Available on the Internet is a document entitled “The Bible versus the ‘Church of Christ'” by “Pastor” James L. Melton. The opening paragraph is as follows:
This article is a slightly condensed version of a small booklet that I wrote a few years ago. It’s [sic] purpose is to expose the false teachings of the so-called “Church of Christ.” If you attend a Church of Christ, or you know someone who does, I challenge you to read this study carefully, checking out all of the scripture references in your Bible and praying for the Lord to show you the truth (Jn. 16:13). Remember, Jesus said SEEK and you shall FIND (Mt. 7:7).
The alert reader has probably noticed already that the first two Scriptures cited in this “study” are taken out of context, which does not bode well for his handling of other materials, which he cites but misapplies.
In John 16:13 Jesus is speaking to the apostles, telling them that the Holy Spirit will “guide them into all truth.” The passage involves revelation, not interpretation, and Jesus did not tell His apostles to pray for it; He promised them they would receive it. To imply that John 16:13 teaches all Christians to pray for the Lord to show us the truth is to misunderstand this verse by a country mile.
Matthew 7:7 is not spoken in the context of understanding the Scriptures, either. Rather, it deals with seeking good things from God (see v. 11). Anyone who could so misunderstand and misapply the holy Scriptures can scarcely be expected to understand what mere men (members of the churches of Christ) teach.
Mr. Melton has taken the time to read some of the materials we have published, but he apparently does not understand what he has read. He has divided his “analysis” into several subheadings, the first of which is “What is the Church?” The very first sentence shows his inability to grasp what we teach: “The Church of Christ people fail to realize that the ‘true church’ is a spiritual organism, NOT a physical organization.”
Had he read us a little more closely, he might have discovered that we are the ones who have taught over the years that the church is the body of Christ, a living spiritual organism, over which Jesus is the head (Eph. 1:22-23). We are the ones who have insisted that the church is not a man-made organization. Furthermore, we do not have any such organization. Ironically, “Pastor” Melton does belong to a man-made church with a national organization. Now, who is it that does not understand the nature of the church?
Melton could not justify the concept of denominationalism if his life depended on it, but he finds fault with those who want to be only Christians–whose desire is to follow simply what the Bible teaches, including not having a man-made, unauthorized denominational structure, concerning which the Scriptures are silent.
After quoting from tracts written by faithful brethren, he then attacks what these men did not say.
These people believe that the true Church ceased to exist for about seventeen centuries, and that THEIR church has restored the true faith for today.
Exactly who made such a statement? No one of us has ever taught that the church ceased to exist for 17 centuries. How preposterous! We do teach, however, that the church which our Lord established became apostate. The teachings of Christ and the apostles were changed. One of the changes involved the structure of the church. The Scriptures made no provision for a pope, but in A.D. 606 Boniface III proclaimed himself universal bishop, or pope.
Now, in all honesty, Mr. Melton, tell us if you regard the pope as the head of the true church. Do you submit to his authority? Why not? Your argument against us is just a tad disingenuous–especially when we share some of the same perceptions about Catholicism.
We have never claimed that the church (or Christians who compose it) ever ceased, but they were obviously not in the majority, and we know very little about them. We also know that there were “underground” Christians during the period of the Iron Curtain days in the Soviet Union. The Russian Orthodox Church may have been the only one officially recognized or sanctioned, but people with other beliefs existed.
The fact that there was a highly observable restoration movement in the early 1800s does not imply that the church did not exist for seventeen centuries. Mr. Melton should be careful in the “deductions” that he makes. Following the last sentence quoted above, he says the following:
This would mean that such great Christian men as John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Knox, and George Whitfield were not really members of the “true church” because the “true church” didn’t exist in their lifetime.
This constitutes nothing more than a blatant attempt to “beg the question” and “prejudice the case.” What nerve–to conclude incorrectly that we teach the church ceased to exist and then to name people that could therefore not have been in it. To repeat: No one has taught that the church ceased to exist.
The question of whether those men were in the “true church” or not is irrelevant. Truth is not determined by what religious men think; it is determined by what the Bible teaches. Jesus was criticized consistently by the religious leaders of His day. Those Pharisees made the same argument that Melton does. “Have any of the rulers or Pharisees believed in Him?” (John 7:48). Such is the equivalent of saying, “If Luther or Wesley didn’t believe it, it must not be so.”
Who is a Christian or how one becomes a Christian is not decided by the latest public opinion survey. The Word of God reveals these matters. If we obey the Scriptures, we are Christians and part of the church for which Jesus died. If we reject them, we are not.
If you have received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, then you are a member of the true church, no matter WHAT denomination you are associated with, and if you haven’t received Him, then you are NOT a member of the true church, regardless of how many religious groups you join. Salvation is not in a church; it’s in a PERSON–the Lord Jesus Christ.
Several observations are in order about this paragraph.
1. There are no Scriptures to corroborate any of what he says here; perhaps that is the reason that he gives none.
2. The New Testament does not speak of denominations; why would anyone therefore wish to be part of one?
3. What would a person who obeyed the gospel have been made part of in the first century? The third? The tenth? The fifteenth? Besides the Roman Catholic Church, there were no man-made denominations in those centuries (including the one to whom Mr. Melton belongs. Obedient believers in the first century were just added to the church (Acts 2:47). Why should it be any different today? Apparently the simplicity of such an idea eludes this critic of the Lord’s church, who evidently cannot see beyond the system of denominationalism which he prefers to the Lord’s plan.
4. While it is true that salvation is not in a church, it is the case that salvation is in the church. “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). If one is in Christ, he is in His body, the church. If salvation is in Christ, it is also in the church. One should have no desire to separate Christ from His church any more than he would desire to separate his head from his body or a husband from a wife. The two belong together.
Next Melton says: “The Church of Christ claims to reserve for itself the ONLY scriptural name for a New Testament church, although the term ‘church of Christ’ is found nowhere in the Bible.” It is difficult to tell where Melton came up with this bit of misinformation. Although he freely quotes from many of our tracts, the reader will notice that once again he did not cite a source for this claim.
None among us has ever claimed that “church of Christ” is the ONLY Scriptural name; most sermons and printed materials teach that there are several Scriptural terms for the church, such as “church of God” (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 11:22; 15:9). Many religious groups have opted for a “church” name in harmony with the Scriptures (“Church of God in Christ,” for example), and most commentators speak of the universal church of Christ, thus recognizing the legitimacy of the designation, which Melton would know if he had ever studied.
The only point that we have ever made is that calling ourselves after the names of men, such as the Wesleyan Church or the Lutheran Church are not Scriptural. They are obviously not found in the Bible, nor is the Baptist Church, which is a man-made institution. How ironic that any person who belongs to a man-made religious organization would accuse us of the very thing in which he himself stands condemned.
All we want to do is be pleasing unto God, call our selves Christians (instead of some non-Scriptural, unauthorized name) and be part of the church for which Jesus shed His blood.
Now what about his quibble that the term church of Christ is not found in the Bible? He admits there is nothing particularly wrong with it. How generous! Melton knows that Jesus built His church (Matt. 16:18). He knows that Jesus shed His blood for it (Acts 20:28). He is aware that Jesus is the head of the body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). He is not ignorant of Romans 16:16: “The churches of Christ salute you” (referring to the sum total of each individual congregation or church of Christ). Melton is patently guilty of trying to make an argument where none legitimately exists. But, it gets worse when he takes up the subject of salvation (to be continued).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “MELTON’S SKEWED VIEWS (11/16/97).”
