God.” Such the sayings of their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How they are misguided! They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, the son of Mary, for Lords beside God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! (Sura 9:30-31).
Despite these facts, Ries protests:
There is no violation of my own faith in this. The concern is that somehow, I’m endorsing this other path. But I tell people I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he is the way, the truth, and the life. But I believe I don’t get to say who goes to hell and who doesn’t. That’s God’s job.
Such “brilliance” is rarely seen today—fortunately. This verbal gibberish probably does not merit analysis, but it is going to receive some. Ries may not be violating his faith, but he is trampling all over the faith. He might profit from reading again 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, since it has apparently been awhile.
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
To be sure, Paul has in mind specifically not fellowshipping with idols (v. 16), but the principles remain applicable regardless of what the error (the darkness) is. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. As such, they will be lost. Jesus said: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Not only do Muslims reject Jesus as the Son of God, Muhammad condemned such a view and wrote, “God do battle with them!”
How can believers have spiritual fellowship with unbelievers? If Ries reads the Qur’an long enough, he may stumble across these words of Muhammad: O believers! Take not Jews or Christians as friends” (Sura 5:56). Does this statement seem ambiguous? Will learned theologians be required to decipher the mystical meaning of this verse? How about if we “lay” people make an attempt to explain it?
First, since Muhammad was addressing his own people, by believers he must mean his followers, Muslims. Second, two groups of people are not to be taken as friends; a friendship relationship is not to be developed with these two classifications of individuals. The third fact is that those two groups are Jews and Christians. Jews are those who follow (at least to some extent) the Old Testament, the Law of Moses, and reject the New Testament, the gospel of Christ. Christians do follow the New Testament, the gospel of Christ.
Ries says that he believes that Jesus is the way; so if the Muslims he has been celebrating Ramadan with know he is a Christian, a problem exists. Either they do not know what Muhammad taught, or they are ignoring their prophet. (A third option is that they cannot figure Ries out and are just flabbergasted.) It is unlikely that they do not know what Muhammad wrote. Do they disagree with the Qur’an, their holy book? If they disagree in one point, they must deny all of it, and such a thing is most unlikely. Is it possible that they have assumed a friendly posture until such time as they gain control of the nation? Look at how friendly they are to Jews and Christians in nations where they exercise control. Hmm.
Concerning the remarks about getting to say who goes to heaven or hell, such explanations are evasive. The Lord explained Himself clearly, as John 8:24 made known. Those who reject Christ will be lost. Such is not our judgment, but that of Jesus. No man comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). Neither Jews nor Muslims are exceptions. We need not sit around and wonder if these people are lost; they are. To indicate that we will not be their judge is superfluous. We all know God’s determination in the matter.
We do not, however, have any animosity toward them or anyone else. God loves them; Jesus died for their sins, also (1 John 2:2), and our prayer is that they might be saved. We can also be genuine friends with them, but that does not include participating in their worship or fellowshipping error.
The “Emerging” or “Emergent” Church
The same article ties Ben Ries to Brian McLaren, a leader in the Emergent Church movement. According to Gorski, “Ries is among a small group of Christians who’ve joined well-known evangelical author and speaker Brian McLaren….” What this sentence tells us is that Ries was already drawing water from the wells of compromise before following McLaren in his “reaching out” to Muslims.
McLaren says of his Christian-Muslim fast fiasco that “it’s a neighborly gesture of solidarity that deepens their respective faiths and sends a message about finding peace and common ground.” Behold, the Ted Jason of religion! (To understand this allusion, read Allen Drury’s Come Nineveh! Come Tyre!) Being neighborly is always a Christian attribute, but Christianity and Islam cannot possess solidarity. Peace would be wonderful if Muslims would be content to fight with ideas and words rather than terrorism and bombs. The only common ground that exists among Jews, Christians, and Muslims is that we all believe in Jehovah. After acknowledging that common belief, we all depart in different directions.
Who is McLaren? He is described as “the godfather” of “a looseknit movement that seeks to recover ancient Christian worship practices and, in some cases, question traditional evangelical theology.” This is a bit of an understatement. According to the Wikipedia, McLaren has said: “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God.” This statement is misleading at best.
