|
When does human life begin? Many have disputed the point over the past twenty-three years, but Christians have no difficulty in determining a truthful and accurate answer to the question. Although several Biblical passages relate to the issue, the four verses cited last week (Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12,16) are more than sufficient to know and understand that God views the babe a human being whether in or out of the womb. The Bible is the greatest proof and the final authority in the matter of abortion or any other moral issue. God reveals truth; the Bible is right.But the medical evidence for the child being a human being is also compelling. Consider the following factual information derived from the book, The Rites of Life, by Landrum Shettles, M.D., and David Rorvik (pages 47-57).
1. Within the first 30 days, “the embryo has already developed a beating heart and put down the foundations of its nervous system, including brain, nerves, and spinal cord. The eyes have begun to develop, as have most of the major organs” (47). All of this has begun to occur even before a woman knows for sure that she is pregnant.
2. During the fifth week “leg and arm buds are becoming prominent” (52); “the jaw has begun to form” (53).
3. During the sixth week “bone begins forming”; “the heart becomes more complex as its chambers are completed” (53).
4. During the seventh week “the tongue takes shape, and the stomach assumes its final position. Muscles are strengthening, nerve fiber is rapidly growing” (53); “differentiation is occurring in the sex glands” (54).
5. During the eighth week “the digits of the hands and feet are now well-formed… The lungs and heart are now in an advanced state of development. Major blood vessels are in permanent place. Taste buds and olfactory apparatus, serving the sense of smell, are present” (54).
6. During the ninth week the face becomes quite “appealing, exhibiting large eyes, button nose, and expressive lips which often as not are sucking a tiny thumb. The internal organs are in place” (54). “Teeth, fingernails, toenails, and hair follicles are all forming. The fetal heartbeat can now be detected through the mother’s abdominal wall by listening through a stethoscope” (55).
7. During the tenth week “palms close into fists if something brushes across them… Bone growth is rapid.”
8. At the end of the twelfth week “the limbs are well-shaped,” and the “rib structure is visible through the skin. The digestive system is complete. Blood is beginning to be produced in the bone marrow” (55).
From this point onward nothing new is formed. The baby begins to grow rapidly and to mature. Is this fetus a human life? The baby has had brain waves that can be measured by an EEG since the sixth week (56).
More importantly, the child has been a unique individual since conception, at which time 23 male chromosomes united with 23 female chromosomes to produce a unique individual with his own distinctive DNA. Medically, as well as Biblically, the “fetus” is a human being. |
Last week brief clips of interviews with various voters were broadcast in quick succession. The question was, “Will character be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign?” The overwhelming consensus of opinion was, “No.” One’s first response to such shallow thinking is, “No wonder we find so many crooked, immoral, and corrupt politicians in office–since a great number of voters seem totally apathetic to this issue.
How can the mentality of anyone who would vote for a person because he’s “my party” be comprehended? If “My Country–Right Or Wrong” is unBiblical, how much less valid is “My Party–Right or Wrong”? As to the former sentiment, imagine stiff-necked Jews making the same statement–just prior to the captivity!! What if Nineveh had rejected the preaching of Jonah by saying, “We’re not going to repent. Our country–right or wrong”?
The fact is that God sent the prophets to proclaim to the nations their sins. A brief perusal of the first two chapters of Amos demonstrates that God destroys nations because of their unrepentedof sins. He possessed this same disposition even towards His own beloved people (Amos 2:4-16).
Since God never makes exceptions with nations, what makes America think that He will continue to tolerate abominations such as abortion and homosexuality without bringing judgment on us?
Political parties are not inherently moral or immoral, but if they sponsor an immoral candidate (and they know it), then they have acted corruptly. Furthermore, Christians sin when they vote for a candidate who precipitates God’s judgment by advocating pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies).
When Character MattersMany have argued that one’s immoral quirks have no bearing on his ability to govern. In an attempt to establish this point, examples are given, such as the following. Being a homosexual does not affect one’s ability to play the piano or professional tennis. Engaging in numerous “one-night-stands” does not diminish one’s ability to play professional basketball or rock music. These examples allegedly prove that a candidate’s character should be irrelevant when we vote for those who will govern us. Such an application is not even remotely parallel.
Rulers not only communicate to their constituents; they also deal with other nations (which means they must be credible). Furthermore, a nation’s leaders usually set the moral tone for the country. Consider Judah: when she had a good king, most of the immoral practices were done away with, but when an evil king reigned, the nation likewise followed suit. These were not exceptions; they form a pattern throughout the Old Testament.
If a man cheats repeatedly on his wife, he lacks integrity. Obviously, the vow he made when married holds no significance; so how can his word or commitment in any other field mean anything? He is just as likely to disregard any other promise he makes as he has his sacred vow of marriage.
And with what kind of people will he surround himself as he tends to the affairs of state? Generally, leaders select those of like character, which means that the amount of damage that can occur might increase a hundredfold–or more. [Why, the FBI and the IRS might even be used to discredit an innocent man!] What kind of ethics are these for our young people to grow up observing (and perhaps emulating)?
Another consequence of Presidential authority involves the Supreme Court. The views of those who sit on the highest court of the land are crucial. Consider all of the damage done by the Warren court, as well as succeeding ones. In the last forty years, the court has been: 1) unable to define pornography, 2) removed school prayer (as well as caused other spiritual damage to this nation), and 3) legislated abortion-on-demand through Roe v. Wade. [Yes, legislated is the appropriate word because they did not interpret law (the function of the court); they wrote it.]
Appointees should be given important consideration. February’s Reader’s Digest , for example, points out that former President Bush and his staff were confident that David Souter was a conservative. The article concluded that they did not know enough about his views; worse yet, he has reversed himself on the conservative views he once held. In fact, he has become one of the most (if not the most) liberal member of the court. Dwight Eisenhower was similarly disappointed by Earl Warren.
The above Presidential duties reveal just a few reasons which show that character does matter!
The Influence of LeadersConsider how the following men influenced God’s people and decide if character matters.