The early morning fog was burning off as the passengers made their way to the docks. It was the usual time for boarding, and each traveller had come prepared to find the ship that would safely transport him to the other side of the sea. Expectations were always greatest when this point in the journey was reached.
Many ships graced the harbor: some were nearly 500 years old. One of the oldest was a German vessel; it bore the builder’s name, although he had specifically requested that it not be named after him. Another stately ship had been built by a Frenchman who had moved to Geneva at a rather young age; he revived the style of an ancient architect. Many could not imagine why anyone would board any other ship; this one just seemed to be “meant” for them. An English king commissioned another vessel, specifically to accommodate his wife. Fewer people booked passage on it than formerly had; even its American replica had lost its popularity.
One of the newer ships was only made to last until 1914, and it was only built to hold 144, but people still kept clamoring to board it, despite the safety risks. Another man had built a newer ship and then lost the original plans to it. Even though the grammar on the original ship’s manifest was atrocious, and it was rumored that he performed strange wedding ceremonies while at sea, nothing could seem to stop the flood of people desiring to entrust themselves to this ship. There were other newly-built rigs which had been designed and piloted by women: one of these captains said that the sea was just an illusion; the other claimed that everyone else was sailing on the wrong day.
There was an old relic in the harbor that claimed to have been built around the time of Christ, but most people knew that this ship was not authentic. That glorious vessel had suffered shipwreck, and, although the new boat had lasted a long time, it was not constructed after the original pattern. It is true that some of the planks and sails had been salvaged and were borrowed for the new ship, but the design varied considerably from the original builder’s intent.
Now some of those preparing to sail that day talked among themselves. They asked each other about the features that were part of each person’s chosen ship. One man volunteered, “Our ship is oldest, and the decorations are very ornate. All of the crew wears formal attire, and meals are served sometimes three or four times in the morning for the convenience of the passengers. For those who really enjoy sleeping in, breakfast is served the night before.”
Another man agreed, “It sounds like you have a good package, but don’t you have to ‘pay as you go’–all away across the ocean?” The first man nodded. “We have a better plan,” the second man lowered his voice just a little. “Our tickets have already been purchased for us, and we get to continue the journey even if we get sick or don’t really want to finish.” The first man said thoughtfully, “But why would anyone not want to complete the journey begun today? Anyway, the only choice he would have would be to jump ship.” “Exactly,” replied the second man. “We have a theory about that. We think that anyone who jumps ship was never on it in the first place.” The first man inwardly questioned the second’s rationality and quietly walked away.
The Newest Ship
Some of the people, while waiting in line, began to become quite argumentative about which ship was best. In fact, no little dissension arose. Meanwhile, a huge, almost new (certainly newer than any of the others), very attractive ship (probably bigger than the Queen Elizabeth II) slid into the harbor. “What ship is that?” a man asked of what he assumed was a dock worker.
“Why, that is the new vessel from Amalgamated Pleasure Cruises. It will hold more people than most of the rest of these put together.”
“Really? What makes it so popular?”
“Well, only the things that are really popular with people were made a part of its construction. In fact, the owners did a survey of prospective passengers, to see what they would like in a ship. There’s nothing really original about it; it has a little bit of all the features that the other ones have.”
“Since it is new and fairly unproved, why are so many people trusting in it to give them safe passage?”
“Because the owners are not selective as to their clientele. They will accept a ticket purchased from any of these other cruise lines. Just watch. Some of these people came here today with every intention of boarding their traditional, family ship, but they’ll end up on the large one instead.”
As he looked, sure enough, several people were forsaking the shipping firm they had always trusted and began forming a line where the new ship would dock. The questioner, Mr. Pilgrim, was now able to read the name of the increasingly popular vessel as it glided toward its mooring; it was called: The Fellow Ship.
The Strange Ship
Mr. Pilgrim said to his newfound friend, “It’s clear to see what is the most popular, but tell me, if you will, which vessel leaves here with the fewest passengers?”
“Oh, that’s easy. See that rather odd-looking craft over there?”
“The Bride?”
“That’s it. Few there are who board that one.”
“Why is that?”
“First of all, it ain’t like the other ships. It obviously isn’t the original, but when that ancient one over there shipwrecked, some of the sailors got away in lifeboats with the original plans in their possession. They claim they duplicated the original ship.”
“But most people don’t think so?”
“Naw! There’s no Crow’s Nest, for one thing. Why, every ship has to have one of those in order to guide the ship. How can the captain be pleased without one? It would be like a great chorus singing off-key.”
“So does that line have a lot of wrecks?”
“No, they have the best record of anybody. They have never yet failed to arrive at the Safe Harbor on the other side of the ocean.”
“And the other ships?”
“They all reach a destination, but they never sail into Safe Harbor.”
“What about The Fellow Ship?”
“They aim for Safe Harbor; but without the rudder of Truth, they merely zigzag through the sea. They’re not too concerned, however, because they have such a good time.”
“But why would people board a ship that doesn’t take them where they want to go?”
“Some just like the accommodations better. Many prefer to travel in comfort even if it means being a few miles off course when they arrive.”
Mr. Pilgrim could not understand that kind of thinking at all. He said to the man who had been so helpful, “Thanks for all of the information; I believe I’ll try to book passage on The Bride.”
The Cost of Boarding
“It’s not that simple, mister.”
“What do you mean?”
“Well, first of all, their rates are quite high. They will require of you all that you have on you.”
“I guess that would be okay; I don’t intend to come back here.”
“The second thing is that they will check your baggage. If there is anything inside that is deemed offensive, they will ask you if you are ready to part with it.”
“Really? That seems awfully personal.”
“That’s not all. Then there’s the oath of allegiance to the captain that you must sign. He doesn’t want anyone jumping ship.”
“Why would anyone do that?”
” Lots of things happen out on the sea. Some just get tired of the voyage, and when they spot a junk, they fling themselves over the side, thinking they’ll be picked up and brought back to the world they left behind.”
“You mean people that leave this port sometimes return to it?”
The source of information nodded. “And then there are some who jump into the sea when one of other ships is close enough to rescue them.”
“No!” Mr. Pilgrim was astounded. “But didn’t they choose this ship for a reason?”
“Sure, but some of them just booked passage because their parents were on this ship. Some leave because they find a hypocrite on board, or maybe it just looks like the passengers on the other ships are having a ‘raucous’ good time.”
“And the other ships pick them up?”
“Oh, gladly. Especially The Fellow Ship. They take such delight in those who abandon The Bride that they fire their cannons and parade them around their decks.”
“Do any ever swim over to this ship?”
“All the time. In fact, the passengers even man lifeboats to see if any want to be added to their company.”
“I’ve made my decision. The Bride sounds like the only ship that knows what it’s doing and where it’s going.”
“Remember, friend, you will not just be a guest; you are one of the crew. And there’s one other thing. You must bathe before you go on board. The captain will meet you at the top of the gangplank and take you through his purification room.”
“I never heard of such a thing. All of the other vessels allow you to bathe after you board the ship and are shown to your state room. This really is an odd ship.”
“That’s the way the captain is, sir. Only those who have washed and been made clean are allowed aboard. It’s His ship; He refuses to let anyone enter His ship who has not bathed. And not just his face or forehead, either. One must be totally clean. But after the cleansing is concluded, one exits directly onto the ship.”
“Sounds a bit demanding, but as you said, it is his ship. But what about those who come from other ships?”
“When they have a change of heart, sailors pick them up and row them back, but they cannot enter the ship without passing through the purification room like everyone else, for they have not been properly cleansed.”
