The Heaven’s Gate cult stirred up a great deal of controversy for awhile. One person wrote an article to The Dallas Morning News advising people to be wary of “bad theology.” Now ordinarily, when a practice involves something this bizarre, a person just might think that such a statement would meet with universal approval. WRONG!
Americans no longer see anything in black-and-white terms. One reader became incensed that anyone would dare deduce that “Marshall Applewhite and his followers were practicing ‘bad theology.'” After piously pointing out that Christian beliefs once seemed absurd to Romans, the letter writer asks (apparently with a straight quill): “What proof do you have that the souls of Heaven’s Gate followers aren’t on their spaceship right now?” The concluding sentence of the letter contains the self-righteous remonstration to remember in the future that “this is a huge world we live in with many beliefs other than our own” (3J, 4-20-97).
Oh, please! Can’t someone ever affirm anything without being reminded that other people may not agree? One can just imagine the Lord trying to teach with some of these over-achieving pluralists in the crowd.
Jesus: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Pluralist: “Excuse me, sir, but you have just viciously offended all those who are proud and arrogant and need to maintain such a posture to feed their self-esteem.”
Who is not aware that a multitude of views permeate society? Are all valid or equally deserving of consideration? Of course they are not, and anyone who thinks they are should not be trusted with anything more dangerous than a Barney doll!
Views are only worth considering if there is some evidence to suggest plausibility. What exactly is rational about killing oneself to get on board an invisible spaceship trailing a comet? If this is not “bad theology,” then there is no such thing as “bad theology.”
Do we have any proof that they are not on their spaceship right now? Anyone who needs to ask such a question is in need of a keeper. For one thing they haven’t sent an electronic postcard to Houston, saying, “Lovely trip. Wish you were here.” Besides that, however, there was no evidence that spirits would ascend toward the comet or that there was a spaceship behind it, or that they would be allowed in even if there were. We know they are not on a spaceship for the same reason we know that people don’t fly to the moon and back every night–it’s impossible!
When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6), had he never heard of Buddha or Confucius? Was He unaware that Mohammed would be along in a few hundred years? Was he unknowledgeable about all the pagan deities or the gods and goddesses of pagan Greece or Rome? Had he never seen an atheist?
Of course, but He came to deliver Truth to the world; it already had its share of superstitions and ignorance. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). The world was already in darkness. The world remains in darkness, but not because there is no light, but because men love darkness rather than light, “because their deeds are evil” (John 3:19).
People frequently choose ignorance and “bad theology” because they have no love of the truth, without which they cannot be saved (2 Thess. 2:10).
The problem with many is that they either think that Truth does not exist or (if it does) nobody should say so. Heaven’s Gate was called “bad theology” because that is an appropriate and accurate description. Applewhite was wrong, and his followers were wrong to listen to him. They are also dead because of it. Why should the truth not be spoken?
Suppose the writer of this poorly reasoned editorial experienced severe pain and went to two doctors for a diagnosis. One, after examining the evidence, said rather matter-of-factly, “You have an appendix that is about to burst; you need to be operated on within 24 hours.” The other doctor was much more charismatic, and after a lengthy explanation said, “If you will go home and eat jelly beans for three days, all your problems will be over.”
Would the letter-writer consider one of those treatments “bad medicine”? Or would he insist that we live in a huge world with many beliefs other than just one doctor’s opinion? If it is foolish to treat factual data in such indiscriminatory fashion, why is it not foolish to treat ideology the same way? Ideas have practical consequences, just as actions do.
Although it is nearly impossible to protect people from themselves or charismatic misleaders such as Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite, the very least we ought to be able to do is to warn them that they are subscribing to “bad theology.” And if these are so indoctrinated that they refuse to listen, perhaps others will be dissuaded from entering a cult that may cost them their lives or their freedom and will certainly cost them their souls. If Truth exists (and it does), then people have a right to hear it.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “BAD THEOLOGY (6/8/97).”
As teenagers attending high school in the early sixties, we had certain rules that were enforced–including some for the way in which we were attired. For one thing, the boys had to wear belts. And our shirts had to be tucked in. These were pretty stringent rules, all right. Probably we didn’t know how Communistic our school was back then.
Communistic? Sure, that’s what the young intellectual students of San Antonio are claiming about the unreasonable demands of the public school system there. When the school board decided to ban nose rings, spiked hair, multi-colored hair, baggy jeans, and shorts, one freshman student said, “This ain’t a communist country. We can wear what we want,” according to an AP article in the Denton Record-Chronicle of May 15 (12A).