King Saul was either a weak leader or an accomplished liar (or both). He claimed that he usurped the function of a priest because “the people were scattered from me” (1 Sam. 13: 11). After disobeying God’s instructions concerning Amalek, Saul again credited the people for his actions (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). A weak leader will abide by the most recent public opinion poll and say what he thinks folks want to hear even if it contradicts what he said the day before. The alternative is that King Saul lied and blamed the people, thinking that somehow doing so would absolve his disobedience. It did not.
Ahab was an evil man who did worse than all who were before him. Then he married Jezebel (1 Kings 16:30-31). If he became temporarily impressed with Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal, she was there to get him back off track (1 Kings 19:2). And if he grew weak in the practice of evil, she was there to take up the slack (1 Kings 21:1-14). What a helper! Some rulers, although talented (in wickedness) in their own right, are nevertheless dominated by their wives. These were especially dark days for Israel. Did this couple’s character matter?
Jeroboam was selected to rule over Israel when the kingdom split due to Rehoboam’s stubbornness (1 Kings 12:20). Jeroboam may have seemed like a good choice at the time, but his character also proved to be deficient. He became intoxicated with power. He could not stand the thought of losing the kingdom; so he devised a strategy to keep the people under his control (1 Kings 12:25-33).
It worked. Of course, he changed aspects of worship as God designed it (just as some are doing today), but apparently nobody objected (or not many did, just like today). So until they were taken captive for their sins, the nation of Israel engaged in unauthorized worship. God destroyed them because they walked in the sins instituted by one king (2 Kings 17:21-23). A defective leader’s character caused a nation to sin by following after his “reforms.” Can anyone successfully argue that “character doesn’t matter”?
Back in the mid-60’s the fad which developed among college students was “doing drugs.” This infatuation with mind-altering substances became a large part of the popular music scene with psychedelic lyrics (“I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high; I tore my mind on the jagged sky”) and colorful groups (Strawberry Alarm Clock, who woke everyone up with “Incense and Peppermints”).
The Association came along with “Along Comes Mary” (“now my empty cup is as sweet as the punch”). “Mary” and “Mary Jane” were designations for marijuana in those days, but now young people are referring to it as “dank,” “bo,” “chronic,” and “hemp,” according to “The New Pot Culture” by Monika Guttman in last Sunday’s (2-18-96) USA WEEKEND (4).
And, sadly, the use of marijuana has sharply increased during the past four years. Reader’s Digest credited Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign (in part) with the sharp decline in young people’s use of the drug (February 73). According to the information presented in USA Weekend the number of high school seniors smoking pot declined from 50% in 1979 to 22% in 1992; since that time the number has risen dramatically to 34.7% (5). Something is terribly wrong for the number of users to increase so rapidly in such a short period of time.
One reason for this change may be society’s deemphasis of the subject. Reader’s Digest cites several factors. “In 1989, 518 drug stories were aired on the evening news of the three major networks. By 1994, there were just 78. The number of PDFA spots is down 20 percent since 1990.” And many of those ads are aired at times when young people are not watching (75).
Furthermore, drugs seem to be more acceptable in the entertainment media. According to USA Weekend, approval of marijuana has been suggested on Roseanne , in movies such as How To Make An American Quilt, and once again in the realm of popular music. In fact, a recent CD entitled Hempilation, was released specifically to earn money for marijuana decriminalization (5), a cause which even some misguided conservatives (and liberals such as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders-RD 74) champion. There are also some potthemed hats and T-shirts that one may find young people starting to wear.
Keep Off the GrassToday’s adults who survived “hippie-hood” may not be too alarmed about this resurgent craze, but they should be because the primary psychoactive chemical (THC) of today’s marijuana has doubled in potency during the past ten years (USA 5). The ease of obtaining the drug should strike fear into most people.
Becoming commonplace are “Phillies blunts,” which are cigars which have been hollowed out and refilled with marijuana. “The nicotine helps increase the high” (4). But consider the following information carefully. Marijuana is currently this nation’s largest cash crop (6). Furthermore, many teens who were interviewed for the USA article said that the average time it would take them to find and buy pot was three minutes (6-7). A Seattle teenager confided to Reader’s Digest that “Weed is as common as school lunch” (72).
EffectsThe effects of smoking marijuana are detrimental to both the individual and society. Let’s begin with the latter. Many who desire either to legalize or decriminalize marijuana have cited “the European model” as a system that works. According to the February Reader’s Digest ,”Dutch adolescent marijuana use, for example, nearly tripled between 1984 and 1992, while the flow of drugs into bordering countries has grown. At the same time the Netherlands is ranked No. 1 in Europe for forcible assaults, up 65 percent since 1985″ (74). Similar unsavory results have been Zurich, Switzerland’s reward. “Today, Switzerland is left with Europe’s highest percapita rate of drug addiction and second highest rate of HIV infection” (75).
The personal effects on the individual user are well known. USA Weekend states them succinctly: “Marijuana reduces coordination; slows reflexes; interferes with the ability to measure distance, speed and time; and disrupts concentration in short term memory. A marijuana smoker is exposed to six times as many carcinogens as a tobacco smoker” (5).
Another danger of marijuana is that (as a “gateway” drug) it leads its devotees to experiment with drugs even more dangerous than it is, as some users admit: “Pot makes you lazy. I don’t like to do schoolwork,” a former 3.5 average student admitted. “A lot of people move on to acid” (Reader’s Digest 71-72). Parents need to be aware of this revived threat against young people and caution them not to be deceived by it.
Many enjoy the high and think they are more lucid when stoned, possessing greater insights. The following letter was written to Ann Landers several years ago–before I began documenting articles properly. The misspellings and errors were on the part of the letter writer. It serves to demonstrate how marijuana affects the brain.
