A great deal of confusion seems to exist over what constitutes “the assembly.” Are Bible classes part of “the assembly”? If so, what may women do or not do in them? What is “the assembling” of ourselves together that we ought not to forsake (Heb. 10:25)?
A number of years ago, in an effort to get brethren to attend Bible study as well as worship, one elder stressed that everything we did was one service. “We start at ten and end at noon; there’s no division between them. We go right from one to the other.” As important as it is for brethren to be built up by the Word of God, the above argument is not a valid one. Bible classes and worship are separate.
A few years ago one brother objected to a woman teaching a Bible class (on a Wednesday evening) based on his erroneous concept that she was teaching in the assembly with men present (even though they were in other classrooms and not being taught by her). Recently some men have objected to a woman making comments in class, claiming that she was not learning in submission or being quiet in the “assembly.”
The first point that needs to be established is that Bible classes and “the assembly” are two different entities with distinct (albeit overlapping) purposes. Both are authorized (Col. 3:17) by the Scriptures: the former by example and expediency and the latter by command and example. Classes provide us with a time to study the Word of God in which questions may be asked and Scriptural answers given. In “the assembly” we offer up our worship to our God.
Bible Classes
Did Bible classes exist in the first-century church? In Acts 2:46 we read that brethren were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (Oh, how much we could use such unity again!). Continuing what? The context indicates they were continuing daily in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). In other words, the church had just begun, and teaching regarding Christian living, the Lord’s return, and Christian worship were all needed, as was an explanation of the ways in which the Old Testament Scriptures had been fulfilled.
As the early church grew, the apostles were imprisoned (but freed by an angel). When it was discovered that they were missing, someone informed the chief priests, “Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple teaching the people!” (Acts 5:25). It is not a wild assumption to conclude that teaching in the temple had long been their custom. The apostles were conducting classes; as a result of these efforts (and perhaps some teaching in houses as well), Jerusalem was filled with Christian doctrine (Acts 5:28).
In Ephesus Paul reasoned daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). We don’t have a copy of his daily schedule–whether he conducted classes based on subject matter or used a question-and-answer format. The important thing is that the Word of God was being taught–not the expedient incidentals concerning the details of how the task was being accomplished. In our zeal to be Scriptural, we should not lose sight of the fact that God has given us much leeway.
In 1 Corinthians the women were meeting at special times to exercise their gifts without men being present (11:3-16). Although this fact may not be obvious at the outset, it becomes more apparent when Paul begins the next section of the letter by saying, “For first of all, when you come together as a church…” (1 Cor. 11:18). The implication is that the women were meeting separately by themselves (as described above). In those meetings they were praying and prophesying, but they were doing so with their heads uncovered. The fact that no man was present did not nullify their need to show submission with a headcovering.
This submission could hardly be shown in a mixed assembly since chapter 14 deals with that situation, and then the women were forbidden to speak. “Let your women keep silent in the churches…” (1 Cor. 14:34). There is no commandment for women to keep from teaching and speaking when men were not present, as in a class situation. In fact, when else could women exercise their spiritual gifts, unless it would be in the home with their children or in a non-weekly-assembly meeting with only women present? If anyone denies that they could exercise their gifts even in these situations, then God gave them something that was worthless–a spiritual gift which could never be used.
In modern times Bible school classes were begun about 200 years ago by Robert Raikes. The idea behind them was to present the Bible at an intellectual level that children could understand. Young ones are not “miniature adults”; they need to learn at the level their thought processes and vocabulaires will allow. They will learn only a small portion from sermons aimed at adults (although this practice also possesses value). So when is a good and opportune time to teach these kinds of classes? Obviously, the most convenient time is one adjacent to when we are gathering together anyway–say, for worship.
Bible classes, then, on Sunday morning, provide an opportune time for all ages to study and add to their knowledge of God. Such classes are authorized under expediency. Why someone would object to classes is a mystery–especially since special classes were frequently the practice of the church in the first century. But even if they were not, it is still an expedient time for everyone to profit spiritually; it is a wasted opportunity if we do not take advantage of it.
Bible classes, then, should not be confused with the assembly. Would it be permissible for ladies to have their own class at such a time? Yes. They could still not teach over a man (because 1 Timothy 2:8-14 applies in or out of the assembly), but they can certainly teach one another, as the women in Corinth did. When ladies teach one another or youngsters (Titus 2:3-4), they are fulfilling their responsibilities (“edify one another”) rather than violating Scripture–as long as they are not teaching over men.
Can women be allowed to speak in Bible classes in which men and women are both present? Here we enter the realm of human judgment since we find nothing precisely parallel in the New Testament. We know that women were told to keep silent in the matter of exercising their spiritual gifts when in the presence of men (in the assembly). But the details of conducting classes with both men and women present are not mentioned. Presumably women were among the disciples meeting daily “in the temple” (Acts 2:46). On many occasions when Jesus was teaching, the text specifically says that women were present, but again nothing is said about asking questions or making comments.
Generally, in our adult Bible classes, all students, male or female, are encouraged to participate with comments or questions, both of which are helpful and advance the learning. No one considers that either of these activities constitutes an effort to usurp authority. Now if a woman (or a man, for that matter) took issue with the teacher (over a matter of interpretation, not a Biblical fact or truth) and began to dispute and debate the issue, that would be a matter which should be dealt with by the elders, since it would be a wrong attitude.
Assemblies
When the church meets on a regular basis (each Lord’s day), first and foremost (before Bible classes are added) there is the assembly. Barnabas and Saul “assembled with the church” for a whole year before their first missionary journey (Acts 11:26). Brethren are admonished not to “forsake the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25). James writes of the visitor who “comes into your assembly” (2:2). [All three of these “assembly” words are related in the Greek.] Paul talks about the whole church coming together in one place (1 Cor. 14:23).
The purpose of this assembly (meeting, gathering) is to worship God. In addition to giving, the Lord’s Supper, singing, and praying, there is also the presentation of God’s Word. It is this weekly assembly that Christians are admonished not to forsake. Of course, those with a healthy spiritual appetite will also want to attend Bible classes on the Lord’s day and the Wednesday evening classes as well.
It is in this weekly assembly that it would be a shame for a woman to speak or to attempt to exercise the leadership roles God has designated for men. It is this assembly that we must not forsake even one week. We should no more think of failing to meet on the Lord’s day for any reason (work, school, travel, etc.) than the Jew would have thought of not keeping the Sabbath day. In fact, the book of Hebrews mentions even worse punishment for us who have despised a greater covenant and perfect salvation purchased for us at great cost by the Son of God (Heb. 10:29).
One of the abilities that seems to be lacking today is the ability to discern. Some seem to be unable to discern spirits (whether a man is a true or false teacher). Some in the first century possessed this gift (1 Cor. 12:10), and some (who are blind about Shelly, Lucado, Osburn, etc.) could surely use a healthy dose today.
Not only, however, do we need to be able to discern people, but especially ideas. There are too many who read a passage of Scripture, misunderstand it, and then think that others need to conform to their opinions. Whatever happened to not taking sides on an issue but examining the Scriptures to understand what they really teach? Truth is not a matter of what the majority thinks or what is the most popular view. Let us forsake pet interpretations–especially on nonessential matters. Love needs to be exercised toward all, and we should all strive for reasonableness.
No matter what we have been taught and regardless of the way we feel about a certain doctrine, the question must always be, “What do the Scriptures say?” Is there liberty on a certain matter? Then, let’s be certain that we grant it. Is the Bible binding on a certain point? Then let’s not be moved away from that truth. It would be beneficial, however, to discern between opinions and doctrine, as well as matters of obligation and matters of option. Too many reports of the opposite have been given: people standing firm on opinion and yielding on doctrine. It is not for nothing that Proverbs 23:23 exhorts us: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.” Members should be able to discern between the assembly and Bible classes; we ought also to discern correctly on many other such fundamental matters as well.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “THE ASSEMBLY (8/10/97).”