“Is there any way to verify what you’ve said?”
“Why, sure. There’s the Maritime Manual right over there,” he said pointing to an ancient volume written for both sailors and passengers. It was easily accessible and written in print large enough for everyone on the wharf to read.
“You mean that everything you told me is in that book?”
“Certainly, and more besides.
“Then why doesn’t everyone here read it?”
“Oh, they do, but sometimes they only read the parts they find interesting. Why, even each ship has one on board, but the passengers frequently do not read carefully enough.”
“Is it too hard for them to understand?”
“No, but one must read it for himself and not take some petty officer’s word for what it says. You need to verify what I have told you in this brief conversation.”
“I will. I’ve noticed many disputes taking place; it’s too bad these passengers don’t consult the Maritime Manual when it is so available to them.”
“True. This is the time and place to resolve differences–here, on the wharf. People come here with many different ideas, but if they would submit to the teachings of the Manual, they could all sail on the same ship. It’s not possible for all of these passengers to obey different boarding policies, sail on different ships, yet be united; they do not all arrive at the same destination.”
“Say, why are you still on the dock? Why haven’t you boarded a ship?”
“I am on board The Bride–even now. It is my holographic image to which you have been speaking. At each port of call before we cross the sea, those of us on board are permitted to cast their images before prospective passengers who have come to the wharf. Here is the place where most people make the decision that will affect them forever. We try to find them and help them. I trust that after you have studied the Maritime Manual, we will see you, Mr. Pilgrim.”
“How did you know–” he broke off as the image disappeared. As the sailor briefly saluted him before his departure, he noticed what he had not seen before, a grotesque absence of flesh in his hand, which made him wonder if he had not in fact been speaking to the Captain himself!
After studying the Maritime Manual in the clear daylight, he made his way to that peculiar ship. He removed anything that might be construed offensive from his luggage, signed the oath of allegiance, and met the Captain, the man he had spoken with, in the purification room.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “THE WHARF (11/9/97).”
Inspiration. What is it? How does it work? How do you give it to other people? Of course it is somewhat of a subjective thing. Perhaps the answer for each of us lies in asking ourselves what inspires us.
What prompted these questions was the plane crash which took the life of John Denver just a few weeks ago. It was not just the fact that his death was untimely; it was the idea that the world is now one source less for contemporary inspiration.
I have been a fan of his since the mid 60s when he joined the Mitchell Trio (after Chad Mitchell departed from it). The Chad Mitchell Trio was so popular that after an appearance in Peoria (where I was privileged to see them) the newspaper gave an even more enthusiastic review of them than Bob Newhart, who appeared on the same show.
Denver proved to be an excellent replacement; their Violets of Dawn album (a terrific combination of serious singing and humor, such as “Your Friendly, Liberal, Neighborhood Ku Klux Klan”) still ranks as one of my all-time favorites, along with The Mitchell Trio Live, which is replete with humorous selections about Ronald Reagan, George Wallace, Adam Clayton Powell, and even the “God is Dead” theology.
When Denver became a solo singer, he began with a number one hit, called “Take Me Home, Country Roads.” If nothing else, the song inspired a multitude of bumper stickers, which claimed: “Almost heaven, West Virginia.” That song was followed by “Rocky Mountain High,” which proposed a healthy alternative to drugs. 1974 proved to be a banner year with “Sunshine on My Shoulders,” “Annie’s Song,” and “Back Home Again.”
Toward the end of his appearances on Billboard’s Top Forty came a matter-of-fact, philosophical song, which few have probably ever heard, called “Some Days Are Diamonds (Some Days Are Stone).” The title pretty wells sums it up, and I was thinking of both aspects of it (the sadness surrounding his death and the optimism of life conveyed in his music) when from the other room came a familiar tune from the stereo. Apparently Barb had been thinking along the same lines I had (though we hadn’t discussed it), and she had played what I regard as his most inspiring song–a tribute to Jacques Cousteau, named after his ship, “Calypso.”
Our ears and minds are assaulted daily with accounts of sordid and heinous acts. Sometimes a person cannot help but wonder how much more depraved human beings can become before the final judgment, but then along comes a song like Calypso, and our minds are focused on the positive achievements of mankind. There remains a thirst for knowledge, inventiveness, advancement, a living up to the potential God created us with.
“Calypso” is the kind of song that makes you want to stand up and cheer, that makes you proud (for a change) to be a human being, that inspires you to also want to accomplish something good, if not great. It imparts a healthy optimism and a happy confidence of the possibilities that exist–if only we would use our time to good advantage and apply our intellect.
Tragedy As A Source of Inspiration
Ironically, tragedy itself has often been a source for inspiration. On February 3rd, 1959, an airplane crashed outside of Clear Lake, Iowa. In addition to the pilot’s death were those of J. P. Richardson (a novelty artist known as “The Big Bopper”), Ritchie Valens (whose “Donna” and “La Bamba” still receive airplay), and Buddy Holly, one of the pioneers of Rock N Roll (for better or for worse). Twelve years later Don McLean, inspired by that and other events, would write in his history of Rock N Roll classic, “Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie”:
But February made me shiver
With ev’ry paper I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep,
I couldn’t take one more step.
I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride;
Something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.
Tragedy may produce harmony, which is what occurred at the conclusion of the Academy Award-winning movie West Side Story. The senseless killings and Maria’s speech questioning the value of hatred finally bring about a temporary truce between the rival gangs.
A tragedy may bequeath great beauty. Horatio G. Spafford suffered a loss that would have crushed most men; his wife and four daughters were crossing the Atlantic when their ship was struck by another vessel. Only his wife survived. Sailing across the ocean to join her, he wrote the lyrics to “It Is Well With My Soul” near the scene of the daughters’ deaths (see William J. Reynolds, Hymns of Our Faith (227-28):
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.
Most of us can only hope that, if something similar were to befall us, we might emerge with a generous measure of the faith and strength this man had.
The death of Jesus (which serves as the greatest example of this point) was tragic in that He had done nothing worthy of death. His resurrection bore witness to His innocence. Out of this abysmal and despicable crime comes the salvation of our souls.
Fainting Not
Another source of inspiration is the realization that hard work is rewarding. The movie Chariots of Fire profiles two athletes who win Olympic medals in 1924. Their characters and their motivations are entirely different; however, they both work hard to accomplish their goals, and in the end they realize their ambitions.
The viewer realizes that both victories come at a great cost; sacrifices had to be made. Eric admits, “I’ve hurt someone I love very much.” Harold chides the administration: “You think that victory can be achieved with the apparent effortlessness of gods.” No, great success demands great diligence.
If we want to be faithful Christians, an example for others to follow, we must work at it. Mature Christians do not just happen. If we want to be like some of the great congregations in the brotherhood (or even like Thessalonica–1 Thess. 1:5-10), a great amount of effort must be expended. The Scriptures corroborate this idea. “Be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).
Yes, there are times of discouragement, and there are days in which it certainly looks as though all of our efforts are for nought. For this reason we are encouraged to continue the fight; there shall surely be a great harvest, and when it comes, we will be happy that we did not quit. All of the work will seem as nothing compared to the blessings we shall receive.
How To Be Remembered
Some day we will depart from this life, and those who knew us will reflect upon our lives. How do we wish to be recalled? We have probably all heard comments such as, “It was difficult not to want to do right when she was around,” “He determined as a young man that he wanted to go to heaven; he opened his arms wide and tried to take as many people with him as he could,” or “She’s the reason I became a Christian; I could try to resist the Scriptures, but I couldn’t argue against the power of a committed life.”