Dear Ann Landers:
Your letter against pot last week was a joke. If you dryed up creeps want kids to believe you, who don’t you tell the truth? I like my hair long. It looks fine. I have yet to see a single letter in your column to tell the GOOD things about pot. Why is that? Because you are a bunch of fuddy-dudies who are scare us kids to death. Well, it won’t work. Most of us know more about pot than our parents and teachers put together. Getting turned on by Jesus is definately. I’m a 16 year-old girl who lives in a medium-size midwestern town. I have been smoking pot at least once a day for two years. It hasn’t hurt me at all. In fax it has done me a lot of good. Not only is pot-smoking fun but it has expanded my conscientiousness and opened my eyes to the beaties of the world and unquestionable. This proves the police are pigs.
Grass has not dulled my mind. It has sharpen it. My think is clearer than it ever was. I am more aware things I never noticed before. Objicts that used to look small look large, especially when I. When I smoke, I see mental imagines in color instead of black and white. I used to be too shy to speak up in a crowd. Now I am a brilliant conversationist. I get stoned but I am 100 percent lucid. I am express my inmost feelings brilliantly. Feet can be friends. When I finish this letter it will be a mastpiece.
If you fail to print it, I will know you are a Communist. In Russia they print only one side of the story. The side they want people to believe. I’ll be watch and waiting. –The Truth Will Win
Peace and serenity are wonderful commodities: they are the ideal, and they are by far what most of us prefer. What we experience, however, are conflicts. How should these be handled?
The Lord anticipated that problems would arise among His people. In the Old Testament, for example, there were so many difficulties (Ex. 18:19) that it was necessary for Moses to judge matters between the Israelites from morning until evening (Ex. 18:13).
The Corinthians mishandled their complaints, and some members of the body of Christ took their brethren to law–before unbelievers, at that (1 Cor. 6:1-8). A few other indications of disharmony are indicated in the book of Philippians. Paul exhorts the brethren to “stand fast in one spirit” (1:27) and to be “of one accord, of one mind” (2:2). Later, he singles out two ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, “to be of the same mind” (4:2). Paul charges brethren in Ephesus to endeavor “to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). If internal unity among brethren were automatic, there would be no need for all these admonitions. Harmony does not just happen; it must be sought.
How, then, should conflicts be handled? Jesus specified what to do in Matthew 18:15. “Moreover, if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” [Notice that this is a personal matter between two brothers, not a rationale for dealing with false teachers, authors, or college presidents.]
Many situations will be resolved at this point, if both parties are sincere and genuinely concerned about taking care of the matter. Of course, if the offending party persists, one or two more brethren are to discuss it, and finally the church must be informed and fellowship withdrawn from the stubbornly impenitent one.
But what happens when this divine process breaks down? What if, as in the case of Marian Guinn, aperson refuses to talk to the elders or anyone else, and then files a lawsuit for harassment? Or what happens if a person confesses sin before the church for appearance’s sake but never brings forth fruit worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Acts 26:20)? Or what happens if the individual leaves, attends another congregation, and misrepresents those he/she has left behind?
When the process the Lord authorized breaks down due to the impenitence of the person who has caused the problem, that itself reveals the insincerity of the individual who assumes such a rebellious posture. The congregation should withdraw fellowship from such a person.
No one should be allowed to repent verbally when no effort has been or will be made to correct the problem. Some have repented of fornication–after each illegitimate birth. Obviously, something did not change. Others have said things such as, “I repented; so I don’t have to talk to you.” How could an attitude be any more unspiritual than that? Who dares to play the hypocrite before God and the church by pretending to repent in order to “resolve” a problem? For shame.
And what of those who leave one congregation for another, in which they feel free to spread rumors and untruths? How can such matters be handled, especially when those listening to suchmisrepresentations have such itching ears? Some of these insults may be against individuals, or they may be against the church as a whole.
Handling Personal AttacksCertain responses should be ruled out, such as smacking them “up side of the head.” Sure, it would feel good for the moment, but it’s not the Lord’s way. (Besides, if they have never developed a conscience or integrity in all the years they’ve been studying the Bible and listening to sermons, it probably can’t be beaten into them, either.) If Paul had personal enemies in the first century (and he did), chances are we are going to have a difficult time escaping false brethren, too (2 Cor. 11:26).
1. Be willing to discuss a problem with someone who is genuinely concerned about it, but the basis for the discussion must reside in objectivity. Nothing will be accomplished if all that is going to occur is an exchange of allegations and denials of private conversations which no one witnessed. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (Deut. 19:15, 2 Cor. 13:1).
2. Let someone arbitrate in a dispute. Both parties should select a neutral group of people to hear both sides and make suggestions. Paul says there ought to be at least one wise man among us to judge between brethren (1 Cor. 6:5).
3. But what if all these techniques fail? What if some do not want a resolution? What if they really enjoy reveling in hit-and-run character assassination?
“When somebody has been so unkind to you, some word spoken that pierces you through and through, think how He was beguiled, spat upon, and reviled. Let the beauty of Jesus be seen in you.” As English poet George Herbert wrote: “Living well is the best revenge.” In other words, keep being a faithful Christian, work for the Master, and forget those who have nothing better to do than carp,complain, criticize, and accuse falsely Another’s servant (or church).
If we devote ourselves to going on to perfection, people will come to doubt those whose favorite pastime is “badmouthing.” If the congregation busies itself in evangelism, edification, and benevolence, the inaccurate and false representations of others will eventually fall on deaf ears. We cannot allow others to disturb and distract us from doing and being what pleases our Lord.
4. Realize that those who engage in the negative behavior of attacking others have fallen prey to Satan’s influence. Wise brethren are not ignorant of the devil’s devices (2 Cor. 2:11). Pray that they see the errors of their ways, and repent. (Remember Matt. 5:38-48 and Rom. 12:17-21.)
Of course, murmurers and complainers would be out of business in a week were it not for the fact that too many people delight in hearing what they have to say. All of us need to turn away our ears from “hearsay.” If a brother has some objective evidence to present against another brother, fine. Present it. Otherwise, keep silence. The body of Christ does not need to “bite and devour one another” (Gal. 5:15).