What is it about some people that inspires such loyalty? Moses, as God’s spokesman led the people out of Egyptian bondage, for which they had cried for deliverance. He led them through the Red Sea, and the nation rejoiced at the death of their enemies. But when it came time to enter into the Promised Land, the people became frightened. Instead of reasoning, “Moses is a trustworthy man of God who has already done a lot for us; let us follow him,” they determined to stone him.
Joash had been saved by Jehoiada the priest and his wife; they kept him safe for six years and saw to it that he was placed upon the throne. All of these bold and courageous acts ought to merit a measure of loyalty, but Joash commanded that the priest’s son (who was a prophet of the Lord) be put to death.
Jesus did many marvelous things in the presence of his countrymen, but the people allowed themselves to be incited to crucify Him; even His disciples fled.
How is it, then, that false teachers like Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado inspire such loyalty? About fifteen years ago, when astute brethren noticed the Shelly shift to the left, some absolutely refused to acknowledge it. Even five or more years later some were still mumbling, “He was taken out of context.”
The same is now true of Max Lucado. No matter what he says or does, his defenders are Legion. About 75% of all feedback from the numerous articles Pearl Street has on its Website comes from people taking issue with the articles about liberal, lax Lucado.
Moses and Jesus were both deserted, but Shelly and Lucado have a loyal and loud (albeit inarticulate) gaggle of followers, who occasionally honk at us when they feel threatened. Many of them try misapplying Matthew 18:15-17. “Did you talk to Max first before you criticized him? He’s soooo accessible.” Right! To his fawning fans he may be (although even that is doubtful), but faithful brethren have never been permitted near him. The passage cited, however, is one which deals with private, personal offenses–not someone who sells hundreds of thousands of books and broadcasts over the radio.
Speaking of which, there is a transcript of a Lucado message from a program aired in December of last year, which is currently being circulated through the brotherhood. Max concludes his main message by encouraging his listeners to pray with these words:
“Father, I give my heart to you. I give you my sins. I give you my tears. I give you my fears. I give you my whole life. I accept the gift of your Son on the cross for my sins. And I ask you Father to receive me as your child. Through Jesus I pray. Amen”
Can one of Max’s devotees explain what is different between that “invitation” and one used by Billy Graham or any other Baptist or denominationalist on radio or television? Following a brief commercial message, the announcer states: “Now, Max Lucado returns with a special word for those who received the gift of salvation just moments ago in prayer.” So, yes, the prayer was intended to be one that brought salvation. Saul of Tarsus could not be saved by prayer only, nor Cornelius.
But apparently Max thinks that his listeners can be saved by just saying those words. He continues:
Today is the first day you’ve ever prayed a prayer like that. Could you do me a favor? Could you write me a letter? I don’t have anything I am going to ask from you. I do have a letter I would like to send to you. I’d like to give you a word about the next step or two. I want to encourage you to find a church. I want to encourage you to be baptized. I want to encourage you to read your Bible. But I don’t want you to do any of that so that you will be saved. I want you to do all of that because you are saved. You see, your father has a great life planned for you, and I want to tell you about it. Give us a call, or drop me a note. And, thanks my friend, for making the greatest decision of your life.
A few observations are in order. Notice first that Max seems quite fond of the personal pronouns I and me, with there being eleven usages of the former and three of the latter. Second, if I think I’m saved by praying this prayer, the obvious question is, “Why do I need to read the Bible? God has a wonderful plan for my life? Hey, I think my life is pretty good already. Thanks for salvation, Lord, but I’ll take over from here.”
The most important thing about this paragraph, however, is that it is clearly Baptist doctrine. You should be baptized–but not in order to be saved. Max wants you to be baptized because you are saved! For over 150 years faithful brethren have debated this issue with Baptists: Is baptism in order to be saved or because you are saved?
For those who are as confused as Max, churches of Christ have always taken the Bible position: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38). Baptists have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that for means “because of.” Not only is the weight of scholarly evidence against them, but Matthew 26:28 (if this same suggestion were applied there) would have Jesus shedding His blood because our sins had already been forgiven.
Paul teaches that there is only one gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Which is it? Does it include baptism or doesn’t it? It certainly did for Saul. After Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, he believed and knew that Jesus is Lord. How simple it would have been for him to pray, “Father I give my heart to you. . . I accept the gift of your Son on the cross for my sins.” If Baptist/Lucado doctrine were correct, Saul would have been saved right there on the road to Damascus.
Saul fasted and prayed for three days (Acts 9:9, 11). He was not, however, saved as a result of those two heartfelt actions, as worthy as they are. Ananias said to him: “‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord'” (Acts 22:16).
Saul, even after praying and fasting for three days, still had all of his sins, which needed to be washed away by the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5) in baptism. Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus–nor by prayer. It is in the act of baptism that sins are removed.
Lucado is teaching a different “gospel.” Being saved without and before baptism is not the same as saved at the point of and during baptism. Even Max’s loyal followers should be able to see that point. One is the true gospel; one is a false gospel. Max is teaching the FALSE gospel; churches of Christ for the past 150 years have taught and defended the truth. Max has been unwilling to defend in debate anything he believes.
If Lucado is teaching a false gospel (and he is), then the Word of God says he is accursed. In fact, anyone who teaches a false gospel is accursed. Why? So many who teach that doctrine are such moral people. True, and we admire the moral stands taken by religious people, but a false gospel cannot save anyone.
There is nothing worse than assuring someone that he is saved when he is in fact still lost in his sins. The false gospel is from the devil, who wants people to be lost. What better way of deluding people than by trying to convince them they are saved when they have never obeyed the gospel? “Oh, I know I’m saved; I could not be mistaken about such a feeling. I was filled with warmth, and the love of God flooded my soul.”
But where did such an idea (that salvation would be experienced that way) come from? Is that what Peter told the multitude on Pentecost to expect? Is that what Paul told Ananias had happened to him? “You’ve made the trip for nothing, Ananias. I accepted Jesus as my Savior while you were on your way, and my heart is overflowing with emotion.” Paul may have been filled with emotion all right, as he pondered his former persecution of the church, but he was baptized to wash his sins away (Acts 22:16).
If the Bible is right, there is one gospel. If there is one gospel, all others are wrong. Those who are teaching the false gospels (such as lax Max) are accursed. How do such men command such loyalty when those devoted to the truth are maligned and rejected?
Paul had a difficult time understanding that concept, too. He wrote to the Corinthians: “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it” (2 Cor. 11:4). Those who gladly put up with Rubel and Max (and their multitude of errors, including a “different gospel”) have demonstrated that they no more honor the Truth than those in Corinth, who were willing to submit to frauds and challenge the inspired apostle Paul. Some things never change.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “BAPTIST LUCADO AND LOYALTY (8/3/97).”
Leonard Pitts, who writes for the Miami Herald, wrote an interesting column dealing with the controversial subject of homosexuality; it appeared in the Dallas Morning News on June 6th. Although it echoes some of the arguments examined in earlier articles, it is a model of how liberals evade and obfuscate the issue.
This is for those who hated my recent column about Ellen DeGeneres and Jerry Falwell–the lesbian comic and the preacher who finds her disgusting (29A).
It is for the ones who pointed me to the Bible, specifically Leviticus 20:13, which calls homosexuality an “abomination” worthy of death.
Finally, it is for those who, in light of this, dared me to explain how I can scorn the preacher and defend the lesbian.
Let me begin by saying I have no answer.
This last statement is disingenuous. If he truly has no answer, the column should end here. The answer is that he prefers the practice of homosexuality over the teachings of the Bible, which is obvious throughout his column. This “no answer” ploy is nothing more than a mechanism to make himself sound humble. It fails.
The reader may wonder why Pitts specifically cites Leviticus 20:13 when many of his readers must have pointed out for his consideration Romans 1:24-28, which does not involve the death penalty and is from the New Testament. After all, we are not under the Law of Moses, although it reflects God’s consistent attitude toward the sin of homosexuality (see Gen. 19 and Jude 7).