First, he arranges a false dichotomy—that salvation must come either by objective truth or by Jesus. He may have graduated summa cum laude from the University of Maryland (with a B.A. in English) in 1978, but in theology he cannot receive passing marks. Does Jesus save people? Yes. One wonders why he did not say, “saved from their sins.” Does he believe in sin, and if not, what does Jesus save from?
But is man not also saved by objective truth? The Scriptures answer, “Yes!” Jesus told Pilate that He came into the world to bear witness of the truth (John 18:37). He prayed that the Father would sanctify His apostles through the truth, adding, “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). Is it possible that McLaren is unfamiliar with one of the most often-quoted verses in the Bible?
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
The Lord thought objective truth was important and that it played a part in setting us free from sin. Since the objective truth is also the Word of God, McLaren ought to be reminded of James’ plea that brethren “receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save their souls” (1:21). God has a few times revealed Himself personally, as at the burning bush, but both then and at other times He has always used the medium of words. When Moses bowed in His presence at the burning bush, God did not just “radiate” His will to him. He spoke words and reasoned with this shepherd of 40 years.
When Jesus was with His disciples, He taught them with words; He did not tell them to just sit around, meditate, and try to pick up His thoughts through telepathy. Nor when He taught them did He say, “You are free to decide personally what ‘love one another’ means to you.” Commands and teachings are objective in nature; to insist otherwise is merely an attempt to obfuscate the genuine meaning of a text. Just because there may be a few texts that are ambiguous to us does not mean that they were obscure to the apostles or that no one can understand them.
When God prohibited the use of molten or graven images, for example, some “emergent” souls among the Israelites undoubtedly said, “To some people, that prohibition probably excludes most images, but we think that a golden calf, under our definition of truth, is not included. Therefore, we think that, according to our subjective truth and understanding (and, remember, no one has the right to judge us), a golden calf to represent God would be acceptable.” The results of that experiment are well-known. The purpose for the “emergent” church is for men to make religion into whatever they want.
When McLaren says their faith is not in their knowledge but in their God, he presents another false choice. Our faith in God comes from the knowledge concerning Himself that He has given us; how else would we get it—through osmosis, or contemplating our navels? For anyone to argue that we understand God subjectively, intuitively, or through “feeling” or sensing Him runs contrary to the whole tenor of the Bible. If God were going to communicate to people in that way, He would have had no need to inspire the Bible. The fact that we have the Bible proves that He chose to communicate with us in a way that involves knowledge. Our faith is built on the knowledge that we have. In fact, John says He recorded the miracles of Jesus so that we would have the proper evidence we need to believe (John 20:30-31).
According to the Wikipedia, McLaren also said the following gobbledegook:
I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts…rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … (A Generous Orthodoxy 260, 262).
What do these words mean? If we were all postmodernists, as McLaren is, they could mean anything we wanted them to, but since our approach is to discern the meaning intended (instead of making up the meaning desired), our interpretation is that he thinks people can be “Christians” and still remain Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish. He further seems to be saying that we should not pronounce judgments against those who are in religions other than ours. This faulty notion was dealt with earlier. The “paradox” does not revolve around what we think but about what God declared. None of us might know how McLaren “interprets” John 14:6, but we all know what God meant by it.
“Emerging” Morality
Not only does objective truth not exist in the “emergent” church, neither does objective morality. The Bible is clear, for example, concerning its teaching on homosexuality (Gen. 19:4-5; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26, Jude 6, et al.), but such is not the case for the godfather McLaren. Once again he is quoted on the Wikipedia Website:
If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are ((nuanced)) and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
Does anybody understand this sidestepping effort? The Biblical arguments are ((nuanced))? How much of a nuance can be made out of calling homosexuality a vile passion and “against nature”? Is there something about the adjective vile that makes people think that the practice is probably acceptable? Where are these multi-layered arguments in the Bible?
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the practice (Gen. 19:4-5), Moses commanded two homosexual males to be put to death, Paul was already cited, and Jude said that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as an example. Their “suffering of the vengeance of eternal fire” shows what happens to those who have given themselves over to sexual immorality and going after strange flesh (v. 6). In place of nuances and multilayered, Biblical arguments, we see straightforward language. If we understand language at all, we know that God considers homosexuality an abomination; the matter is simply not complicated.