We should be careful not to be foolish enough to hear only one side of a story. “He’s my friend, my child, my neighbor. That’s good enough for me.” Since when do personal attachments take the place of evidence? Friends, children, and neighbors have been known to lie or be mistaken. As Solomon wrote: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him” (Pr. 18:13).
This week the analysis continues of the lead article of Leroy Garrett’s Last Time Around from October, 1995. A woman had written him a letter which he published. Much of his article responds to this sentence: “All these years I have been able to ignore this ‘in error’ applied to others but not ourselves.”
The reader can tell that the editor is delighted with this sentence since it affords him the opportunity to launch into one of his favorite themes. Garrett writes: “As for this ‘in error’ mentality, it is a judgment that one will find only in Churches of Christ. I am not sure how or why it got started. It is a dubious construct, reflective of our inability to see ourselves as others see us. Even when we refer to others in the Movement who have been baptized, we refer to them as ‘brothers in error.’ If there are Christians in other churches, which we often question, they too are ‘brothers in error.’ I have never in all these years heard anyone among us refer to ourselves as ‘in error.’ It is always others who are ‘in error,’ not ourselves.”
Is it true that the “in error” mentality is found only in Churches of Christ? One wonders if Leroy has ever heard of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may be unaware of it, but there are some fairly staunch Calvinists who would not hesitate to say that those who subscribe to the opposite doctrine (in this case, the Truth) are “in error.”
Anyway, the point should not be how many groups would say such a thing; the question is, “What does the Bible say?” So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen…” (2 Chron. 33:9). The people were in error–spiritual and moral error.
Consider these two statements in Isaiah: “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (3:12b); “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (9: 16). Jeremiah 23:13 states: “And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.”
Would Leroy like to convince God that this “in error” mentality is of dubious construct? When people embrace lies in place of the truth, they are “in error.” It’s that simple.
“Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have despised the law of the Lord, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked” (Amos 2:4). Just as people can walk in the truth (3 John 3), so can they walk in error, according to the Scriptures.
The reason that people are “in error” is that they are like the Sadducees, not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Jesus warned the disciples, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Saducees” (Matt. 16:6). Later, they understood that he referred to their teaching (Matt. 16:12). They were “in error” on their teaching!
What else could Jesus mean when He refers to them as “blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:14) except that, like many religious leaders of today, they are in error and teaching error. James says that brethren who wander from the truth must be turned back; those outside of truth must be brought back from the error of their ways (and are even called “sinners” instead of brethren). Peter speaks of those who “live in error” (2 Peter 2: 18) and warns against being led away with “the error of the wicked” (2 Peter 3:17). Hopefully, these few passages will serve to provide Mr. Garrett the origin of the concept.
“As Others See Us”Leroy seems concerned about how others see us. It is always nice to be well-liked, well-thought-of. But whatever men think must take second place behind what God thinks? Elijah, Jeremiah, and Amos were not highly regarded in the community. Jesus was hated by the religious leaders of His day. In teaching the truth, He offended them (Matt. 15: 12). “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Likewise, we must teach truth regardless of how those “in error” feel about it.
“The Movement”Many people are baptized for the remission of their sins, including Mormons. Why does Garrett choose to use this phrase? And whom does he include in it? Wouldn’t it be better to use Scriptural terminology so that we all might understand what he means?
ARE WE “IN ERROR”?Garrett seems surprised that we do not refer to ourselves as “in error.” Is this phenomenon really a mystery? The Bible says, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…” (1 Peter 4:11). Would it not be the height of folly to tell someone, “I don’t know the truth; I am in error. But come and let me teach you anyway”?
“Buy the truth and sell it not,” Proverbs 23:23 advises, and the New Testament likewise emphasizes this sentiment. “Sanctify them through thy truth,” the Lord prayed, and added, “Thy word is truth. “Others may not care about Truth, but members of the Lord’s church do. For such reasons we study carefully and are willing to test our beliefs in public debate. Liberals seem unwilling to do so, and we can’t help wondering why. We sincerely believe we are teaching and practicing the truth, but if someone thinks we are “in error,” let him point out the error and be willing to discuss it rather than hide behind vague innuendoes.
Nonsense Versus God’s SenseLeroy further pontificates: “It is nonsense because no such distinction can be drawn between those ‘in error’ and those who are not. We are all in error about some things, unless we presume that both our knowledge and behavior are perfect…” Anyone who is not absolutely stupefied by the preceding statements needs to read them again. Garrett believes that one cannot distinguish between those “in error” and those not. No wonder he can fellowship anyone!
Fortunately, the Word of God teaches no such foolishness. “You reject all those who stray [err, KJV] from Your statutes: for their deceit is falsehood” (Ps. 119:118, NKJ). Notice that: (1) God can distinguish between those in error and those not; (2) He rejects those who do err; and (3) There must be some who do not err from God’s statutes, or there would not have been a psalmist left to record this verse!
Certainly, God knew that all are imperfect, especially in behavior. And He knows that all of us may hold a peculiar view or two, but even so, it is still possible to determine that someone has gone “onward” (2 John 9-11) into “error.”
During the 14th Annual Denton Lectureship last November my task was to review Monroe Hawley’s 1992 book, Is Christ Divided? Attending that particular session was Leroy Garrett, who has lived in Denton a number of years and now attends the Singing Oaks Church of Christ, which observes Christmas and Easter with special programs (and which has departed from the faith in a number of other ways).
After the discussion forum had ended, Leroy introduced himself to me and gave me a copy of his current paper, Last Time Around (he used to publish Restoration Review, which I first saw thirty years ago). The invitation was to read it and let him know what I thought of it, which I am now doing. He was very cordial, and the analysis which follows reflects no personal animosity since he was in no way personally unkind to me.
Perhaps he is not unkind to anyone. On page four of the October, 1995, issue that he gave me, he provides an “update” on the “International Church of Christ, formerly Boston Church of Christ.” He extends no criticism to the group which has correctly been identified by many as a cult; in fact, he considers them “phenomenal.”