When it comes to reconciling the words in the ancient book with the conundrums of modern life, such is often the case.
What does this statement mean, if not that the Bible is not relevant to our age? What so many fail to see is that “modern life” began about one year after the Bible was completed. Can we not imagine those who wished to disregard the Bible’s condemnation of sin saying, “Oh, come on. You can’t believe the teaching of those old dusty manuscripts. This is the second century!”?
The problem for Pitts and other media liberals is not a lack of relevancy. The problem is that the Scriptures are all too relevant. There is not a moral or ethical problem that the Bible does not deal with in principle; human beings, despite all of our technology, are the same as they have always been–sinful. The Bible is a complete revelation, as evidenced by Jesus’ promise to the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-13) and the fact that we have been given all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). The idea that modern civilization is just too complex for the Bible to be relevant is false.
The same chapter of Leviticus, for instance, also mandates death for cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9) or committing adultery (Leviticus 20:10).
Why aren’t those who quote Leviticus as literal law rushing to obey this injunction? Why aren’t the streets running red with the blood of sluttish spouses and spoiled brats?
I have no answer.
Come on, Leonard; you’re a bright fellow. How about this explanation: “America is not a theocracy”? Those laws were given to Israel, which was a theocracy; they are not repeated in the New Testament. In fact, under the Christian system capital punishment is the responsibility of the state, not Christians (Rom. 13:1-7). Pitts’ dealing with the subject in this way is nothing more than a diversionary tactic so that he does not have to say, “I think the Bible is wrong about homosexuality,” which he obviously thinks, but that statement would not sound so nearly as humble as, “I have no answer.”
It is emphatically not my intention to ridicule God’s Book. However, I do mean to challenge those of his would-be soldiers who seem to take their faith as an excuse for spurning two of his greatest gifts. Meaning a heart that knows compassion and a mind that entertains questions.
We are happy to know that Mr. Pitts means no disrespect toward the Word of God, that “ancient book” whose teachings are so hard to reconcile “with the conundrums of modern life” (as if homosexuality were a modern problem). No, it’s only the followers of that book that are so messed up. Surely Mr. Pitts is not being at all judgmental when he says the Book’s followers lack compassion and can’t think worth a flip.
Jesus asked a lot of questions (some of which His adversaries couldn’t answer), and His compassion cannot be questioned in light of His death on the cross for all the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Yet He condemned sin, including fornication, which includes the sin of homosexuality (Matt. 5:32, 19:9). [Out of curiosity, just what passage of Scripture tells us that compassion and asking questions are God’s two greatest gifts?]
They claim there is nothing personal in their persecution of gays. They are, they say, just following God’s law.
But we seldom hear of anyone getting this hot and bothered over faithless spouses or ill-mannered children, both worthy of capital punishment according to the Bible.
For that matter, you seldom hear rage over men with long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14) or women who speak out in church (1 Corinthians 11:34-35)–both also scorned in the Bible.
And so, if these people are honest with themselves, they must admit that their antipathy toward gays has less to do with God’s law than with human aversion–the visceral shudder of revulsion many still feel at the thought of all things homosexual.
This conclusion wouldn’t be just a tad judgmental, would it? Liberals never notice when they are being judgmental. Furthermore, they are confused enough to think that when someone stands up for Biblical truth by condemning sin, that they are guilty of judging.
These four paragraphs could be reduced to: “They claim that there is nothing personal in their persecution of gays, BUT THERE IS!” The first flaw in this reasoning (beyond Pitts’ judging of and lacking compassion on “would-be soldiers”) is his use of the word “persecution.” Are homosexuals being rounded up and shot? Has somebody forced them to march in “gay pride” parades in major cities across the United States?
The homosexuals are the ones on the attack, bad-mouthing everyone who objects to the public acceptance of their sin, and calling them homophobes and bigots (with the liberal entertainment and news media joining in). Mr. Pitts certainly knows what this battle is all about. His attempt to shift the blame for the current confrontation onto Christians is a typical liberal technique: Accuse those who are defending Biblical morality, which has also been the ideology which has permeated America up until the last fifteen years.
Perhaps Pitts and his friends are not disturbed over faithless spouses, but Christians are. We do not exercise the death penalty, but we do withdraw fellowship from those who sin and refuse to repent. It is society in general that cares little about adultery–not Christians. “Ill-mannered children” is not quite the concept of Leviticus 20:9, which describes “cursing.”
Many people protested men wearing long hair back in the sixties, but people rejected the Bible then too and said, “Oh that’s just a cultural phase.” Many of us still protest women speaking in public (1 Tim. 2:11-14), but the majority of the “Christian community” has said, “Oh, that was just cultural stuff that has become outdated since the first century.” [Let this be a lesson to all who have given up the Bible’s teachings based on “culture.” Pitts has them on this point. His argument is that homosexuality is just another “cultural” thing that’s changed since the Bible was written. He has no argument, however, against those of us who have remained faithful to the Word.]
Probably most Christians do have a “visceral shudder of revulsion” at the thought of homosexuality. It is, after all, a “vile passion” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). In fact, it will be time to worry when that feeling does not occur. But that alone is not the reason for opposing homosexuality.
Christians have fought against pornography–and lost. We have fought against the evils of alcohol–and lost. We have fought against no-fault divorce–and lost. We have fought against gambling–and (for the most part) lost. We have fought against fornication–and lost. We have fought against the taking of innocent lives (abortion)–and lost. Now we are fighting against homosexuality, for which Sodom was destroyed (not for having long hair). Christians think that this is the last battle. If we lose, America is finished. Without a moral foundation, national defense is useless.
Same Old, Same Old
Pitts next appeals to the diversity of interpretations of the Bible to try to discount the Bible’s teachings against homosexuality, such as snake handlers. The problem is that these aberrations do not prove his case because they are not parallel. Snake handlers build their entire doctrine around one passage of Scripture (Mark. 16:17-18), concerning which they do not consider that their interpretation might be mistaken.
But there is no principle in the patriarchal period or under the Law of Moses that predates this action. Furthermore, snake handling does not involve a moral principle; homosexuality does. God has always considered it a perversion, and He still does. Attempting to compare strange, non-mainstream doctrines built upon a flimsy foundation with Biblical morality is not only unfair; it is too blatant to be considered accidental.
Pitts next throws in a few barbs about interpreting the Bible according to one’s own “narrow-mindedness and bigotry” and ignoring passages which say “men ought not to judge.” The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible does not require interpretation; it is about as straightforward as any Biblical doctrine. In fact, one would have to “interpret” it incorrectly to justify homosexuality (2 Peter 3:16).
After all the judgmental statements that Pitts has made, he finds fault with others who (he perceives) do the same thing. Actually, God made the judgment concerning homosexuality; all Christians do is recognize His definitions.
Is homosexuality an abomination?
No answer for that, either, except that if I was given heart and mind, the giver must have wanted me to use them. No answer except that my heart and mind find it difficult to justify loathing or impeding people who have done me no harm. No answer except to note that God is mercy. And, of course, he is love.
Well, Mr. Pitts, we are sure you have no intention to ridicule God’s Book, but when you ask the question, “Is homosexuality an abomination?”, you have demonstrated that you do not believe God’s Book. God says homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 20:13). What part of that didn’t you understand? Paul says it is “against nature.” What is complicated about that?
No one has asked you to loathe homosexuals, but when you lend support to their sin, you certainly do not love them–rather, you are encouraging them to forego even thinking about repentance. Yes, God is love. He is also merciful TO THOSE WHO REPENT OF THEIR SINS! But to those who die in them (refusing to repent), God will judge (Heb. 13:4). By the way, Mr. Pitts, those who would turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (by justifying their abominations) shall also be condemned (Jude 4).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “EVASION (7/27/97).”