Will the world really mourn Hugh Heffner when he dies (perhaps the “world” will); will they lament all the “good” he did for society? Are most people really concerned that Mad. Murray O’Hair has disappeared? Does anybody miss Richard Speck?
I already miss Celia Hobbs, and I didn’t even know her. Jody Apple writes in his August “Philadelphia Report” a few endearing things about this 99-year-old relative (and member of the body of Christ). “She hosted Bible studies in her apartment into her 90s. She always wrote and called and encouraged friends to attend Bible studies and worship.” She observed matter-of-factly: “The church isn’t doing its job if there are still Buddhists in the world.” Then she obtained an encyclopedia and studied the subject so she could teach two young Buddhists about Jesus.
The value of a positive life may be vastly underrated. Inspiration is always enjoyed and appreciated; each of us should consider the positive effects that we can have in the lives of others.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “INSPIRATION (“SOME DAYS ARE DIAMONDS”) (11/2/97).”
A Christian is one who belongs to Christ. He was purchased by the blood of Jesus. After recognizing what sin is and after desiring to be no longer dominated by sin, the believer is buried with Christ into baptism to have his sins forgiven.
All become Christians in the same way. All have fellowship then with God and with each other, and we continue to enjoy this fellowship as long as we “walk in the light, as He is in the light.” (1 John 1:7).
But we sometimes forget the value of having brethren. Following are some of the ways Christian brethren can be of help to each other.
1. By serving one another. Jesus said in Matt. 23:11 “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Brethren ought to look for ways of serving each other.
Paul said to the Corinthians, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you.”
Dorcas was one who realized the joys of Christian service. Luke says of her, “this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.” (Acts 9:36).
We need to help one another and serve one another as Christ served others.
2. By strengthening one another spiritually.
a. Through prayer. James says we ought to pray one for another. (James 5:16). “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”
b. Through teaching. Paul said to teach one another in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. This we do during the assembly. We may teach each other also by pointing out scriptures. We teach frequently by the example we set.
3. By exhorting one another. To exhort is :”to entreat, to encourage, to beseech.” The purpose for exhorting one another is to keep us from sin. “But exhort one another daily while it is called Today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb. 3:13).
4. By being a burden bearer. “Bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2). “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” (Rom. 15:1).
Brethren are valuable. We all need to seek ways to serve one another, strengthen each other spiritually, exhort one another, and bear one another’s burdens. [This article originally appeared in The Coraopolos Contender, July 22, 1973.]
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “WHY DO WE HAVE BRETHREN? (10/26/97).”
How many times have you heard the expression quoted in the above title? A corollary to it (from the opposite perspective) is, “Oh, go ahead and try it. Doing it just one time won’t kill you.” This type of insistence is usually followed with name-calling epithets, such as, “Chicken!” Well, what is the truth of the matter? Is it all right to try anything once?
The fact is that once may be too many times to have experienced–getting drunk, for example. On Friday, September 26th, a father wrote a guest column in the Denton Record-Chronicle on behalf of his son who faces an eight-year prison term for what he did while he was drunk “for the first time in his life” (14A).
Our purpose here is not to argue against the man who wrote the article (page three will provide a refutation); it is likely that there are few parents who would not feel exactly the same way he does. Our goal, rather, is to show the seriousness of giving in to temptation–even once!
First, for those who know ___ as only a name in the newspaper, he is not a criminal. He has never had an alcohol habit, and he is not a drunk driver. He is a sober, responsible, well-mannered, loving, and law abiding young man I am proud to call my son, and he is as bewildered as anyone at the events of August 10, 1996. And please donÕt take my word for his character. Speak to any of his many friends, teachers, etc.
Yes, he chose to drink that night and for the first time in his life became very drunk. He was the only minor at a private home in the company of adults who themselves should have been more responsible, but instead played drinking games with him and encouraged him (as they testified).
Yes, he was behind the wheel of a pickup that caused an accident which killed _____ _______ and injured _______ ______. But did he ÒchooseÓ to drive? Alcohol blackout is a genuine phenomenon where people do things unconsciously. Think about it. A 17-year-old youth who rarely drinks imbibes to a .2 alcohol level, passes out, and is put to bed. Later, he arises, leaves the house totally nude, takes off in a pickup he has never driven (whose owner left the keys in it), and minutes after the accident is found passed out by police who testified he was extremely disoriented and did not know where he was and how he got there (14A).
In a later paragraph the father laments: “A very fine young man faces eight years in prison because of an hour’s unconsciousness out of 17 years while real repeat drunk drivers get probation….” In the last paragraph the father says, “A lengthy prison sentence…because of an hour’s unconscious and uncharacteristic behavior is harsh indeed.”
Of course, this column is written from only one perspective; it also raises questions that go unanswered, too, but we will assume it is accurate. First of all (even though this is not the point of this article), those who encouraged the boy to drink and left keys in a pickup truck ought to share a major portion of the blame. If legally they were not accomplices, they were (at the very least) stumbling blocks, Biblically (Luke 17:1-2).
Tragically, however, the young man must be punished for his actions. It gives no one any great pleasure to say such a thing, and certainly we want to avoid a self-righteous spirit, but surely people in today’s world are aware of the possibilities for harm that exist BEFORE they begin drinking.
Have they not heard of incidents such as the fraternity party in which a student (due to his inebriation) fell over the railing of a second story apartment and died (which happened to a Bradley University student in Peoria)? Have they never heard of the high school student who died in the swimming pool at a graduation party hosted by parents (where alcohol was served)? Or maybe they never heard of a situation in which a senior class was on a camping field trip and contrary to specific instructions brought alcohol along (just to make it more “lively”); unfortunately one of the students awoke during the night and in his still-disoriented state walked over a cliff to his death.
Surely, every community experiences tragedies like these; they do not just happen in Illinois. These aside, however, how often is it that a situation like the one under discussion happens? It is only the first time that it occurs, but the first time can be deadly. Yes, there are some who may have been arrested several times for driving under the influence, but they were fortunate enough not to have killed or injured someone.
Inequities in the system can always be found: Once a high school principal (again, in Peoria, Illinois) was arrested for having a blood alcohol content of .2, and the jury did not even convict him of violating the law! But he did not kill or injure anyone, either.
The first reaction that alcohol has on the body is to limit one’s good judgment. The more that one consumes, the less likelihood there is of retaining any moral sense at all. Any person who decides to drink alcoholic beverages is (in effect) saying, “I refuse to be responsible for my behavior. I don’t care what I say or do for the next few hours.”
Someone will say, “Oh, this is silly. I’ve been to a lot of drinking parties, and nothing has ever happened.” Really? No one became mad and got into a brawl? No young woman ever became pregnant because her usual amount of resistance to fornication was low? We may think the odds are in our favor that nothing bad will happen, but how many times does someone have to lose control of a car or truck to change or ruin his own or someone else’s life forever? Of what value is it if it happens the 123rd time you indulge instead of the first?
According to a recent study, reported in The Dallas Morning News on September 21, the average rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities nationally last year was 40.9%, which is a decrease from the sixties and seventies. But in Texas the rate was 53.2% (36A).
And how often is alcohol involved in violent behavior? How many shootings have happened after a booze-induced argument? Many other instances could be cited, but these are sufficient to make the point–when an individual begins imbibing, no one can predict what the end result is going to be.