The front page article is entitled “Concerning Those ‘In Error.'” Leroy says he suspects many will identify with a letter he has received from a sister who has “hung in all her life.” She apparently is on Garrett’s mailing list (who else would write to him?), which means she must have been pondering his views for a while, which may explain her confusion.
She identifies herself as one who “grew up in the Church of Christ,” which presumably means under its influence since one can only be Jewish by birth; one becomes a Christian by being taught (Heb. 8:10-11) and then obeying the gospel, not by birth. She (seemingly unashamedly) confesses: “I have never as an adult believed that only those in the Church of Christ are Christians,” and wants to know if she should leave it.
Now many faithful gospel preachers would probably ask her some questions, such as, “How does one become a Christian?” Or “If you think there are Christians besides in the Lord’s church, could you explain where they are and how they came to be there?” Or even: “What you think is not nearly so important was what the Bible teaches on the matter; what does It say?”
It may be very high-sounding and in harmony with the spirit of the age to allege that Christians can be in all denominations, but it is altogether different to explain how such a phenomenon occurs. Take the Presbyterian Church, for example (which the woman’s husband grew up in). It is a man-made denomination, not the Lord’s church. Calvinism, which doctrine they follow, teaches that children are depraved sinners at birth; they are thus baptized (actually sprinkled) while mere babies.
Is the letter-writer willing to assert that those who have never heard the gospel and who have been baptized as babies are saved? If so, exactly what New Testament has she been reading? Certainly, she did not get such an idea from Jesus (Mark 16: 15-16), Peter (Acts 2:38), or Paul (Romans 6:3-5). In order to become a Christian, one must “obey the gospel” (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 6:17-18). Those who fail to obey it are lost (2 Thess. 1: 6-10). So how can there be a Christian in the Presbyterian Church, when they neither teach nor practice what the New Testament teaches?
Leroy’s ResponseMost faithful gospel preachers would probably answer somewhat along the lines presented above (and send along some lessons on the nature of the church), but Leroy Garrett does not see fit to reply in such a fashion. He “advised this sister and her husband that leaving one church and going to another does not always solve the problem.” Please understand that Mr. Garrett is equating the Lord’s church with a denominational church when he gives such advice. The woman had written about leaving “the Church of Christ.” Since there is only one true church (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4), Garrett must know the only other “church” she could attend would be a denomination, and that appears not to bother him–even though he encourages her to stay where she is.
Why does he advise her to remain with a group that makes her feel like a “hypocrite” since she can not agree with them? “… they have a better chance of being a catalyst for change if they remain where they are.” Such is apparently the philosophy of Shelly and others–don’t leave the church; be a “catalyst for change” instead. Remain as the Trojan Horse to destroy (oh, excuse me) reform it from within. The church needs these people about like a house needs termites.
Notice to the Fifth ColumnTo all of those who think they can “help” the church by subtly getting it to change, consider the response of at least one conservative.
Thanks for your consideration, but we do not want or need your help. We have the Bible and find it utterly sufficient in matters of doctrine and morality. If you had something constructive to offer, we would be happy to listen, but all you seem to want to do is tear down those things it took faithful brethren generations to build.
You mock the old hermeneutics of “command,” “example,” and “implication” (which Jesus Himself used as methods of interpretation) and have replaced them with the touchy-feelies (if it feels good do it). You accuse us of causing division over the instrument when you know full well that the source of the problem involved those who introduced it and who still refuse to renounce it for the sake of unity.
You would make of the Lord’s church a denomination and do away with the Bible’s teaching about salvation (Acts 2:38). Truth is of no consequence to you whatsoever; it has been cast aside for “love,” a soft, warm, gooey feeling that overlooks practically everything instead of looking out for the best interests of others (1 Thess. 5:15), such as communicating the truth that could set people free (John 8:31-32).
Many of us intend to stand with the Scriptures rather than follow the lead of the culture we live in. Homosexuals will not convince us that the Bible is in error about them, nor will feminists cause us to be silent about 1 Timothy 2:9-14. Neither will you remove us from the Biblical doctrine of fellowship (2 John 9-11).
By aligning yourselves with the denominations you have robbed yourself of the chance to offer anything of value. Those defending the concept have been met and defeated by us for decades. And you don’t even have the courage to defend your beliefs in honorable public debate. Instead of remaining among the churches of Christ, why don’t you shed a modicum of your cowardice and join your denominational buddies? You will be happier not associating with those you hold in contempt, and we will be free of “catalysts.”
She was 21, single, poor, and pregnant. Too poor, in fact, to afford even a back-alley butcher in her home state of Texas, where abortion was then illegal. Too poor to travel to California, where the procedure was permitted. Supposedly pregnant from a gang rape, she filed a suit challenging the Texas abortion law, then went ahead and reluctantly had her child, who was put up for adoption.
This is the history of Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” whose lawsuit led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. Now, McCorvey, an abortion-rights activist, has admitted to columnist Carl Rowen that her gang rape story was a fabrication to bolster her legal claim. Like so many other young single women in her predicament, McCorvey says, she became pregnant “through what I thought was love.”
Jesse Whitlock wrote the above two paragraphs, citing as his source U.S. News and World Report (Sept. 21, 1987, page 13). This information, as well as the chart across the page, appeared in the August 24, 1989, issue of The Edifier.
As most people are probably aware, Norma McCorvey has recently (1995) changed her views: she is now thoroughly pro-life. These historical notes are of great value since an entire generation has now grown up with abortion being legal.
Historically, people have seen a need to protect life before birth. Hippocrates, in the fifth century B.C., wrote the “oath” which doctors have used for a long time: “I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius… I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion” (The Abortion Holocaust 142).
Christians, by 150 A.D., mentioned specifically this sin in The Didache : “… thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born…” (The Apostolic Fathers 123-24). Of course, the New Testament is our authority, but this quotation shows that brethren were consistent with the Bible.
Doctors under the rule of the Third Reich were required to destroy life, as well as conduct grotesque experiments on the living. Perhaps this fact explains the wording of the Declaration of Geneva, which was passed in 1948: “… I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor” (Abortion: Questions and Answers 184-85).