Let me make a wild and reckless statement here: the disintegration of a reasonable dress code in the mid- sixties contributed to and was a symptom of the rebellious attitudes that were developing at that time. Having graduated in 1964 from high school when reasonable hair length and tucked-in shirts were the norm, it might best be described as culture shock when I returned to the high school classroom to teach in 1969. Belts? We were lucky if the students wore CLOTHES.
The rules had been thrown out the window. Students wore sloppy-looking clothes, had messy-looking hair, and had developed similarly-crummy attitudes. Many were obnoxious, surly, and possessed a “You-can’t-make-me-do-anything-I-don’t-want-to-do” attitude.
One girl in particular worried the faculty and administration. She frequently wore a micro-miniskirt to school, and afterwards she would leave on the back of her dropout boyfriend’s motorcycle, thus exposing what should not be seen by the general viewing public. A girl’s counselor spoke with the mother of the girl in an attempt to communicate the spectacle her daughter was making of herself, as well as some of the dangers involved. The mother scolded the concerned counselor, “She can wear anything I let her wear, and it’s none of your business.” The school took no subsequent action on this or any other problem for fear of a lawsuit by that self-appointed guarantor of freedom, the ACLU.
This breakdown of authority was further typified by the song, “Harper Valley P.T.A.” Presumably, those who listen to the words are supposed to cheer the beleaguered mother who exposes the hypocrisy of the school board, but the “logic” used to justify the mother is fallacious. The ploy used in the story is to call attention away from oneself to focus it on others. The mother doesn’t defend her miniskirts, her drinking, or her running wild; she simply points an accusing finger at everyone else and calls them hypocrites, which they apparently are. What this argument amounts to is: “Yeah, I’m bad, but so are you” or “Yeah, I’m bad, but you’re worse.”
Many people still think in those terms. As long as somebody else is worse, it serves to comfort. Of course, the end result is anarchy. Has the judge or any juror in a court case ever done anything wrong? “Well, then, how dare you judge me?” Many people use human imperfections to justify their rebellion against authority.
But rebellion is rebellion, no matter what disguise it wears at the moment. The charge that we are a Communist nation if a school decides to set certain standards of behavior or dress is fatuous. Restaurants post signs which say, “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” Does that make it a Commie Cafe? Various jobs require that employees wear a uniform; does that make one a Party member?
If the school board (which is elected by parents) determines that a dress code is in order, then the parents and students should either abide by the decision or elect someone who will neither implement nor enforce standards. In the meantime they should quit whining and be mature enough to accept the decision.
Open Rebellion
One student vows concerning her nose ring: “I’m not going to get rid of it no matter what they say. I’m keeping it. I’ll protest and stand outside with signs if I have to. I’m keeping it.” The issue is not whether she can wear a nose ring (though why anyone would want to remains a mystery); the issue is one of authority. There is such an amalgamation of “I’ll decide for myself what’s right or wrong” (autonomy) with “Don’t judge me for any bizarre moral or personal behavior that I exhibit” that few people want to abide by the rules.
“In my judgment the speed limit should be 80 m.p.h.; so I’ll just drive that fast.” Try explaining that reasoning to the policeman as he writes out the ticket. “Taxes are too high; it won’t matter if I chisel a little off here and there.” Try convincing an IRS auditor with that excuse. “I didn’t think the Bible’s teachings on fornication, gambling, homosexuality, and abortion were fair; so I did what pleased me.” See if the Lord will accept these equivocations on the day of judgment.
It apparently has not occurred to the students that the school board might have reasons for their standards (just as God has reasons for His). The Lord is familiar with rebellion–from His own people. Ezekiel was commissioned to preach to those already in captivity–Israelites who (one might expect) would feel just a modicum of humility. After charging the prophet to speak to them, God says:
“But the house of Israel will not listen to you, because they will not listen to Me; for all the house of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted. Behold, I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their foreheads. Like adamant stone stronger than flint, I have made your forehead; do not be afraid of them, nor be dismayed by their looks, though they are a rebellious house” (Ezekiel 3:7-9).
That’s just the way some people are: “I’m going to protest–even if it means going into captivity!”
Overraction
Another potential scholar said: “They’re always telling us what to do and now they’re telling us what to wear. They’ll have us in straitjackets in a few years.” Some people have a gift for exaggeration. Every time an unpopular law is passed or standards of decency are imposed, someone feels honor-bound to describe the authority in charge as some kin to Adolph Hitler. If authorities are not accused of being Nazis, the epithet of Communists will do as a substitute.