The Southern Baptists’ boycott of Disney has generated a number of predictable responses. First, there are the excessively miffed, such as Eric V. Hortsman who tried unsuccessfully to rewrite the story of the Good Samaritan. In his version a Southern Baptist came by and checked on the mugged man’s health care provider to see if the company included gays (Dallas Morning News, June 29th, 4J).
This lame attempt at paraphrasing is followed by D.R. Guirieri’s compassionate analysis of the situation. After kindly addressing the Southern Baptists as hypocrites, he asks: “Why would you live the ugly condemnations of the Old Testament rather than the lessons of love, light and tolerance spoken by Christ in the New Testament?”
First of all, perhaps this individual could tell us when God changed. If the Old and New Testaments are so different, then either God changed, or His attitude toward sin changed. Of course, neither God nor Jesus Christ has changed (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; Heb. 13:8). God feels the same way about homosexuality today as He did when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19).
Second, if the writer really feels that we should abide by the love and light in the New Testament, why does he refer to the Southern Baptists en masse as hypocrites and self-righteous? Tsk, tsk. His/her hatred of those who oppose the sin of homosexuality has somehow slipped into the open; one might even say that it borders on ugliness. Jesus was tolerant, but He never accepted people in their sins!! He demanded repentance.
Then there were the “We’ll get even with you mean, judgmental ‘straights’–we’ll all go to Disneyland” faction, typified by Mark Stafford’s letter:
My parents (my father being the pastor of a church for 23 years) accept my partner as a son. They are proud of our relationship. We have an equal place at their table, alongside my four siblings (and their children). We are an enduring family, as defined by love and understanding as opposed to a group of radicals. I think I’ll suggest our next family reunion be held in Orlando!
No, Mark, you and your family are a group of people at ease with perversion, as defined by the Bible (Rom. 1:24-28), which your father gave up being steadfast toward (maybe to justify your sin).
Some Southern Baptists felt embarrassed: apparently they respond more to bad publicity than what the Bible teaches; they expressed their disagreement with the Convention. And there were non-Baptists who expressed admiration for the stand this religious group has taken. Actually, it is rare to find anyone or any group of people who is willing to take action to try to improve society.
The Denton Record-Chronicle quoted from Virgie Holbrook who must be at ease in this contradictory world of postmodernism. First, he affirmed that his denomination does “not condone the practice of homosexuality,” but then said that the Trinity United Methodist Church, for whom he works, allows in its building meetings of the Denton chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) (7-5-97, 2A).
No doubt, this act of generosity is to show how “broad-minded” they are (not condoning it but condoning it at the same time). Of course, some would call this attitude one of “Love the sinner, hate the sin”; but Holbrook took issue with such thinking: “That comment assumes that homosexuality is a sin, and I think the jury’s still out on that one” (2A).
Say, Virgie, the jury rendered that verdict in Genesis 19–the Judge imposed the sentence then, too. The New Testament makes it clear that God has not changed His mind. Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to sexual immorality, having “gone after strange flesh,” Jude writes. He adds they “are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (7).
The Letter Everyone Knew Was Coming
On July 8th the letter with every cliche in the book was published in the Dallas Morning News.
As a former Southern Baptist, now turned Methodist, I must say, “Shame on such un-Christian-like behavior.” The Bible teaches, “Judge not, lest you be judged,” and to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” When and where were those biblical instructions erased? (14A).
It really is too bad that all the little Chihuahuas that like to yip-yip-yip about not judging have never bothered to read the next verse: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine. . .” (Matt. 7:6). Pray tell, how can anyone keep such a commandment without evaluation and judgment? Jesus did not condemn ALL judgment–just the unfair, self-righteous judgments made without a complete knowledge of the facts. A much lesser known verse is: “Do not judge according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
And since when has standing against sin been defined as a refusal to “love thy neighbor”? Many have spoken against riverboat casino gambling, picketed places that sell pornography, marched in protest against Planned Parenthood agencies and abortion clinics. Is Suzye Marino, the author of this letter, opposed to sin in any form? She serves as a good example of those who “call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Disney supports a Bible-condemned perversion, and she has no quarrel with them–just those who oppose it.
She continues: “Also, I challenge any Southern Baptist to prove that gays and lesbians choose to be gay.” Oh, please don’t limit this challenge to Southern Baptists, Suzye; some of the rest of us want to answer this one, too. Suppose for a moment that your hypothesis is correct: no one chooses to be a homosexual. Then God is unfair and unjust because He has condemned an activity that people cannot help. He owes the people of Sodom an apology.
Furthermore, He is responsible for creating a bunch of mean-spirited, intolerant homophobes because He caused Paul to write that homosexuality was a “vile passion” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). When you see Him on the day of judgment, you be sure to remind Him of these things. What an absurd hypothesis!
It is clear that God does not allow those who are homosexuals or sodomites into the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). One must repent of such sins before God will wash them away. If they are sins, then they violate God’s law. All violations of God’s law are matters of choice. Whatever God’s teaching on morality is, people choose to obey or disobey it. No adulterer, no thief, no fornicator, no idolater, no drunkard is forced to sin. God does not condemn someone for something that he cannot help.
Who in their right mind would willingly make that choice? Would you knowingly choose to become an outcast, shunned by society, isolated from family and friends, the brunt of gay “cruelty” jokes and hate crimes, and faced with the probability of dying from AIDS prematurely?
They may not be in their right minds, but people make destructive choices all the time. Who would choose to inhale a substance that induces coughing, is addictive, stinks up their clothing (and everyone else’s), and makes them a prime candidate for various breathing problems and an early grave?
Who would drink substances that cause them to lose their senses, beat up their wives, act like maniacs, and kill innocent motorists who get in their way? Who would disregard his wedding vows and have an affair with the boss’s wife, knowing that if he is discovered, it would mean the end of his career? Why do people (in general) persist in their evil ways and instead of repenting remain rebellious knowing that God will punish them for their sins throughout eternity?
On the other hand, who in their right mind would stand up for the Bible’s teaching against homosexuality when they know they will be chastised by their teachers, mocked by the liberal news and entertainment media, and scorned by the “politically correct” crowd?
“Disney played no part in creating gays and lesbians, that was God’s role.” Perhaps theologian Marino could share her source for this doctrine. In the beginning God created Adam and Eve–that’s male and female. He made them with the ability to reproduce. Now, when exactly did He make homosexuals? After the flood, there was Noah and his wife, their son, and their wives. That’s four families–no homosexuals. God’s original pattern was holding over 1,500 years after the creation. If there had been any homosexuals, they were destroyed in the flood with the other ungodly souls. So God created heterosexuals, and endorses heterosexuality (within marriage). All else is punishable sin.
Tolerance Is So Beautiful
Ann Landers’ July 9th column is so heartwarming. A former bigoted homophobe writes:
I was raised a strict Catholic and refused to accept my gay son’s lover for many years. I was adamant about barring him from all family functions. This caused problems and unpleasant confrontations for a long time.
Last year, I became ill and could no longer live alone. My gay son and his lover were the only ones in the family who offered to take me in. I was resistant at first, but after living with them for a few months, I realized that the love and compassion which held their relationship together for so many years was every bit as valid as that of any heterosexual couple.
I am angry with myself for the heartache and trouble I put them through. I still cannot understand why God made them gay. I only know that he brought together these two wonderful people–my son and my “son-in-law.”
Such a testimonial! And so full of love, tolerance, growth, and acceptance. Isn’t it beautiful? The world would be so much better if no one would stand for any moral principles and the Bible were just outlawed. Then maybe in a few years we could read the following letter.
I was raised strictly by the Bible and refused to accept my son’s polygamy. I was adamant about barring them from all family functions. This caused problems and unpleasant confrontations for a long time.
Last year, I became ill and could no longer live alone. My son and his wives were the only ones in the family who offered to take me in. I was resistant at first, but after living withthem for a few months, I realized the the genuine love the three of them shared. The relationship in this trio was every bit as valid as that held by any couple.