It is time once again to restore the respect for life–from the womb–that our forefathers also found necessary to protect.
When does human life begin? Many have disputed the point over the past twenty-three years, but Christians have no difficulty in determining a truthful and accurate answer to the question. Although several Biblical passages relate to the issue, the four verses cited last week (Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12,16) are more than sufficient to know and understand that God views the babe a human being whether in or out of the womb. The Bible is the greatest proof and the final authority in the matter of abortion or any other moral issue. God reveals truth; the Bible is right.
But the medical evidence for the child being a human being is also compelling. Consider the following factual information derived from the book, The Rites of Life, by Landrum Shettles, M.D., and David Rorvik (pages 47-57).
1. Within the first 30 days, “the embryo has already developed a beating heart and put down the foundations of its nervous system, including brain, nerves, and spinal cord. The eyes have begun to develop, as have most of the major organs” (47). All of this has begun to occur even before a woman knows for sure that she is pregnant.
2. During the fifth week “leg and arm buds are becoming prominent” (52); “the jaw has begun to form” (53).
3. During the sixth week “bone begins forming”; “the heart becomes more complex as its chambers are completed” (53).
4. During the seventh week “the tongue takes shape, and the stomach assumes its final position. Muscles are strengthening, nerve fiber is rapidly growing” (53); “differentiation is occurring in the sex glands” (54).
5. During the eighth week “the digits of the hands and feet are now well-formed… The lungs and heart are now in an advanced state of development. Major blood vessels are in permanent place. Taste buds and olfactory apparatus, serving the sense of smell, are present” (54).
6. During the ninth week the face becomes quite “appealing, exhibiting large eyes, button nose, and expressive lips which often as not are sucking a tiny thumb. The internal organs are in place” (54). “Teeth, fingernails, toenails, and hair follicles are all forming. The fetal heartbeat can now be detected through the mother’s abdominal wall by listening through a stethoscope” (55).
7. During the tenth week “palms close into fists if something brushes across them… Bone growth is rapid.”
8. At the end of the twelfth week “the limbs are well-shaped,” and the “rib structure is visible through the skin. The digestive system is complete. Blood is beginning to be produced in the bone marrow” (55).
From this point onward nothing new is formed. The baby begins to grow rapidly and to mature. Is this fetus a human life? The baby has had brain waves that can be measured by an EEG since the sixth week (56).
More importantly, the child has been a unique individual since conception, at which time 23 male chromosomes united with 23 female chromosomes to produce a unique individual with his own distinctive DNA. Medically, as well as Biblically, the “fetus” is a human being.
October 27’s Friday Religion section of the Denton Record-Chronicle led off with a front page article about the Harvest Metropolitan Community Church, located just south of Denton. As is usual for the news media, Jessica DeLeon’s story presented the group in a flattering, positive light. Just as typically, the usual bits of misinformation saturate this propaganda piece, beginning with the first paragraph.
“In 1985, a student at the University of North Texas from Abilene was looking for a way to connect with gay and lesbian Christians” (12A). In the first place, there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, no more than there is a fornicating Christian, an idolatrous Christian, a Christian thief, or a Christian extortioner. Those are all sins that people give up when they become Christians (1 Cor. 6:9-11). [This is not to say that Christians never sin, but they cannot practice sin and be a child of God at the same time (1 John 3:8-9).]
Jesus does not save people in their sins; He saves people from their sins. We are to reckon ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin (Rom. 6:11); we are instructed to prohibit sin from reigning in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12). The Harvest Metropolitan Community Church is not trying to help people leave the sin of homosexuality; they are telling members that it is all right to continue to walk in this abomination.
In fact, the absurdity of their position can be seen by a certain fact recorded in the article, of which they are apparently proud: “It is also one of the few churches in town which has a condom machine in the bathroom” (12A). Wouldn’t that be comparable to the First Metropolitan Burglary Church providing ski masks and manuals on overriding electronic circuitry? Why would the Bible teach sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:19-20, 1 Thess. 4:1-7, 2 Cor. 7:1, Col. 3, etc.) and self-control (Gal. 5:23, 2 Peter 1:6), if it were perfectly permissible to do whatever one’s heart desired to do?
Any church that would encourage its members in immorality instead of giving up sin is no true church of Christ. Rather, it is humanistic–based on the will of man, not on the teachings of God. In fact, this “church” supplying condoms is tantamount to suggesting that had they been available in the first century, Jesus would have gone about teaching sexual purity and self-control while the apostles passed out “protection” after His sermon. If such a scenario sounds blasphemous, then remember that it is a church purporting to be the body of Christ today who is in essence doing the very same thing. The church is His body, over which He is head. If the church is doing it, Christ is doing it (consider Acts 9:4).
God and Christianity MisrepresentedColleen Darraugh, the first “pastor” of this “church” for three years, praised Harvest for its loving atmosphere: “It’s a profound time of healing, especially when you’re told God doesn’t love you” (12A).
And who told her such a thing? The reporter let her get away with the usual false stereotype of Christianity and the Bible: God hates homosexuals; Christians hate homosexuals; Christians are all bigots and homophobes. Apparently, homosexual leaders and the news media think if they repeat these charges enough times, somebody (besides them) will believe it. Therefore, we shall refute it in bold letters–but without any hope that it will make one iota of difference to these people.
GOD DOES NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS; GOD HATES SIN, WHICH HOMOSEXUALITY IS!
Just in case the above statement is not clear, a little more elaboration follows. God does not hate sinners. Notice: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus endured the crucifixion and poured out His soul unto death for sinners. Jesus did not die for some–but for all, even those who commit sins of perversion, even for people who act on their vile passions and do things that are against nature. BUT as with every other sin, in order to receive forgiveness, the homosexual must repent; he or she must give up the sin. Then the forgiveness of God can be experienced as one is baptized and born again (John 3:1-7). It is not God that hates homosexuals; homosexuals hate God because He tells them to give up that which most of them will not consider doing.