We can sympathize to some degree with the person who got drunk just one time; we may call him unfortunate; we may tell him it was tough luck that the series of events which involved him occurred; we may even lament his prison term; but the lion’s share of sympathy must go out to the victim–to the innocent person who will never see another sunrise, attend a party, or have an opportunity to repent of sins and obey the gospel. The parents of this individual deserve consolation for the loss of their child. The person who perhaps is paralyzed because of the accident deserves much more support than the one who only made this one bad decision. After the inebriated teenager has served his eight years, some of his victims may still be imprisoned in bed for life.
The Bible teaches the importance of avoiding even one bad decision. How many times did Eve eat the forbidden fruit? The entire world has been affected by that one bad decision. King David, who is described as being a man after God’s own heart, only one time decided to take another man’s wife and kill her husband. And he didn’t even do that until after the age of 40. Should all those years of faithful service not count for anything? He did repent of those sins, but he still suffered the consequences of them.
Gehazi was the faithful servant of Elisha, and for just one lapse of judgment God appointed unto him the leprosy that had left Naaman. Delilah asked Samson several times where the source of his strength was; he only told her the correct answer once. Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it on only one occasion, but it was enough to keep him out of the promised land. Pharaoh only gave the command for his army to pursue Israel into the sea once.
It only takes one time to overdose on drugs if a “friend” persuades you to try something. It only takes one time (as many women have written to Ann Landers) to believe the word of a fiance that sex with him will be safe. How many have contracted various venereal diseases (or even AIDS) by making just one bad decision?
The point is that we must guard against choosing to do something wrong even once. No matter how many times someone says, “Just do it” or taunts you with, “Chicken,” there is only one right response: NO! Tell them you have thought over the consequences of such an action very carefully, and that the risks outweigh any temporary pleasure. It is better to avoid doing some things even one time. “My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent” (Pr. 1:10).
For many years now the premillennialists have been exciting and titillating religious enthusiasts with visions of “the rapture.” Cars have sported bumper stickers with such sayings as: “In case of the rapture, this car will be driverless.” Books have been written describing this so-called event with descriptions such as:
The star running back of Buchanan High School is running toward the endzone for the winning touchdown. As he crosses the five yard line, he disappears, and the ball falls to the ground! The fans who were shouting and yelling are stunned in amazement. A bus is crossing a bridge with fifteen passengers aboard when suddenly the driver vanishes. An evening concert is instantly disrupted when several musicians are suddenly gone–right in the middle of a performance.
Someone has even made a movie to this effect, touting the glories of “the rapture.” Those who believe in this interpretation of eschatology (the doctrine of “end times”) are nearly excessively enthusiastic about it.
For years, however, churches of Christ have opposed this doctrine as unbiblical. We have pointed out innumerable times that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), but to no avail. Premillennial enthusiasts will not consider the facts dispassionately. Exciting error is preferred over pristine truth.
Since years of preaching and teaching on the subject have not done any good, it’s time to just leave these premillennial views alone. Since they refuse to renounce them, why not take advantage of the situation by offering premillennial devotees a brand new product?
Available now for the first time, from the Deserted Earth Insurance Company, is “Rapture” Insurance. Yes, friends and neighbors, while you’re rejoicing throughout the heavens your exciting new life, who will be left back on earth to take care of your loved ones? The “rapture” scenario is all well and good for those who have swiftly ascended. But what about everyone that has been left behind? You simply must plan for all possible contingencies.
“Rapture” Insurance will take care of your family when you are no longer around. Suppose your unbelieving grandparents are left behind while the rest of the family ascends into the heavens. Who will take care of them? Your “rapture” insurance policy will. They will receive an amount equal to their social security for the rest of their lives. Won’t you feel much better, knowing that your loved ones have been provided for?
Then there are your children. How will they be able to get a decent college education? The cost of living may soar throughout the “tribulation” period. How will they survive? Deserted Earth will set aside half of your current salary to be used by them, if you can find an unbeliever you trust to be executor of these funds. Their support will be indexed to inflation, and all their college tuition and school supplies will be paid.
Then there is the worst prospect of all–if you are “raptured.” We are living in a litigious age; what will your family do if a lawsuit is filed against them? Let’s say you were driving that bus when you were raptured. The fifteen people aboard plunge into the river below.
Twelve die, and the other three require hospitalization. What do you think the families of the victims will do? Chances are, since they have remained on earth, they are not religious and will not buy that “rapture” bit. They will sue the bus company, sure, but then they will go after you personally. But since you are gone, they will haul your family into court. They will argue that you jumped out of the bus while it was in motion, endangering the lives of your passengers. Since you deserted your post, they will sue you for dereliction of duty. How will your family survive this scandal?
No problem. Your “rapture” insurance will cover all possible lawsuits. In the event you are sued in absentia (and you lose), we will pay the court costs and whatever judgments are rendered against you. Men, you don’t want your wife and children to be homeless, do you? Women, can your husband fend for himself? Our insurance policy covers all possible eventualities.
We know what you’re saying. “But I’m not a bus driver; I don’t need this insurance.” Without meaning to be offensive, we simply must say, “Don’t be so short-sighted.” You could be in your car–on your way to work or going shopping at the mall. Suddenly you’re raptured right out of the front seat of your vehicle. Your car may veer into another lane of traffic; it might be hit from behind, due to the slower speed. If the car continues straight ahead while the road is curving, there will be a crash–and a subsequent lawsuit. It will be claimed that you left the scene of an accident. Again, your family will be in jeopardy.
BUT YOU CAN AVOID ALL THIS WITH “RAPTURE” INSURANCE! “Sounds good,” you say, “But how much will all of this protection cost?” Would you pay $100 a month for coverage this good? How about $50? Would believe $25? Have we got a bargain for you?! You can have these extraordinary benefits for only $10 per month. That’s right–only ten dollars per month. Your cable TV costs twice that; so don’t tell us you can’t afford it.
You’re probably wondering how Deserted Earth can offer such a deal. “Hah!” you say. “They’re probably all planning on being raptured, too; so they won’t be around to pay up.” No, no, no. You have it just backwards. We can offer this deal at such a good price precisely because we don’t believe in the “rapture.” We think it is a false doctrine and that your interpretation of the Scriptures is totally erroneous. We don’t expect to ever have to pay a single claim.
In other words, we plan on making money if your theology is wrong. If, however, you are the ones who are correct, your loved ones are the ones who will profit, and we will be paying out fortunes. See how much doctrinal discussion this will eliminate. See how many debates and arguments over this topic can be avoided. We’ll just put our money where our theology is.
We know what you are thinking. You’re saying to yourselves, “What if my religious doctrine is incorrect? Then I’m wasting all that money.” Oh, come on. How can you even say that? Hasn’t Billy Graham assured you of the truth of this teaching? Haven’t Hal Lindsey’s many books convinced you of anything? Quit being so wishy-washy. Why, if these noble preachers and writers were wrong about the “rapture,” they might be wrong about being saved by “faith only” too. Are you really willing to entertain such an unthinkable idea?
Of course, some of you are very pragmatic, and you’re not willing to let this issue be decided on theology alone. After all, money is involved. How can cold cash compare with faith and doctrine? Or maybe you simply choose to backslide, in which case you would be left out.
Okay, we’ve thought of that. We have already put some extra clauses into the policy. To wit, if the “rapture” occurs and you were excluded (regardless of the reason), half of your premiums will be returned to you. Of course, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the rapture occurred. Also, if no rapture occurs within a 20-year period of your taking out this policy, half of your premiums will be returned.