All that postmodernism does is to lamely attempt to undo the obvious force of language in an effort to undermine the Word of God. At the very least, it tries to make doctrine subservient to personal experience and subjective thinking. It fails because no one can argue in its favor except by the use of words (which are allegedly) subject to interpretation. Its ultimate destination is to accept everyone else’s beliefs as equal to the truth by denying objective truth in the first place. Then it seeks to eradicate moral principles on the same basis. The Bible warns against putting darkness for light (Isa. 5:20).
It was billed as “The Great Debate,” but it could not hold a candle to The Warren-Flew Debate (1976) or Warren-Matson (1978). Part of the reason was the format: the main speeches were five minutes, and the rebuttals were only two. It would be difficult to make even one good argument in that length of time; so instead, the audience received interesting points on both sides and a few good sound bytes.
Another limitation was the broad scope of the discussion. They took it upon themselves to try to deal with, not one, but three questions, which meant that none of them received adequate attention. Also, there were no overheads or PowerPoint. Even though there were about 7,000 in attendance, one wonders how anyone knew of the event, since UCF did not even post it on their Website.
Representing the atheists was Christopher Hitchens, an Englishman somewhat reminiscent of Flew at times in his ability to babble without saying anything meaningful; he is the author of the book, god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Representing the Christian position was Dinesh D’Souza, author of the book, What’s So Great About Christianity? The two had held a similar debate in New York City but with only about one-fourth the turnout.
“What About God?”
This first topic is obviously not put in the form of a proposition; it comes across more like a casual curiosity. Apparently people cannot endure something as harsh as, “I know that God does not exist” with 20-minute speeches, in which the assertion is supported with evidence. Hitchens began by saying that one of the most important things in life was taking risks. (If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. So on what basis did he conclude that taking risks is one of the important things in life?)
Second, he agreed with Socrates that everything must be doubted. Does this maxim include everything? If so, then we must doubt the truthfulness of the statement that everything must be doubted. If we doubt that assertion, then it means that some things are not to be doubted, which involves us in self-contradiction.
He argues correctly that there are lots of things we do not know and provided several examples. Uh, okay, but the fact that we do not know all things does not mean that we cannot know some things. Hitchens then said that faith is useless, although no proof was given. Apparently we are supposed to agree with him because: a) he is English, b) he is intelligent enough to be an atheist, or 3) we had not yet heard his opponent.
He postulated that if you believe Christianity, you can believe the Muslim religion; one is as good as another. It is doubtful, judging from the question he asked D’Souza later, that he even believes that one himself (see the final paragraph).
Hitchens spoke against a God who decided everything before you were born. Whether D’Souza believes in Calvinism or not, he did not say, but apparently Hitchens thinks that pre-destination represents the Christian view. It does not. One of the observations about Flew was that he ripped apart Calvinists when he debated them (since their position is faulty), but he could do nothing against Warren, since he did not make Calvinistic arguments.
A final comment from the first speech was that one could just as easily argue that being a Christian made one a worse person as a better person. This assertion is laughable and does not square with reality. One wonders why one of the nation’s top “intellectuals” would say something so inane. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that notion; he said that the Bible made people better husbands, wives, and citizens.
D’Souza’s First Reply and Follow-up Comments
Dinesh (no religious affiliation was named) devoted himself to making one main point. He said that Religion (God) and Science have the same root. Science answers how man came to be; religion answers why, and therefore there need be no conflict between the two. He said that science uses inference to draw deductions while Christianity relies on revelation.
In answer to the objection that God cannot be seen (and therefore lacks empirical evidence as proof for Him), D’Souza made the argument that even scientists explain phenomena in terms of the effects of something they cannot see. In order to explain certain observable phenomena in the universe, scientists have postulated dark matter and dark energy. According to the theory, dark matter and energy comprise about 95% of all matter and energy. Likewise God is the unseen causality in the universe that explains the effects that are observable.
The speech was concluded by affirming that only the Hebrews’ account of the creation matches the scientific one. The Bible says there was no universe—then suddenly there was one, which is what occurred.