I am angry with myself for the heartache and trouble I put them through. I still cannot understand why God made him a polygamist. I only know that God brought together these three wonderful people–my son and my two “daughters-in-law.”
This situation is precisely parallel (and would probably be welcomed by the Mormons); the same kind of logic used to justify the one can be used to justify the other. A similar letter could be written with a man who deserted his wife and was living with a young woman. It could be two young people who refuse to get married. Create your own scenario. The key arguments are that both parties are satisfied with the arrangement, and they had compassion on another person. Take those two elements away, and the argument dissolves. There might even be a “polygamy gene.” So occasionally these three who are married may indulge in a little menage a trois, but as long as they are committed to each other, isn’t it a beautiful thing?
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “DISNEY FALLOUT (7/20/97).”
Many times visitors unacquainted with us wonder why we partake of the Lord’s Supper each week–especially when most religious groups do so much less frequently. Also, it is the practice of some to have the Lord’s Supper on some other day of the week, a practice we have historically said is unauthorized. How does the Bible deal with these issues; what has the Word bound, and what has it loosed? Where is the line between what we must do and what we are free to do?
Paul writes to the brethren at Corinth about an abuse of the Lord’s Supper in which they were engaged. The problem was so critical that Paul begins by saying, “. . . you come together not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:18). He makes clear in the following verse that this “coming together” is “as a church.” In other words, the problem that existed with respect to the Lord’s Supper in Corinth happened when the congregation met. There may have been other meetings when a portion of the church met (such as just the women, which the first part of chapter 11 may describe), but there is no evidence that the Lord’s Supper was involved in those meetings.
Because of the severity of the problem Paul writes: “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). This statement only makes sense if their practice was to come together in one place in order to eat the Lord’s Supper. They cannot be told they are failing to do something unless their intention is to succeed at doing it in the first place. Similarly, God instructs Hosea to name his son Lo-ammi, “for you are not my people” (1:9).
The people would be shocked by such a statement because as descendants of Abraham, they were God’s people. But their actions proved them not to be His people. To make such a bold claim would certainly get the attention of the people, just as Jesus would later when he told the Jews that they were of their father the devil (John 8:42-44). In effect, Jesus was telling them, “God is not your Father!”
They thought God was their Father; it was certainly their intention to worship and serve Him, but their actions belied those intentions. Likewise, the Corinthians certainly intended to eat the Lord’s Supper, but because of their incorrect handling of it, they were by their actions invalidating their intentions.
The point is, therefore, that their purpose in coming together was to eat the Lord’s Supper. Not only does this principle not contradict any other New Testament passage of Scripture; it harmonizes perfectly with Acts 20:7, which also states that “the disciples came together to break bread.” Obviously, the Lord’s Supper was an important and integral part of worship in the church, when it was first established.
Someone might ask, “How do we know that ‘breaking bread’ does not refer to merely a common meal?” (which it can–Acts 2:46 and 20:11). The context usually indicates which one is which. Consider, for example, Acts 2:42: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers.” All of these are spiritual concepts; therefore, virtually all commentators understand “breaking of bread” here to be the Lord’s Supper.
Acts 2:46, on the other hand, is obviously referring to the regular food we all eat daily, and thus do commentators agree on that point as well. In Acts 20 Paul, although he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (v. 16), waited seven days in Troas in order to meet with the church there. They met on the first day of the week to break bread (v. 7). Did they come together once a week for a common meal or for a spiritual purpose? Of course, it was to honor the Lord. [Please notice that the same verse that authorizes the church to come together for worship, period, uses a designation describing the Lord’s Supper.]
But what about Acts 20:11, which appears to be a regular meal and not the Lord’s Supper? This meal was evidently shared after the period of worship was over. Brethren frequently (perhaps due to the length of time they were together) brought and shared their food–which brings us back to the problem at Corinth.
Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you (1 Cor. 11:20-22).
Notice that there are two suppers here being intermingled–the secular and the sacred. To compound the problem, the members of the church were not acting like brethren; their selfishness is dealt with shortly in chapter 13, where a lack of love is cited as the root of most of their problems. They were not even sharing with one another (a lesson we try to teach to pre-schoolers).
The failure to make a distinction between the two meals caused the significance of the Lord’s Supper to be downplayed, which defeated their purpose in coming together. Even worse, by partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthily, they were “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27). Paul reminds them of the true meaning of these symbols. They were not for the purpose of refreshing the body but to remind the soul of salvation.
The Significance of the Lord’s Supper
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took break; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
Not only did Jesus instruct His disciples concerning this memorial to Himself; when Paul was chosen as an apostle (“one born out of due time”), Jesus also delivered to him this fundamental doctrine. It is important to remember that, like Christ, Paul did not originate the teachings and traditions he presented to the brethren.
All that is taught in the New Testament is from the Father. Jesus said: “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49). Jesus also told the apostles that when the Holy Spirit guided them into all Truth, He would not “speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak” (John 16:13).
Thus the apostles’ doctrine was not their own invention; the ultimate source of the message was the Father. Paul admonished the Corinthians to “keep the traditions as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). He also thanked God without ceasing for the brethren in Thessalonica because when they received the Word of God which Paul preached to them, they “welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).
Paul (and the other apostles) preached the same Gospel everywhere; unity could be called for because there is only one faith, one body of New Testament teaching. “For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). [Paul uses “my” in front of “ways” just as he does in front of “gospel” (2 Tim. 2:8), but he always makes it clear that it is God’s Word that he is teaching, as shown in the passages above.]
Putting these truths together, we conclude that what Paul taught brethren in Corinth about the Lord’s Supper is exactly the same doctrine he taught in all of the other churches. In other words, everywhere that Paul had preached he taught them to come together in one place to eat the Lord’s supper.
The bread symbolizes Jesus’ broken body; the blood represents the blood Jesus shed for our sins. Jesus commanded His followers to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of Him. This remembrance is central to being a Christian. It was Jesus’ last request of His disciples before they went out to the Mount of Olives where He was betrayed (Matt. 26:26-30).
Remembering His death and suffering is for our benefit, not His. Certainly He is worthy as the Lamb of God to receive glory and honor, but we are the ones who must continually be reminded that He died for our sins. If we do not have a continual reminder, it will be much easier to fall into various temptations and lusts. Furthermore, we proclaim the Lord’s death until He returns, which serves as an additional reminder to us that we must remain faithful.
Frequency
But someone will observe, “He didn’t say how often we should do so.” No, He did not. But there are a number of facts that the Scriptures provide that we need to put together. A list of these follows:
1. The Corinthians came together as a church to eat the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:20).
2. Paul taught the same doctrine in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17).
3. In Troas the disciples met as the church on the first day of the week to break bread (eat the Lord’s Supper–Acts 20:7).
4. Paul commanded the Corinthians to lay something aside on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2) because, like the brethren at Troas, the first day of the week is the day the Corinthians came together, too. Notice that Paul had given this same order to the churches of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1).
These conclusions fit the facts. But suppose someone wants to argue that the church only took the Lord’s supper once a year. Is that the impression we receive from studying 1 Corinthians 11–that this abuse occurred there only annually? How silly! This transgression was an ongoing one–each and every week. Paul had previously admonished them: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons’ (1 Cor. 10:21). It is obvious that these problems were occurring with greater frequency than once a year or once a month.
Further confirmation of a weekly observance is seen by comments that Paul made which led up to the preceding statement.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17).
There is no way to deduce from comments like these that the Lord’s Supper was some infrequent, sporadic observance. Consider this passage, also.
Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:6-8).
Notice the phrase, keep the feast. What feast?
Whereas Jews would keep the Passover, Christians would not. The feast Paul refers to is the Lord’s supper, something they “kept” each Lord’s day.
Other Than Sunday?
“Why can’t the Lord’s Supper be taken on other days of the week? After all, Jesus instituted it on Thursday night.” Jesus did indeed show the disciples how they should observe His death on Thursday evening, but there were reasons for that particular occasion being selected. It was not only the last Passover that Jesus would celebrate with them; it afforded Him the opportunity to use the two elements present that were a part of that feast–the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. He did not at this time tell them about the frequency or the day of the observance.