What have you got to lose? If you’re raptured, you’re covered. If you’re not, you get half of your money back. What a deal! Certainly no other insurance company can offer you such a policy. Remember our motto: Heavenly insurance at affordable, earthly prices. If you desire this coverage, e-mail the Deserted Earth Insurance Company at pearl_street@spiritualperspectives.org. You cannot be turned down for any reason–even if you think the rapture will occur next week.
Come on, now, how much longer can it be? Hal Lindsey initially indicated 1988 (40 years after Israelites were allowed to return to their homeland). And don’t you remember that popular book, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in ’88? Here it is–almost ten years later. If it was near then, how much nearer is it now? And you haven’t had any protection–until now. Don’t let this opportunity slip through your fingers.
Hostilities are escalating in the Middle East, and even the Disney folks have a homosexual agenda. What do you need: skywriting that says, “There are only 30 days left”? Don’t be a chump. Buy it now. As an extra bonus, if we don’t have to pay any money against your account when you’re “raptured,” you can get a full refund when you come back to rule on the earth during the millennium. Nobody but DEIC would be crazy enough to make this offer.
As a special signup bonus, we will include a free tract when we send you your policy, entitled “The Second Coming of Christ.” No one will call on you. Don’t put it off. Have peace of mind today.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “‘RAPTURE’ INSURANCE (9/21/97).”
Michael Medved, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh a week ago, made a valuable observation in a monologue when he talked about the message of Hollywood emphasizing the idea of “following your heart.” This is scarcely a new concept; after all, Paris would not settle for anything less than Helen though it eventually cost him his life and the downfall of the city of Troy. If he had used his head, however, Homer would have needed someone else as source material for The Iliad and The Odyssey.
Medved contrasted the academy award-winning movie Casablanca with The English Patient: the former ended with a head decision (involving duty and responsibility); the latter followed a heart decision (in which Self came first). He then commented about how widespread the “follow your heart” message is.
According to the August 26th Dallas Morning News, the producers of television programs are preparing many shows for this fall which will highlight such decisions (between head and heart). One of them will appear on Disney-owned ABC. The blurb underneath the promo says: “The hero of Nothing Sacred, a Roman Catholic priest played by Kevin Anderson, runs into a former lover, now in a troubled marriage. Will they get involved again?” (5C). The viewer might think that the priest’s faith will keep him strong. Hah! What faith? He questions the existence of God. He will not counsel against abortion. He is opposed neither to homosexuality nor promiscuity; he tells his parishioners: “I was not ordained to be a sexual traffic cop.” Was Moses (EX. 20:14)? This priest is so evil one would think there had been a Catholic boycott of Disney instead of one by Baptists.
Caryn James comments on the change in attitude concerning adultery in our society.
In the old days, unfaithfulness automatically marked a character as a villain or a home wrecker. For the last five years or so, dramas (and to a lesser degree sitcoms) have turned a corner. No television show has suggested that philandering is a good idea; in fact, in both sitcoms and dramas adultery always produces serious emotional fallout. But now the people involved are often major characters we like and sympathize with (6C).
She continues by citing NYPD Blue and E.R. as examples of shows that sport “flawed people who made understandable mistakes.” She feels that the current fare is a great improvement over “the days when television defied reality and insisted that marriage was a constant state of unblemished monogamy.”
James’ choice of vocabulary lends credibility to her case; so consider a few substitutions. In place of realistically flawed people, read sinners who are too weak to resist temptation, who “follow their hearts.” Her choice of terms almost sounds as though the characters cannot help what they do, when the truth is that they lack strength of (fictional) character.
The word affair really softens the imagery. It sounds light and rhymes with air; it conjures up images of something exotically French. Adultery is so much more harsh and pejorative. It seems to carry much more of a wallop in the ten commandments than the other word would: “Thou shalt not have affairs.”
It may surprise Caryn to know this, but there are still many spouses that are monogamous; most of the publicity, however, attends those who been unfaithful. She writes that these “understandable mistakes” reflect “real life,” as though marital faithfulness does not. We might ask if responsible marriage partners only subsist in the twilight zone (but that’s a fictional place).
Next she cites celebrity failures, such as Prince Charles and Lady Diana, Frank and Kathy Lee Gifford, and Bill Cosby. Things were not always perfect in Camelot, either (choose whichever Camelot you prefer). She admits, however, that the television programs are not so much copying celebrity lives as they are reflecting “the way Americans have been dealing with infidelity in more complex terms.”
Oh, really? What terms are those: lust, sin, defilement? What James means is that Americans are becoming adept at rationalization–trying to justify people’s “mistakes.” Instead of saying, “I committed adultery, and I was wrong,” the emphasis has shifted to, “I had an affair, but you can understand how that could happen.” People talk so glibly about adultery that one would never guess that in the Old Testament the penalty for it was being stoned to death!
In a May 24th article in The Dallas Morning News Cal Thomas commented about society’s reluctance, as well as the hesitation of religious bodies theoretically upholding the Bible, to denounce adultery.
Rushing to keep pace with the cultural decline are at least 40 member churches of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which recently signed a “covenant of dissent” signaling their noncooperation with the denomination’s “fidelity and chastity” law. That law, to be adopted this spring, requires church leaders not to engage in sex outside of a male-female marriage bond. If some churches start going wobbly on a central biblical teaching, what are the rest of us to think? (31A).
Perhaps this attitude should come as no surprise, since so many have dismissed young couples’ “living together” (translate, fornication) as “normal.” Regardless of what society and some man-made churches teach, however, the Bible still says: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).
As a culture, we seem to have lost sight of moral absolutes. We now view ourselves as THE GREAT EXCEPTION to whatever rule or moral principle we find inconvenient to abide by. The only problem with that kind of thinking is that, sooner or later, we must grant others the same “exception” rights we appropriated for ourselves. After all, it is rather hypocritical to accuse someone else of the same sin whereof we ourselves stand guilty.
Soon a large segment of society has participated in the same sin, and no one wants to accuse anyone else. And if a voice should break the silence, that person becomes vilified; the brave but intrepid soul is characterized as “self-righteous” or “sanctimonious.” “Doesn’t he know that none of us is perfect?” Thereby the problems caused by sin are minimized and accepted, which is wholly inadequate. Thomas continues:
Psychiatrist and family therapist Frank Pittman has written about adultery, calling it the primary disrupter of families, the most dreaded and devastating experience in marriage. It is the most universally accepted justification for divorce. It is even a legally accepted justification for murder in some states and many societies (31A).
While that last statement may be the case, it is not the right of a Christian to so behave. But Pittman is correct about the devastating results of adultery. Trust has been breached, and in many cases divorce will follow. A new study recently given a great amount of publicity said that divorce is not nearly so bad as most people have thought. This study contradicts many of the findings that experts have agreed upon for years, but it is reported that the sampling used was only 100, which is very limited.
Recently, a North Carolina case made national news. Margie Cox was sued by Dorothy Hutelmyer for alienation of affection–and won. Dorothy claimed that she and her husband Joseph had a storybook marriage (her husband wrote her poems and love songs). Margie Cox, a divorcee, worked for Mr. Hutelmyer as secretary.
How well she did that job we don’t know, but she did a good job of persuading her boss to divorce his wife and marry her, for which she was sued. The court granted the first Mrs. Hutelmyer one million dollars (to be paid by the second Mrs. Hutelmyer). Needless to say, the case was appealed, but the former Margie Cox lost again.