In Hitchens’ first rebuttal, he did not offer much except to say that the universe was flying apart at a fantastic rate and that future organisms, who will be far different from us, will observe our sun burning out. His claim about human beings being entirely different organisms was nothing but an assumption.
D’Souza’s rebuttal included two observations. First, he called the audience’s attention to the fact that he was not using the Scriptures to combat his opponent; he was arguing from reason alone. Second, he used an updated version of an illustration advocated by brother Warren: If a Voyager explorer landed on another planet and recorded that there were cities there, including skyscrapers, roads, etc., we would conclude—without having ever seen a single individual—that intelligent life lived there and had designed these things. Intricate design proves an intelligent designer. So it is with the universe.
What About Christianity and Other Religions?
Dawkins’ statement, “9-11 was a faith-based initiative,” was refuted on the basis that the Muslim religion is the only world religion that kills. This was not the best point to make in light of various examples used later. A better point by D’Souza was that other religions instruct people how to ascend to God. Christianity is the only one that brought God down to man’s level.
He also said that atheists often make the argument that people are only Christians because they were born in America; had they been born in Iraq, they would probably be Muslims. He then responded to that argument by saying that “the presence of diversity does not mean the absence of truth.”
The first speech Hitchens gave on this topic covered a great deal of territory. He said that the fascism of Nazi Germany was compatible with Christianity by virtue of the fact that all of the churches in Germany celebrated Hitler’s birthday. (Was that a law, by any chance? Christianity was compatible with Imperial Rome or any other government; it is not a political system. This is different from saying that Fascism follows Christian principles.)
Next, Hitchens tried to tie Emperor Hirohito’s Japan to a religion-based country with the emperor as god. He compared the kamikaze pilots to Muslim terrorists. He wanted to know what the virgin birth and the resurrection have to do with morality. (Although there is no inherent link, the Bible makes one. The resurrection, which Jesus prophesied, proves that His claims are true—that He is the Son of God. It also validates His moral teachings as well).
“What is the value of love?” Hitchens wanted to know, “since it is unquantifiable? And what is its value if it is compulsory? What value are love and fear, since they both must be commanded? And why love anyone else, since it is commanded?” He affirmed that no one can love another as he loves himself; so everyone always stands guilty before God.
The response was not as good as the questions. Dinesh said that love was voluntary not compulsory. Much more could be said about these questions. First, love is a commandment. Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, and He spoke of loving God and one’s neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). Does a command nullify the value of what is accomplished? Was Hitchens ever taught, “Don’t touch the stove; it will burn you”? If he obeyed the command, the effect was good—he was safe from being burned. If he loved God because it is commanded, he would also be kept from being burned. Everyone still has the free will to keep the commandment or not. The fact that we are commanded to do something does not negate the value of it. Husbands are taught to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Does the command make compliance void? Few will agree with his conclusion.
The fact is that we do not keep commandments perfectly. We cannot “be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect.” We continually fall short, which is the reason that God continually extends grace to the faithful. While we do not attain the ideal, it remains our goal.
The atheist protested that Adam and Eve were punished for their curiosity—for seeking knowledge. They were not punished for wanting to learn in general; they sinned by seeking the kind of knowledge that was forbidden—one that directly violated God’s authority.
Hitchens said that Jesus’ promise to return with a kingdom was a vain and sad promise. He added that “Christianity is all man-made, and it shows.” No, Jesus received His spiritual kingdom when He ascended into heaven. Premillennialism is a false doctrine.
“What about Science and Religion?”
The first comment that Hitchens made was that a man can be a good scientist but hold crackpot views (on religion, presumably). He cited two examples of men who were excellent scientists but who also held strange, unscientific views. One made several attempts at alchemy, and the other was a spiritist. This is a point worth considering but is easily answered. In the 1800s the idea of alchemy was very popular, but experiments proved the idea wrong, which is good science. Spiritism was also popular; no less a logical thinker than Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, was a “believer.” The reason these two things do not compare to scientists who believe the Bible is that the Bible is not a fad, like alchemy, spiritism, or phrenology. The Bible is a well- attested document and legitimate since its inception.