The question of observing the Lord’s Supper on some day other than the Lord’s day becomes a matter of authority. Is there a command to do so at another time? No. Is there an example of the church doing so at another time? No, although they could have. The brethren at Troas did not do so; they waited until Sunday. Is there anything that implies any other day? No. Does it fall in the realm of expediency? No. Without any authorization for the practice, why would anyone want to suggest such a thing? We ought always to be content to stay within the boundaries set by the Scriptures. They do not authorize observing the Lord’s Supper on any other day than the Lord’s day; and they teach us that we ought to remember the death of our Savior on each Lord’s day. Like Noah, let us do all according to all that God commands (Gen. 6:22).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “THE LORD’S SUPPER (7/13/97).”
Responding to an earlier editorial on capital punishment for the June 22nd issue of the Dallas Morning News was P.D. Sterling.
I find that the most important part of the Bible to me is the Gospels. Arcane texts pulled from prophets and epistles are clearly the work of human hands to me. In simplicity, I turn to Matthew 22:37-40, which says, in paraphrase, “Love God completely and love your neighbor as yourself.” This rule leaves little room for weighing the value of others in society (4J).
Obviously, the writer was more concerned about expressing his/her views concerning the Bible than responding to the discussion of capital punishment. Apparently, this individual considers his/her own views as inviably correct. Twice the phrase “to me” is used as though God somehow said, “Whatever opinions you have are acceptable to Me.”
In one of the parts of the Bible that the writer disdains may be found the words, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). Peter affirms that those old prophets (who penned “arcane texts”) “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
P.D. Sterling may reject the prophets and epistles, but Jesus endorsed them. He even likened his time in the tomb to that of Jonah in the belly of the great fish (Matt. 12:38-40). He declared that John was the messenger prophesied by Malachi (Matt. 11:10). He quoted from Isaiah when referring to the Israelites who honor God with their lips but not their hearts (Matt. 15:8-9). [Is that too “arcane” to understand?] Examples like these could be multiplied several times over.
But Jesus also endorsed what had yet to be written as New Testament epistles.
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will tell you things to come.” (John 16:12).
What the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles is what they wrote in the epistles. “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Jesus Himself acknowledged that all New Testament teaching had not yet been revealed, but the the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all Truth. They confirm that what Jesus foretold did in fact happen. Peter wrote: “As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Peter also affirmed that what the apostle Paul wrote was Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Neither the prophets’ writings nor the epistles are the work of human hands. Their words were inspired of God.
Since the letter writer is so fond of “the Gospels,” may we point out some things Jesus taught besides the three things people are usually aware of (“love your neighbor,” “Don’t judge,” and “let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”).
Jesus taught that the majority of people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Most people would not agree with that. The account of the rich man and Lazarus gives a concrete illustration of the torment which Jesus mentioned in His warnings about hell (Luke 16:19-31). Hell is a doctrine most people have rejected.
Unlike some who say everyone is a brother who calls God “Father” (regardless of whether one obeys Him or not), Jesus likewise taught that it won’t do any good to call Him “Lord” unless we do the will of the Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).
Jesus said that if we continue in His word, we shall know the truth (John 8:31-32). Does P.D. Sterling believe in Truth? Jesus preached, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). Does the letter writer know any false teachers?
Jesus asked, “But why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Has the letter-writer striven to do everything that Jesus says? Examples of the teachings of Jesus which most people ignore could be extended, but the point is simply this: When people say they just like “the Gospels” and quote “Love thy neighbor,” perhaps it is the case that they would like the Bible to be reduced to a few moral sayings like that one.
If they knew “the Gospels” well, they would know that the message presented in them is the fulfillment of the prophets and is consistent with the message of the entire Bible. If the Scriptures could be summed up by a few sentences, God wasted about 1500 pages of material when a 3 x 5 index card advising “Be kind” on one side and “Have a nice day” on the other would have sufficed.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “THROWING OUT PAUL (7/7/97).”
On June 22nd the Dallas Morning News published a number of responses to the Timothy McVeigh verdict and sentence for his murdering of 168 human beings in the Oklahoma City bombing. Many of the reactions to the death penalty were predictable, but a few of those opposing capital punishment have come up with some bizarre explanations–based (albeit erroneously) on the Scriptures. Michael J. Partyka writes:
However, for Christians, the New Testament amends certain areas of Old Testament doctrine, and there is a well-known story in the Gospel of John that should be remembered whenever the death penalty is brought to mind (all quotations are from 4J).
The New Testament does not amend the Old Testament; it replaces it. The “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was abolished (Eph. 2:15) and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Jesus never gave anyone the impression that He had come to amend a few laws. The whole Old Testament system was replaced by his new covenant, which took effect after His death (Heb. 9:16-17). Worship was changed, and laws not dealing with moral issues were nullified, but what moral laws changed? None of them were amended; many of them became even stricter (see Matthew 5).
The writer proceeds to tell the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11), but he does not explain the background of the incident. The scribes and Pharisees were constantly trying to entrap Jesus (see verse 6), and they used this occasion as an opportunity. If Jesus agrees with the Law of Moses, He will authorize them to do what the law of Rome forbade.
They care neither about the woman nor the Law of God; their goal is to get Jesus in trouble with someone. If He says, “Stone her,” they will go to the Romans and accuse Jesus of usurping Roman law and being a troublemaker. If Jesus disagrees with Moses, the scribes and Pharisees will tell the multitudes that Jesus has challenged Moses and contradicted the law.
Jesus chooses neither option. While not disagreeing that she is worthy of death, He introduces a new element into the situation. “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). They do not know how to handle this judgment. After all, their own motive in even bringing her to Jesus was a sinful one. They all depart.
Was he revoking the death penalty in the case of adultery alone? Not likely… No, the only interpretation we can make is that Jesus was rescinding the death penalty for ALL sins, and, whether we like it or not, that includes the senseless murder of 168 people.
Whoa!! Partyka has made a giant leap from observing Jesus’ actions regarding this woman to concluding He had somehow revoked the death penalty. Perhaps he failed to notice that Jesus did not say, “You have heard it said that adulterers should be put to death, but I say unto you let them live.” He also overlooks verse 6: “This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.” This is not a sincere inquiry into New Testament teaching regarding the continued use of capital punishment. Furthermore, Jesus’ actions (in avoiding the dilemma posed) cannot be construed as a definitive discourse on the subject.
Those who want to know what the New Testament doctrine is concerning capital punishment need to look for clear, unmistakable teaching on the subject, not draw unwarranted conclusions from Jesus’ actions.
So, please, if you are a Christian, don’t try to use the Bible to justify the death penalty, in Tim McVeigh’s case or any other. You can’t. Jesus’ message was one of forgiveness, not death.
Since Jesus had a message of forgiveness, why bother to punish McVeigh at all? Let’s just forgive him and trust him not to repeat the offense. Of course, such would be a foolishness. Justice demands that he be paid back according to his actions–even if he never blew up another building. A person may be forgiven for transgressions committed but still be punished.
David is an example of this fact. When he acknowledged his sin with Bathsheba, Nathan told him, “The Lord has put away your sin” (2 Sam. 12:13). But David also suffered several consequences for his sins, including the untimely death of four sons and the ravishing of his concubines. If McVeigh genuinely repents and becomes obedient to God in all things, God will forgive him. Such would have no mitigating effect on his earthly punishment, however.
The New Testament and Capital Punishment
Before we hastily conclude that Jesus’ actions nullified capital punishment, let’s take a look at what the New Testament says or doesn’t say about the subject. First of all, when Jesus was about to be crucified, did He say, “You have no right to put me to death this way”? No. Rome had the authority to execute evildoers, and Jesus did not challenge them. Paul likewise did not challenge the right of the government to put him to death.
“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar” (Acts 25:11).