In an article in The Dallas Morning News (October 16, 1995), a homosexual son said to his father who was a minister: “If God made me this way, the Scriptures you are citing must be misinterpreted or misplaced” (2C). Truly, man considers himself the measure of all things. Notice that the son did not reason, “God condemns homosexual behavior; therefore, I must be wrong.” No, if I want to commit adultery or fornication or homosexuality, God is the one who must be wrong, not me.
The fact is that some want to hold on to their sin more than they want to love God and abide by His teachings. Furthermore, they want to practice their sin while imagining that God approves. And on top of that, they want Christians to accept them and validate their faulty perceptions. Sorry. Christians (those abiding by the Word of God) will never approve an action which God defines as sin and condemns. Like our Father and our Lord, we love those ensnared by sin; it is our prayer that they will give it up and overcome it. But like deity, we cannot accept as brethren those who stubbornly persist in their sins.
Recently someone sent an evaluation of hand clapping in worship. The author is Ray Davis, who preaches for the Edgewood Church of Christ in Mansfield, Massachusetts. The document consists of a review of four articles, one of which was mine, “The Applause of Men.” Others were written by Bobby Duncan (“Let God Do the Clapping”), Mel Futrell (“Hand Clapping and Worship”), and Hugo McCord (“Hand-Clapping in Worship”). We will herein deal with the teaching set forth in this material dated September 2nd.
The first assertion is that the clapping referred to in Psalm 47:1 and 2 Kings 11:12 is directed at God and that therefore such a principle might be valid today. Psalm 47:1 states: “Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples! Shout to God with the voice of triumph.” It is true that the action of clapping encouraged in this verse is directed toward God just as is the shouting, but what more should be deduced? Are the sons of Korah referring to applause? Or is it possible that the clapping refers to a rhythmic beat that accompanies the singing or the chanting of this song? It is difficult to envision the writer as meaning, “Let’s all get together and applaud the Lord. Ready? On the count of three: Yea, God.” But even if this were the meaning, it provides no authority for clapping, shouting, or dancing before God today, which David did in 2 Samuel 6:14.
2 Kings 11:12 mentions that when Joash (aged 7) was crowned, “they clapped their hands and said, ‘Long live the king!'” This applause is directed toward the king, not God. They were celebrating the restoration of the throne from the hands of the usurper Athaliah. The next argument is that edification and entertainment need not be mutually exclusive; he says that singing can be fun and that we sometimes focus more on the beat than on the words. The problem with this reasoning is that it does not distinguish between primary and secondary purposes. Is singing fun? Yes. So is Bible study. Every act of worship is enjoyable to the spiritually minded. But the purpose for worship is not to derive entertainment; it is to honor God. When we focus more on the melody and the beat than the words, we have lost the appropriate emphasis. Some things are designed for entertainment (novels, movies), and they probably contain a message or truth for the audience to absorb, but the focus of worship is upon God. The problem is that in our current selfish era we have insisted that everything be ME-oriented.
Davis’ paragraph on spiritual gifts being irrelevant, we turn to his next argument: We have been clapping hands to songs in teen devotionals, Bible camps, children’s Bible classes, and Vacation Bible School. He should speak for himself. Hand clapping is no more authorized there than in the public assembly. Many of us have consistently opposed all such practices, the one exception being, “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands,” in which case the clapping is neither applause nor joined with the singing. If someone thinks that this might confuse a child or send a mixed message, however, we cheerfully give it up for the dozens of other songs that are available. We ought to be consistent between what we do in more informal gatherings and in worship. Is not that failure to distinguish the means by which instrumental music was introduced?
Davis next finds fault with assigning motives to those who enjoy hand clapping. He writes: “What clappers view as unspiritual, unscriptural, and therefore, intolerable, is a stoic manner of singing.” But, we ask in return, “Where would they get the idea that singing is ‘stoic’ if not from secular entertainment, which emphasizes the point that they are trying to be like the world?” One of the growing markets today is religious (“gospel”) music with a rock or modern beat. Naturally, hymns may seem boring next to that style, but againspiritual must not be defined by the way someone feels about a song but whether or not it seeks to glorify God and edify one another. As long as we do not use instruments, we will never be able to compete with the music of the world and the excitement and enthusiasm that it generates. In fact, we have occasionally been told that singing without instruments does not seem right or spiritual. Davis saddled a losing horse when he chose this argument.
Brother Summers
Thus far, no substantial case has been presented in favor of hand clapping. It was already admitted that the Old Testament Scriptures cited did not constitute authority. Next, each of the four aforementioned articles is discussed. Davis took issue with this assertion: “Fervency in worship is provided from within, not by some artificial, external stimulus.” He tries to argue that standing or bowing in prayer constitutes an artificial, external stimulus, which is a really weak, not to mention inaccurate, argument. Generally, bowing is considered an act of reverence. Closing one’s eyes is a means of shutting out distractions and concentrating better. Standing may afford some small benefit (it is harder to sleep), but none of these are “mood” maneuvers. Clapping hands, turning down the lights, or things of that ilk are calculated to affect the mood.
Davis wonders how I determined that hand clapping smacks of artificiality and if I am not simply speaking for myself. This knowledge was obtained by watching and by conversation with others who have observed the same thing. Apparently, Davis is one of the few people whose powers of observation are limited.
Incredibly, the critic next tries to appeal to the Old Testament as a valid authority for our worship on the basis that New Testament writers quoted from it. After referring to several verses in Romans, he says:
Is not Paul appealing to the Old Testament to prove his point which is for us New Testament doctrine and practice? What about the time Paul participated in the rite of purification (Acts 21:24-26)? Does the apostle not refer to this act as worship (Acts 24:11)? Was this not an Old Testament authorized act, done in New Testament times? …There is more to Heb. 8.6-7; Col. 2.14; Gal. 5:3.4 than the idea that the Old Testament is no longer usable for New Testament doctrine, practice or worship.