The “Red Herring” Defense
As already mentioned, there is the “Why-are-you-picking-on-me-when-someone-else-is-worse?” defense. A freshman girls complains: “There’s worse things going on in school. There’s drug deals going on. . . . Why don’t they do something about that?” Such has been the Kelly Flinn defense in recent weeks. In order to gain sympathy and try to get the focus of attention off herself, her defense posture has been, “Guys commit adultery, too; they get away with it and are not court-martialed.”
First of all, nobody “gets away with it”–not unless they can figure out a way to keep God from witnessing their immoral acts. Of course, some in the military do not get caught–both male and female. Since there are more males, it would not be wrong to think that quite a few males have dodged punishment. But many have been court-martialed for precisely that offense. Besides, she also disobeyed orders and lied. Disciplinary action never hinged upon one issue only.
The attitude of many people, when they get caught disobeying the rules, is: “Let’s change the rules.” Most people don’t want to admit that they are rebellious and impudent (which is the truth of the matter). Let’s make some exceptions. That’s how rules get dumbed down. That’s the way that discipline breaks down.
Perhaps the students in San Antonio see no relationship between authority, standards, and discipline, but it exists. They may not see any relevance between dress and behavior, but there is a correlation. Appearance matters. It determines how others view us, and it plays a role in how we view ourselves.
“But my orange hair makes a statement.” Yes, it does. People will probably react as they do to Dennis Rodman: “He’s a pretty good basketball player, but he sure is weird.” “But the fourteen pieces of pierced jewelry all over my face and body say something.” What? That it will be hard for you to get through the metal detector at the airport? Such displays say to most that you are in desperate need of attention. The more that join the latest craze, the less different each one becomes. Be a rebel. Submit to authority.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “CHALLENGES TO AUTHORITY (6/1/97).”
If the great English author Charles Dickens were writing A Tale of Two Cities today, he might include in his first paragraph of contradictory descriptions this one: “It was the age of apathy; it was the age of overreaction.” A great segment of society seems not to care about anything–widespread political corruption, moral “degeneresy,” liberal courts, or social injustices. On the other hand there are the Republic of Texas zealots and the ACLU, always spoiling for a fight.
One example of overreaction came as a result of an Alabama judge’s insistence on having the ten commandments posted in his courtroom. Gregory D. Harper of Marshall took fanatic exception to the judge’s action. While the average person has been supportive of the judge (except for about 50 “clergymen” who are opposing him, according to a Paul Harvey broadcast of May 15th), Mr. Harper wrote the following to The Dallas Morning News, who published it on May 11th.
Get ready, Americans! Your right to a fair, unbiased trial is being assaulted. The honorable Judge Roy Moore of Alabama has decided to present his belief in God by displaying a plaque of the Ten Commandments and praying in his courtroom.
Judge Moore has confused the wooden bench on which he exalts himself with a pulpit. In doing so, he has disposed of one of the most fundamental tenets of the American Constitution–the separation of church and state.
When you enter his courtroom, you do not enter a sanctuary where your future is objectively determined by the facts of the case, but a place where any non-Christian faces potential religious persecution. The day that one person’s religious beliefs are held in higher regard than another’s is the day that we spit on every soldier’s grave who has fought against religious persecution. The battle against Hitler during World War II was a battle against a person of power forcing a type of religion on the people of Europe and persecuting anyone who thought differently.
It is conceivable that Judge Moore’s decisions concerning punishment could be based on a person’s religious beliefs. A Baptist gets five years, a Muslim 10 years, and a Satanist life in prison, all for the same crime. The Alabama governor has threatened to use the National Guard against anyone who wishes to remove the plaque, and Congress joined hands with ultraconservative zealots bent on controlling our lives by passing a resolution backing the judge’s right to display the Ten Commandments. I firmly believe that every person has a right to whatever religious beliefs they choose and the right to express them, as long as that expression does not deter the judicial process.
As a Christian, I am embarrassed by the actions of Judge Moore and I pray for anyone who enters his courtroom.
Fortunately for this letter’s author, sheer idiocy is not a punishable crime either in Alabama or Texas. He first of all asserts that because one judge has the ten commandments posted in his courtroom our entire system of justice is shot. Such is not merely an unwarranted leap; it’s like jumping out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute. And this opening charge is just the beginning of a wild and bumpy ride.