Of course, some despise the alienation of affection law and have pointed out that the husband has a free will of his own. It was also alleged that the original Hutelmyer couple had not been “physical” for seven years, which (if true) might tint Dorothy with a little guilt of her own.
But the law was originally passed to keep one woman from stealing another woman’s man through “physical” means. [Of course, this seems to presume that men are weak-minded and susceptible to being vamped (Pr. 7; Matt. 5:27-28).] But it serves as yet another way to show that adultery can prove costly.
If married couples would determine to follow what the Bible teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and Ephesians 5:22-33, many marital problems could be avoided.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “AFFAIRS OF THE HEART (9/14/97).”
Recently the newspapers have highlighted the problems of Henry Lyons, the leader of the National Baptist Convention USA. It seems he owned an extra house and perhaps took an extra woman (other than his wife) to it. But then his wife confided that she knew about this other house all along. Now all of that sordid situation may not yet be sorted out, but there has arisen a further complication–Lyons’ marital history.
Lest the reader come to the wrong conclusion about this article, the purpose is not make light of the moral problem or to infer that infidelity is typical of Baptists. Our differences with them are doctrinal, not personal, and we have had what seems like more than our share of men who lacked moral purity.
The following facts have come to light and were published (not very prominently) in The Dallas Morning News of August 11th.
The St. Petersburg Times reported that Georgia records show Mr. Lyons married Patricia Lucile Demons in 1966, divorced in 1969 and married Camilla Smith that same year. They divorced in 1972. Mr. Lyons’ marriage to his current wife came after Bethel Metropolitan Baptist Church in St. Petersburg began considering him for pastor 25 years ago, the newspaper reported. The church had found Mr. Lyons perfect except for the fact that he was single (4A).
The factual newspaper article reveals nothing further–except that Lyons lied when he married his third wife. He “indicated on his marriage license that he had never married” (4A). So what will happen now?
There are several points about this situation that are worth considering. First, one wonders how this man was hired by the Bethel Metropolitan Baptist Church in the first place. Did they know of his previous marriages? Did they ask him? Did wife #3 know? Did they consult congregations with which he had previously worshipped and/or worked? How well did they know his background?
We don’t know the answers to these questions, but it brings up a point worth considering. Why do not churches investigate a man before they employ him? We know at least two cases involving our brethren in which the preacher’s wife had been unfaithful, but the next congregation was not warned. Sometimes, it has been the preacher who was unfaithful, but neither his wife nor the congregation from which he is departing issued a single word of warning to his new “work.” Apparently it is up to the “hiring” congregation to check a person’s background. Such may uncover a multitude of sins and save future heartaches.
One also cannot help wondering why the former wives never came forward and said anything. Were there no children? Was there no alimony payment? Did he just desert both women? Or was it to their financial advantage to keep silence all these years?
One cannot help wondering how the denomination views Mr. Lyons’ lying (about being single) on his marriage license. Has his conscience bothered him all these years? What about when he has preached about “bearing false witness” or just “lying” in general? If he had not repented of doing so, he is somewhat hypocritical.
One also wonders what the denomination he represents teaches about divorce and remarriage, as well as what he personally has taught through the years. Do they think that one can divorce and remarry as many times as he desires, as long as he “repents” of each “divorce,” as some of our digressive brethren opine?
Or do they feel that the 25 years of marriage to his current “wife” wipes out everything in his past–if it happened before he became a Baptist? There are some among us who think that baptism also serves as a bill of divorcement (as well as a marriage ceremony–to the current mate). Some have even been known to deny the validity of their original baptism in hopes that another baptism will change their marital status. Some have argued, “We wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of evangelism.” So if his two previous marriages happened before his “conversion,” maybe he is all right.
Obviously, Mr. Lyons has a lot of explaining to do, and his reputation has suffered much (perhaps irreparable damage). It will be interesting to see how the Baptists deal with this series of problems. They could choose to look the other way, but what kind of example would that be? In days gone by, they would have removed him swiftly, but these are different times.
Who would have imagined 25 years ago the “defenses” some of our brethren have advanced to circumvent the obvious teaching of Matthew 19:3-9? Taking a cue from some of our apostates, Mr. Lyons might argue that enough time has elapsed to heal all those old marital wounds and make his current marriage valid. More likely in his case, however, the reverse is true: the “pastor’s” past has caught up with him. As it was once put on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show: “Time wounds all heels.”
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “DOES TIME HEAL ALL WOUNDS? (8/31/97).”
Religious denominations lack Biblical authority. Jesus died for the church, which is His body (Acts 20:30; Eph. 1:22-23). Denominations were begun by men over a thousand years after the church was established on the day of Pentecost, and from the sixteenth century onward they have proliferated.
They do not represent Christ; they are not authorized by the Bible, and they vote on moral issues in their national conventions (as though God had given them such a right). Many have shown a willingness to ignore what the Bible says on the subject of homosexuality and allowing women to preach (not to mention disregarding its teachings on marriage, modesty, gambling, and other moral issues).
But sometimes they can be funny, as typified by an agreement on the part of some this week to fellowship one another. The story was reported in The Dallas Morning News on August 19th.
In approving a document called the Formula of Agreement, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided to bridge gaps within Protestantism….
Although not a merger, the document calls for “full communion” between the 5.2 million-member Lutheran denomination and three other churches, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Church of Christ and the Reformed Church in America, which together account for about 5 million members (3A).
Of course, the most logical question is: “Is the Lutheran Church in America in fellowship with other Lutheran churches (Missouri Synod, for example)?” And if they are, why are there different branches? There are obviously some issues that divide Lutherans.
But the article gets even more interesting when it explains how the “full communion” will work.
Its practical effect means that the churches retain their creeds and theological traditions but fully recognize each other’s sacraments and clergy members and can collaborate in missionary work and major social service projects.
Excuse an obvious observation, but what is it that keeps people apart if not their creeds and theological traditions? Is this statement not a confession that creeds are not worth dividing over and that the issues that divided them for hundreds of years did not really matter? What can this mean, except that doctrine is irrelevant? If such is the case, then they ought to throw away the books on “systematic theology” that they make all their “seminary” students study.
Does it not further mean that when these men “preach” or exchange pulpits, they will not be spending any time on doctrine–the doctrine that makes them Lutheran or Presbyterian? [The United Church of Christ (no relation to us) gave up teaching anything distinctive (not to mention Biblical) a long time ago.] This agreement fairly screams, “Doctrine doesn’t matter!”
But if these religious groups are going to be united, then why retain their creeds, theological traditions, and names? They are on the one hand acknowledging that these things have divided them in the past but then insisting that they can fellowship each other despite these differences which they still wish to retain. In other words, they are “agreeing to disagree” for “political” purposes. This loose federation will be stronger in numbers and richer with their combined wealth (but no closer to the Scriptural organization taught in the Bible).
But the article portrays a glitch amidst these union hopefuls. The “vote on the Lutheran-Episcopal document, called the Concordat of Agreement, fell six votes short of the necessary majority” (3A). The chief ecumenical officer for the United Church of Christ commented on this tragedy.
“We find ourselves in a very awkward position of trying to combine a sense of gratitude and grief, a sense of joy and sorrow, and also an awareness that many of our closest colleagues are feeling a deep sense of pain at the moment.”
The principal Episcopal author of the agreement also lamented the failure to be included in this pact: “I think the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, GWS] has missed the most significant ecumenical opportunity of the 20th century.”
Wrong. The most significant ecumenical plan would involve doing something these men would never think of–returning to the simplicity of the pattern given in the New Testament. Where does the Bible talk about denominational structures? Where does it mention those claiming to be Christians being called by some denominational name? Where does it advise saints to have national assemblies and to vote on Biblical issues? Where does it authorize “clergy”?