The Bible is deficient, according to Hitchens, because it does not know anything about marsupials. It does not mention cats, either. What are we to make of that? It does, however, mention fools (Ps. 19:1).
D’Souza turned Hitchens’ argument back on him by saying that many atheists are illogical and irrational. As an example, he described the response that someone would have if they picked up a Shakespearian play. No one would assume that a monkey just sat at a keyboard and typed such an intricate thing. Intelligence was required.
The comments on this fact sidestepped the issue entirely. Hitchens spent his response time saying that we do not know whether Shakespeare wrote Hamlet or some other author. D’Souza replied that he had never commented on proving who the author was—but that the evidence showed that the play itself had an author. A reading of the play was sufficient to know that an intelligent being wrote it.
Personal Questions
Each debater was allowed to ask his opponent one question he would like for him to answer. Hitchens wanted to know on what basis anyone could be a Christian, since religion itself is false, of dubious historicity, and of no value, morally speaking. D’Souza wondered how he could question the historicity of Christ or Christianity. One might debate its value but not its factual basis. He pointed out that one does not need to believe Muhammad’s doctrine to note the historicity of what occurred.
Hitchens made one of the most peculiar statements of the evening when he said he did not doubt the sincerity of the Christians who were put to death. It is this fanaticism, he averred, that proved to him that Christianity is not legitimate. What? Does he believe nothing is worth dying for? Apparently, he would not defend his country or save someone from a burning building. His wife should learn martial arts because he might consider it too fanatical to give his life to save her.
The personal question that D’Souza asked Hitchens was: “Have you ever had any doubts about your atheistic position?” He did not answer that question. Instead, he spent his time responding to Pascal’s Wager, which results in the question: “What will you do if you discover there is a Day of Judgment and that God exists?” He answered that he would probably agree with Bertrand Russell and tell God that He should have given us more evidence (which is foolish, since God gave us both a natural and a supernatural revelation of His power and Godhead, Romans 1:18-20). He added: “I might also say that anyone can make an honest mistake, and of this one I am proud.” (Hopefully, he will remember to hold up his head high in the flames.)
Audience Questions
Three questions had been submitted ahead of time for the debaters. Hitchens was asked how he explained men like Stalin and other Communists and their killing of millions in the name of godlessness. Incredibly, he tried to link Stalin to religion and said that the Russian Orthodox Church produces Stalin icons. (Would that be the Russian Orthodox Church that was controlled by and authorized by the Communist government? No one can take such an assertion seriously.) He also claimed that North Korea is a faith-based country.
The question for D’Souza involved commenting on Voltaire’s claim that religion was invented for psychological purposes. D’Souza reasoned that if Christianity was made up to make us feel better, then how can the doctrine of hell be explained? If mankind was just trying to achieve some sort of wish fulfillment, he would never have conjured up a place of torment.
The atheist responded that not all of our wishes are innocent. Also, people have a need to see others suffer. (The problem with saying that is, when standards are applied to others, they end up involving oneself or one’s family; so hell still would not have been “invented” by man.) He added that mankind is created sick and commanded to get well, which is false. Calvinism may so teach, but the Bible teaches that God created us well and commanded us to stay healthy.
The last question was: “Why, with all the miracles in the world, are no amputees getting new limbs?” It was D’Souza’s turn to sidestep a question. He cited a study in which he said that in one year’s time after winning the lottery or losing a limb, people are back to their previous levels of happiness. The lottery winner’s elation spikes at first, just as the one who loses a limb becomes depressed, but after one year both have come to grips with their respective situations. When Hitchens pointed out his evasion, D’Souza added that Jesus was more concerned about healing people spiritually than physically.
If D’Souza believes in modern-day miracles, he would have a hard time answering the question. People with severed limbs in ancient times probably did not survive. Jesus did restore an ear—and raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been buried four days.
Hitchens wanted to know if D’Souza would prefer him as an atheist or a Muslim; the answer was an atheist. (Would Hitchens have asked this question if he believed Christians and Muslims were equal? The query implies that he knows the Muslim religion is far more dangerous.) All in all the discussion brought forth several interesting questions; neither side probably won any converts, but many college students were in the audience, and the applause for the Christian position was enthusiastic.