Furthermore, Paul wrote: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Rom. 13:1). Civil government possesses Divine authority. Does this mean that each official is good and honest? Hardly. Those who are corrupt or who abuse their power will have to give an answer for themselves, but the offices have been created for the good of mankind. In fact, “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Rom. 13:2). Christians have the responsibility to cooperate with civil governments, the only exception occurring when they demand something of us that contradicts our worship or service of God.
Now notice Romans 13:4.
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Consider the pertinient facts in this verse. One of the functions God has in mind for the civil government is to punish evildoers. Notice that God has given him the authority to use the sword in carrying out this task. The sword implies death; it was used to execute wrath. God ordained this procedure; therefore, capital punishment in the New Testament is authorized.
Peter wrote similarly.
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (1 Peter 2:13-14).
Although it is true that punishment could include life imprisonment, Peter’s words certainly allow for capital punishment. Most evildoers were put to death.
Capital Punishment’s Rationale
Another point that Mr. Partyka overlooked is the reason that God gave for capital punishment when he instituted it after the flood.
“Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning: from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of every man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:5-6).
Let it be first noted that this passage of Scripture predates the Law of Moses, which was nailed to the cross. Jesus, when teaching on divorce and remarriage, also appealed to what occurred before the Law of Moses was delivered. What occurred in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2) became the basis for His teaching on the permanence of marriage.
Consider the substance of the text. What is the reason for capital punishment? Anyone (or any animal) who takes the life of a human being has murdered a person made in the image of God. Such is a serious offense to God, the One who made us that way. We do not have the right to destroy such a one. So the one who would presume to do so must forfeit his own life.
If the murderer is not punished, no one will think that murder is all that serious. No one will regard life as valuable. Such an attitude will only lead to less and less respect for human life and more and more attacks against individuals. Christians, of all people, have a right to uphold the Bible’s teaching on capital punishment.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “CRIME AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (7/6/97).”
A new book, called Time for Life, has recently claimed that the average American has 40 hours of leisure time a week. The authors, John Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey, studied 10,000 people who kept detailed hour-by-hour diaries of how they spent their time (Dallas Morning News, 6-5-97, 3A).
Of the 40 hours of leisure time, over one-third of it was taken up by watching television (15 hours). Even watching a couple of movies a week and spending an hour the other days only adds up to nine hours a week. Considering the ungodly and immoral jokes on sitcoms, the corrupt language and sexual content of the dramas, as well as the overall poor quality, ten hours a week seems like more than enough time to spend in this endeavor.
The average American spends less than three hours a week reading. Presumably, that figure includes newspapers, magazines, and novels. This figure really vexes those of us who wish we had ten or twelve hours a day to read for information and entertainment. There is so much that is lost from the novel to the screen; after all, a character can only look perplexed for so long on the screen, but the psychological conflict (and numerous considerations) can be expressed much better on the printed page.
So how much leisure time is spent doing something religious? The average person spends less than one hour per week. Evidently, that includes worshipping, Bible study, Bible reading and meditation, reading important religious materials (such as the book recommended on page one), praying, evangelism, etc.
Of course, Christians probably spend six to ten hours a week at least (which does not qualify as 10% percent of even our waking hours). For every person who spends ten hours a week on religion, there are nine persons who spend no time whatsoever, which explains much about the current state of this nation.
How are we using our time, brethren? We sing about “God’s golden moments”; what are we doing with them? The amount of time we have this side of eternity is indeed limited; will we be able to give a good account of our usage of our leisure time on the day of judgment?
“So teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Ps. 90:12).
“See that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:15-17).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “FREE TIME (6/30/97).”
At last, a book has been published that deals with one of the most crucial areas affecting the church. That leadership has been lacking in the churches of Christ is all too painfully obvious; a book on this subject like the one produced for the 1997 Bellview lectures is long overdue. The 431 pages it contains are well worth the $14 pricetag. [It may be ordered from Bellview, Valid Publications, or other brotherhood dealers.]
There are 33 chapters beginning with one entitled “The Spirit of Obedience,” which is foundational to followship. “Qualities of a Leader” comes next and then a treatment of the “Authority of Elders,” which among other things treats the erroneous idea that the only authority elders have is to lead by example. Many of the studies in this book are very fundamental; the writers were not reluctant to check the definitions with Greek lexicons and other authorities.
1 Peter 5:1-4 has an entire chapter devoted to it with related material also presented, such as the fact that no authority was ever established for the church to rule from Rome (or for Peter’s being the first pope). Peter merely calls himself a fellow-elder, not ruler over all the church. Twenty abuses of the eldership are listed (36-37).
In preparation for his 30-page chapter on “Qualifications of Elders and Deacons” Wayne Coats studied several years’ worth of Gospel Advocates in addition to using the usual sources. What he presents is an interesting synthesis of information, which somehow possesses a sense of freshness.
The chapter on “Selection of Elders and Deacons” contains charts to help members of a congregation evaluate those being considered for these roles (80-81). It is followed by thoroughly documented material which critiques the idea of “reevaluation” or “reaffirmation” of elders, a rather recent concept usually used in liberal congregations but not entirely unknown in conservative ones. This practice gives authority (manmade, not Scriptural) to the congregation for determining who will and who will not remain as elders.
The next two chapters describe the “Elders’ Duty to the Members” and the “Members’ Duty to Elders.” The first of these devotes space to the general subject of “ascertaining Bible authority”; the application is then made concerning elders. Rounding out this theme is a consideration of an elder’s relationship with other elders, deacons, and preachers (with some practical suggestions). The next three topics are: “Eldership and Old Testament Concepts,” “Elders as Watchmen,” and “Elders and the Stewardship of Souls.”
Garland Elkins (perhaps by virtue of his defense of it on the Donahue program), was assigned “Elders and Church Discipline.” [In the Open Forum related to this subject there was further discussion of how to go about withdrawing fellowship from wayward members. Churches can still obey the command God has given to them regarding discipline, but there are ways to do so which will protect them legally.] Never one to shy away from controversial issues, brother Elkins also deals briefly with the question, “Can a church withdraw fellowship from another church?” (189).
Would elders cut a preacher’s salary when some wealthy members threatened to withhold their contributions? [Do snakes slither?] This and other questions are dealt with in “Elders and Money.” In addition to stressing the fiscal responsibilities (and proper handling of contributions) that elders have, emphasis is also placed upon “unscriptural fund-raising” schemes.
Himself an elder of the Bellview congregation, brother Fred Stancliff writes on “Elders and the Hiring of Preachers.” Included are sections covering the Biblical authority that elders have to hire a preacher, the qualities such a man should have, where an appropriate man may be found, ideas concerning the process of preacher selection, as well as how much he should be paid, and informing him of what he will be expected to do.
An excellent chapter devoted to Titus 1:9-16 is entitled “Stopping Their Mouths.” Two helpful charts are included (220 and 223) as is an example of the types of mouths that should be stopped. Analyzed is an article by Mike Cope, “Is It an Identity Crisis?” (which appeared in the March/April edition of Wineskins, a publication devoted to trampling the sacred truths of the Scriptures).
“Tending the Flock” and “Inspiring Brethren to Good Works” follow next. Then the reader is treated to an outstanding scholarly and practical treatment of “Decision Making in the Church” by Curtis Cates. This chapter alone would be worth the price of the book; all elders and preachers should study and apply the principles contained herein. “Goal Setting in Leadership” makes a good companion chapter. Some brethren have wondered how the writer could so accurately describe their business meetings (273-74).
“Conflict Resolution” contains much-needed wisdom unless one is a member of a congregation without any problems (in which case someone should check for a pulse). And who better to write on the subject of “How to Handle Criticism” than Ira Y. Rice, Jr.? He looks especially at Jesus, Peter, and Paul as he demonstrates that every righteous person must deal with critics. He concludes with a summary of twenty suggestions for handling criticism (305-306).