Why were the Episcopalians excluded?
Others said the agreement failed because of persisting fears among some Lutherans of binding themselves to a church in which bishops play so large a role. Lutherans elect their bishops for six-year terms as opposed to giving them lifetime tenure as do Catholics and Episcopalians.
Notice that the division exists NOT over a Bible teaching, but rather over how both groups have misapplied Scriptures! Neither group has bishops as defined by 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1. Neither do they have a plurality of bishops over one congregation. Contrary to the New Testament, their bishops exercise authority over a number of local congregations. Neither group objects to such an unscriptural arrangement–only as to how long the term of office should be: six years or life.
This news item demonstrates what we have said all along about man-made religious denominations. Their very existence shows a disrespect for the Holy Scriptures, for God did not authorize them nor the hierarchies that exist within them. They are divisive–and frequently over what the Scriptures do not teach or authorize. What an irony that they take a stand on a non-Biblical issue but can brush aside clear New Testament teaching for the sake of unity!
As Jesus said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:13-14).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “UNITY AMONG SOME DENOMINATIONS (8/30/97).”
It is true that we live in a world dominated by wickedness and sinful lusts. It is true that those seeking the Lord’s way are few. It is true that we are dominated by governments and bureaucracies that seem to allow fewer freedoms each passing year. It is true that (for the most part) we are powerless to fight Big Brother, Big Sister, or even City Hall. “Investigative” reporting no longer characterizes the news media; fairness and truth are “relative” terms for them.
BUT one person can still do a considerable amount of good even in times like these. There was another time period which was even worse than ours. It was a time of great immorality; it was a time of much violence; it was a time in which 99.99+% of the people had 0% interest in God and spiritual concerns. God became so angry that He decided to destroy the world.
“BUT Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8). Nothing in the above paragraph has been exaggerated. The “wickedness of man was great in the earth”; “every intent” of the thoughts of people’s hearts was “only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Noah is called a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), which means that all who heard the message, which would have saved their lives, rejected it.
Today’s “church growth” experts would certainly rank Noah as a failure, but there are some important lessons to glean from this unusual period of history. Consider some positive concepts from his situation.
First of all, Noah affected the outcome of the history of the world. If he had become like the people all around him, the world could have ended. We may say to ourselves, “Why should I bother to resist peer pressure? Since I’m in Rome, why don’t I just live as the Romans do?” How often do we say to ourselves, “What good are my feeble efforts going to be in a world gone crazy?” How productive can one good tree be? Can it bear enough fruit to overcome all of the evil? No, it cannot. It does not need to. When people come into the orchard and see only a few good fruit-bearing trees amidst a majority of unhealthy ones with rotten fruit, which will the discerning eye wish to have? Quality can be more effective than quantity.
One righteous soul (and his family) prompted God to let the earth continue. How do we know that faithful Christians do not serve that function, also? How do we know how many times God may have thought, “This would be a good time to end human history”? BUT some one (or some ones) caused Him to postpone the day of judgment.
Noah might be considered as a type of Christ in the way he withstood sin. Of course, he did not abstain from sin entirely, as Jesus did, but (in his refusal to be dominated by it) Noah (in a sense) saved the world. Jesus overcame all temptations and was qualified as the only human being to stand in our place and receive the punishment that was due us. He saved His family, too–God’s family. We could not save ourselves, but Jesus saved us through His blood (Rev. 1:5), and we stand in the safety of the spiritual ark, the church.
Second, one person can save his family. We may suppose that one person cannot do very much, but just think of the improvements that would exist in this world if all of us would save our children. No one is here pointing an accusing finger at parents whose children (despite their best efforts) are unfaithful to the Lord. All of us are free moral agents. Even loving our children and setting the proper example before them does not guarantee they will become or remain Christians. Cain certainly turned against what he had been taught, and it appears that Ham and Canaan were a little (if not a lot) on the profane side.
But the fact is that sometimes Christian parents are not setting, the best example that they can. They may choose to be absent from the times of worship in which we are scheduled to meet. They may not see to it that their children are involved in the activities that have been planned for young people. Over the years most preachers have seen what happens to the families which did not make the church their first priority.
It would serve no useful purpose to name names or locations, but one family comes to mind, in which the church always took second place. If a sporting event or school activity conflicted with worship, Bible study, or activities, there was no contest. Likewise, when they became teens, old enough to get jobs, they always came first, too (and isn’t it strange that they were always asked to work on Sundays and Wednesdays?).
Is there anyone who has not figured out that none of the children are faithful Christians today? Oh, but the children are well-rounded academically, socially, and physically. Somehow spirituality did not survive. If only the parents had, like Noah, determined that their family’s spiritual condition was going to receive top priority! One uncompromising parent can make a difference; one devoted family can make a difference.
Third, Noah and his family were rewarded for their faithfulness. They were given a new earth, a cleansed earth. It was theirs to develop; imagine the possibilities–to make of the world what you will. Adam and Eve were the only other ones blessed with this privilege. Cain ruined their chances for success, and Noah did not fare any better. Within a few years men were departing from God and rebelling against His will (the tower of Babel, for instance).
As long as men have the freedom to sin, some will, and they will be able to get others to follow them. But for a few years the earth was in good spiritual shape. Christians shall be rewarded for their righteousness, also. We shall (metaphorically) inherit a new earth. “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which dwells righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). This new home will not become corrupted as were Eden and the earth after the flood. It will retain its purity and holiness.
The Way of True Success
One person can wield great influence for good. We should not ever underrate or devalue ourselves and the things we might accomplish for God. But there is a reason for Noah’s success–his faithfulness.
Some people portray the Bible as a difficult book, hard to interpret, complicated. But Noah was a man who operated by a simple plan–if God commands it, do it. Genesis 6 records a number of commands that God gives Noah–a list of specifications for the ark he is to build. Consider some things that Noah did not say.
“Lord, why can’t all the animals and I just go to the top of a hill and wait?” [Answer: Then all the wicked people could also flee there.]
“Does the ark really need to be this long? To build something this huge might take 100 years.”
Instead of complaining, grumbling, making up excuses, or suggesting innovations, Noah took the unconventional approach of just doing what God said.
Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did (Gen. 6:22).
And Noah did according to all that the Lord commanded him (Gen. 7:5).
We often sing the song, “Trust and Obey.” Noah never heard the song, but he practiced the sentiment. If all of God’s people would do likewise, just imagine the impact we would make on this world. But anyone who thinks (like Elijah), “I am the only faithful one left,” should take comfort in the fact that one is still a good number.
Goliath wasn’t slain by a committee; it took only one lad with faith. A Bible-reading, knee-bending, faithful child of God possesses more power than he may realize–more than the president, more than the congress. Who held more influence with God: Ahab or Elijah? Which queen was more powerful–the one who ruled through power and fear (Jezebel), or the one who through humility saved her people from extinction (Esther)?
One person can be spiritually strong; one individual can be steadfast and unmovable (1 Cor. 15:58). It only takes one person with deep trust and commitment to make a difference in this world. One’s first priority must be to save oneself; the next one is to save one’s family. The third is to influence positively the entire world–not through force, which is the only means some understand, but through the power of godly speech, godly behavior, and godly living.
What more fitting epitaph to a faithful life could there be than: “As God commanded, so he (or she) did.”
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “THE POWER OF ONE INDIVIDUAL (8/24/97).”