As brother Taylor would say, this paragraph is amazingly amazing! To what lengths will someone go to try to justify hand clapping we would never have believed if we had not seen it! This man has more problems than hand clapping; he does not know how to rightly divide the Word of God. Perhaps he should not just cite Galatians 5:3-4‹he should read it:
And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law: you have fallen from grace (emphasis mine).
What about Paul’s actions? Who said he was right in what he did? He succumbed to peer pressure in Acts 21 just as Peter had at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-13). He was trying to make the point that he did not despise Jewish customs, and he went about it the wrong way. He transgressed briefly his own writing. The apostles were not perfect men in their actions–only in their inspired teaching. We must abide by their doctrine and only follow their example only as they followed Christ.If Old Testament teaching is reaffirmed in the New Testament as part of our covenant, then it may be used. In most cases, it is a principle that is made applicable or a truth that is restated (“there is none righteous; no, not one,” e.g.). Verses are also cited as fulfilled prophecies (Acts 2). In quoting an Old Testament passage, the inspired writers of the New Testament were not in any way insinuating that we are to follow their laws regarding worship.
Davis (whether inadvertently or not we do not know) missed the point in my article of mentioning Saul’s disobedience to God regarding the Amalekites. We are well aware that Saul violated a specific commandment and that hand clapping does not. What the critic missed was the point of similarity between the two:
“Oh, but all of this is for God [referring to the reason for clapping hands, gws].” Sure it is–just as the animals that Saul was to kill (but instead brought them alive back from the Amalekites) were for sacrifices for Jehovah (1 Sam. 15).
The reader can clearly see that the point of comparison is that people excuse their actions (whether violating a specific law or doing what God has not authorized) on the basis that they are just wanting to please God.He also tries to restrict the phrase, in spirit and in truth, to Jesus’ ministry and death. Worship is with the right attitude and in harmony with God’s revelation, or it is not, period. False teachers, who generally use the NIV (as he does), are always trying to limit universal principles. They want to choose the context in which it applies, but a principle applies beyond an immediate problem unless it is plainly limited (Gal. 1:8).
Brother McCord
Primarily, all Davis says here is that McCord’s conclusions are unrelated to the Scriptures he lists, and he faults him for not making “a deeper examination of the text.” He also reaffirms what he said earlier about the Old Testament.
Brother FutrellHere the critic takes issue with the authority principle of Colossians 3:17. He asks: “What if a person asked him for his specified authorization for the prohibition of clapping?” Does he not realize that the whole point of talking about authorization is to show that none exists for hand clapping in worship? When there is a “thou shalt not,” that ends the discussion. Some think that, in absence of such a statement, everything is permitted that is not expressly condemned. God wanted us to know that suh a way of thinking involves faulty logic. Whatever someone advocates must have Biblical authority. Would this “preacher” object to instrumental music? Most of the rationale that he applies to hand clapping would have the same application to mechanical instruments of music.
Brother DuncanThe application of 2 John 9-11 is also challenged by Davis. See if what he says would not apply equally to instrumental music as well. “Brother Duncan I think, is defining the doctrine of Christ as anything Jesus taught and did not mention.” By that criticism, 2 John 9-11 would not prohibit the use of instruments of music in worship–even though they were never used by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church in worship, were never commanded to be used, nor was it even implied that their use would be acceptable. Brother Duncan is right.
The Argument from Scripture’s SilenceDavis argues that we are inconsistent. We are commanded to greet one another with a holy kiss, but we shake hands instead. We reject a specific commandment and do what we are not authorized to do (based on the silence of the Scriptures). If he really believes his own argument, then he should encourage all brethren to drop their hands and pucker up instead. Otherwise he is objecting to the argument from silence, which the Scriptures themselves make in Hebrews 7:14 (Moses spake nothing concerning priests from any other tribe but Judah).
Then he attempts to make hand clapping a substitute for saying, “Amen.” Truly, only the “uninformed” would clap in place of the Amen (1 Cor. 14:16). This approach rids us of a valuable, Biblical principle and substitutes it with, “Let’s just do what we want.”
Perhaps next we could substitute for the elements of the Lord’s Supper Pizza and Pepsi; after all, the Lord didn’t say NOT to make substitutions. And if we can substitute shaking hands for holy kissing and clapping for Amening, why not change the day of worship from Sunday to Saturday (some congregations in New York have already done so)? We can really start to blend in with our culture, have the kind of worship we enjoy, and maybe even bring in some rock bands to replace that “stoic” singing. Wahoo!
“The Solution to the Clapping Issue”
Whether one claps or refuses to clap, a person’s relationship with the Lord is not effected [sic] for we are justified in the Lord’s sight by faith in Christ’s obedience and sacrifice.
We disagree: If God refuses to accept our worship, we are affected. Furthermore, those insisting on clapping will affect everyone else’s worship, just as bringing in an organ, a piano, or a guitar would.
Here it comes: “Is the blood of Christ and His body more important than our clapping preference?” No, and that is precisely the reason it should not be done. If it is not a requirement, then those who crave it should go to a basketball game and leave the church assembly alone! This is the same problem that existed with instrumental music 100 years ago. Brethren said, “We can worship without it and be acceptable to God.” But they would not give it up for the sake of unity! Neither will the hand clappers.
Davis even suggests using different songs for clappers than for non-clappers and then speaks of maturity. If we were mature, we would not insist on bringing something into the worship assembly that is admittedly not required.
Yes, we will have clapping and non-clapping churches, just as we have instrumental and non-instrumental churches. The basic difference, however, will not be the clapping–but rather the love and respect the members have for the Head of the church, Jesus Christ. Those who love Him would not want to add anything to the worship that is not practiced or authorized in the New Testament. They would rather die than sow discord among brethren (Pr. 6:19).
In 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul wrote that, “if food makes my brother to stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” If brethren could withhold themselves from something that was outside the assembly (but would adversely influence brethren), then how much more should brethren repudiate a practice which no one has proven that they are entitled to do and which affects every worshipper in the assembly! Such a disposition would be mature and promote unity.