One chapter is devoted to “Congregations Without Elders,” of which there are several. Included is a call to imitate the Biblical pattern of starting and growing churches, which we have not followed perfectly.
What book on leadership would be complete without a treatment of the “Work of Deacons”? Not only is there a thorough consideration of the qualifications and duties, but there is also a serious look at some of the deviations from the Biblical concepts that brethren have invented over the years (328-29).
The next five chapters look at Jesus, Moses, Joshua, David, and Nehemiah as great leaders. These are men who accomplished great things. How did they do so? What were their methods? The lives of these men not only inspire us; they show the way to success. [These chapters also make excellent sermons.]
Next is a “History of Departure in Leadership,” a historical survey of the ways in which leadership went awry just a few decades after the last New Testament letter was written. Completing this book are “Lording It Over the Flock” and “Women as Elders and Deacons?” Of course, the role of women in the church has become an item of great controversy in the past ten years; brother Flavil Nichols presents solid, sound, Scriptural material on this now-controversial subject.
Because of the thorough treatment of so many aspects of leadership, it is the editor’s conviction that each congregation of the Lord’s church ought to have a copy of this book, as well as individual men who may aspire to be (or already are) leaders.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “RECOMMENDED READIN: LEADERSHIP (6/29/97).”
A second letter appeared on April 20th in The Dallas Morning News taking exception to an earlier article which called the teachings of the Heaven Gate cult “bad theology.” This writer’s approach, however, takes him in a different direction. All excerpts are from page 3J.
Many, people, who regard their own religious beliefs as sound, have made great sport lately by finding fault with the Heaven’s Gate sect. They try to marginalize this sect by characterizing them as a weird cult practicing “bad” theology led by crazy people spouting heresy and hokum.
It may be that the author of this editorial has heard people making “sport” of this group (perhaps late-night comedians, for whom nothing is sacred?), but the vast majority of people have regarded the incident as tragic. It is difficult to find anything humorous about 39 individuals losing their physical lives–and their souls as well!
Some possess a macabre sense of humor (if it can be called humor). WWW.highersource.org, a Website once affiliated with the HeavenÕs Gate cult, has as its slogan: “We’re Killing Ourselves For You.” The options are noted by feet, with tags tied on the big toe. Real funny stuff, isn’t it? Some people really are guilty of poor taste.
Whether or not people have marginalized the sect or not, the fact is that it was a “weird cult.” Does anyone want to affirm that they were normal? Their doctrine was heretical, since it could hardly be said to square with any Biblical teachings, any traditional views of Christianity, or even any religious denominational views. They could only be classified as a New Age religion.
It can not be argued with any degree of success that the Heaven’s Gate cult practiced “good” theology. Their belief in extraterrestrials dominated whatever theology they had. It could be that they practiced some good and valid teachings, such as “love one another,” but it was not adherence to tenets like these that brought about the tragedy.
At the same time these same people smugly assert that there are truths which are unattainable through logic and empirical evidence, but which are accessible through faith or direct communication with some sort of supernatural entity.
This statement is true–as far as it goes, but it certainly is not a fair one because it implies that all Christians fall into this camp. The letter-writer is correct in saying that there are people who decry the use of logic and say things like, “You have to just believe” or “I can’t prove Christianity to you; you just have to accept it by faith.”
Not only do such sentiments make one nauseous; they clearly reject the command Peter gave Christians in the first century: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to every person who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). Brethren in the first century did not seek to convince others of the truth of Christianity by making inane and vacuous statements, such as, “Just take it on faith.” They presented all the evidence they could muster, speaking of the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus. Those who fail to present evidence to the lost today are just plain lazy!
There are a few even in the Lord’s church who decry the use of logic–especially the use of syllogisms, but there is nothing wrong with the discipline of logic. If someone appears to “prove” something that cannot possibly be, logic is not at fault; either his syllogism is not valid, or one of his premises is not true. Most people reject the use of logic because it proves that a position on which they dote is false.
Anyone who takes the time to analyze the sermon Peter preached on the day of Pentecost will notice that the apostle used a variety of EVIDENCE to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Likewise, Paul (in Acts 13 and 17) reasoned with the Jews and presented a case for the Messiahship of Jesus. No one was ever asked to believe in Christ without explaining to them why they should believe it. The advice one Crossroads-Boston disciple was once given (“believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts”) is foolhardy. No one in the first century ever wrote or preached such nonsense.
For the editorial writer, therefore, to charge all who are Christians (though he does not specify them) is pretty sloppy on his part. Has he never heard of the field of study called “Christian evidences,” which uses logic to reason with the evidence that we have before us? Has he never wandered into a bookstore and seen one of Josh McDowell’s books, such as Evidence That Demands a Verdict? Just because he may know a few people claiming to be Christians that have no idea how to defend their beliefs (or even have the desire to do so), does not mean that no one has. There are volumes written by our brethren as well as those in denominations devoted to EVIDENCE.
Curiously absent from the analyses of these people of self-ascribed authentic faith is a sound explanation of exactly how their faith yields indubitable sacred truth, while that of Heaven’s Gate produces foolishness.
It is not faith that yields truth; it is truth that yields faith. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). For faith to yield truth is not only backwards, it is a dangerous concept–and popular. What such an idea means is that whatever we believe becomes our truth. Truth, then, becomes entirely subjective. “It’s MY truth,” which might differ from YOUR truth.
Truth is objective. It may or may not fit our own personal value system. Truth, however, does not depend upon our approval in order to be valid. Truth stands, unchanging. The only question is: “Will we accept it or reject it?”
But once we have sufficient evidence to accept the Bible as the Word of God and know that its teachings are right, then we live by faith and do all that is commanded of us. The result is that we bear good fruit.
What is that fruit? For one thing, we love one another (John 13:34-35) and “do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10). Adhering to the word of God will cause men to be better husbands and women to be better wives. It should also keep us from coveting other people’s wives or husbands. The Bible will keep us sexually pure (1 Cor. 6:18-20). It will also make better parents, children, workers, and citizens. We should never be classified with lawbreakers and evildoers. Our lives have the purpose of praising and worshipping God, as well as honoring Jesus our Lord, who purchased us with His own blood. Therefore, we respect life, beginning in the womb and continuing until God calls us home.
Now what did Heaven’s Gate produce? In a word, DEATH. If the letter-writer can not discern the difference between the two, he possibly needs more help than anyone can give him. Jesus taught that you can judge a tree by its fruits (Matt. 7:15-20). Sometimes, you can tell by the number of nuts it produces, too.
The silly mass suicide of Marshall Applewhite’s followers illustrates that we should adhere less, not more, to notions based on faith, rather than reason and facts, to acquire truth we render ourselves vulnerable to nonsense. Sometimes that nonsense is deadly.
No, the suicides prove that we should be wary of “bad theology.” When someone departs from the Word of God, that is the beginning of bad theology. Joshua was warned to turn neither to the right hand nor to the left (1:7). Moses warned the people not to add to or take away from the Word (Deut. 4:2). It is not Truth that kills; it is the departure from Truth.
The writer still has things backwards. Reason and facts produce faith. Sure, if we believe just any doctrine because we like the man teaching it, we are vulnerable. But if we examine the evidence, then we can proceed safely, having drawn correct conclusions.
But perhaps the author of this editorial should be asked a few questions. Since he has “smugly asserted” that we should adhere to “logic and evidence” (and evidently for him that rules out the Bible), exactly what “indubitable sacred truth” has he arrived at? What have evidence and logic led him to believe? It is easy to criticize someone else’s house when you have never constructed one of your own.
And maybe the writer of the editorial might be reminded of all the nonsense devised by those who reject the Bible and Christianity. When have atheists, humanists, or agnostics ever devised a system with which they can even agree with one another? Those who reject God leave themselves open for any idea that Satan plants in their minds. With all their logic and rationality, you would think they might have invented a system of theology to rival Christianity; but it never has and never will be produced.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “‘BAD THEOLOGY’–CHRISTIANITY? (6/15/97).”