It was once the common practice to have witnesses put one hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, so help them God (and some judges still do). By Mr. Harper’s “logic” no one in America probably ever received a fair trial. After all, if posting the ten commandments would cause a judge to be biased, just think of the massive destruction that the presence of the entire Bible (which contains the ten commandments and much more) in a court room might wreak. And how unfair is the phrase, so help you God, to Muslims since there is no mention of Allah?
In the second paragraph of the letter, the writer informs us that Judge Moore exalts himself. Most judges are appointed or elected; how is it that they exalt themselves? By acknowledging a higher power, he appears to be exalting God, not himself. But the real error in this paragraph is the statement that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution. If so, where? The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion (a state-sponsored religion)–or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This nation’s founders repeatedly acknowledged God and Biblical principles. The judge’s actions do not establish any religion–not even Judaism. He is not violating the Constitution.
Harper makes another illogical “leap” when he assumes that because the ten commandments are posted, the judge can no longer be objective. If he were so inclined to be biased, would their presence on the wall really matter? Then he asserts that a plaque in a courtroom desecrates the graves of our soldiers. Which war, exactly was fought for religious freedom? The Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not worship. Most wars have been about political and economic freedom. And exactly what type of religion was Adolph Hitler pushing? He put to death any “Christians” who opposed him. Casting Hitler in the role of a televangelist is absurdity run amuck.
It is asserted that this judge could sentence people variously for the same crimes. Such would certainly be a bit obvious to all in the community. If any harshness did exist, it would more likely be directed at “Christians,” who know better than to violate the law. “To whom much is given, much is required.” In case Mr. Harper doesn’t know it, we already have inequities in our justice system. A mother is put in jail for slapping her child (child abuse) while a celebrity with high-priced attorneys is acquitted of murder.
A person who believes in Biblical principles should make the best kind of judge, since he would refuse bribes (unlike the judges in Chicago exposed in Operation Graylord). A judge should be very conscientious when he considers: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15). A judge following the principles of the Bible will not be a respecter of persons, but will render impartial judgment.
If the letter-writer thinks that Congress is now full of ultraconservative zealots (who were elected to office by the majority of people who happen to agree with them on this issue), what must he think of our early elected officials who issued this statement in 1782: “The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible. . .for use in schools”? [This information is in the excellent book, Five Lies of the Century by David T. Moore. page 21.]
If Harper is a Christian, he is an embarrassment to the Lord, whose name he claims. His letter is full of heat but no light. He reminds me of the person who responded emotionally (rather than logically) to the statement I made in my weekly newspaper column about the Jews killing Christ. He accused me of being anti-Semitic and responsible for the ill treatment of the Jews. This was an unwarranted overreaction by someone obviously Jewish, who leaped to the conclusion that I was saying Jews should still be punished today for what their ancestors did (of which there was not even a hint).
Other Overreactions
Tragically, this spirit of overreaction seems to be taking hold of more and more preachers in the church. “Did you hear what brother X said?” “No, why he can’t get away with that.” Granted that there are times when we all must stand up and protest grave errors, such as Andre Resner’s “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” Carroll Osborne’s The Peaceable Kingdom, the multitude of errors being propagated at the Nashville Jubilee, etc.
But we must properly discern what is a matter of faith and doctrine from what is an unfortunate choice of words. There is a difference between an idea poorly expressed and a doctrine that someone is actively propagating. Everything cannot be treated as a life-threatening issue which must be nailed down this very second, in the absence of a spirit of love, mutual respect, tolerance, and patience.
Of course, truth is of paramount importance, but even Jesus did not begin His public ministry by saying, “I’m the Son of God. If you don’t believe that, you’re not a faithful Jew, and we’re withdrawing fellowship from you.” Jesus gave people time and evidence to come to the proper conclusion concerning Himself.
On some newer issues (not to mention those resurfacing after a period of dormancy, if the last fifty years is any indication), some brethren need more time than others to think things through as they perfect their knowledge.
Instead of sending off missiles (er, missives) to a brother with whom we disagree, why not exercise love, forbearance, and patience until in a spirit of love the matter can be properly resolved?
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “OVERREACTION (5/25/97).”
Many members of the church may never have heard of The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield, but it has enjoyed great success as a hardcover book–so much so that (so far as we know) it is not even available in paperback yet. Most libraries will have two or more copies, and they are checked out more than they are on the shelves. As of May 4th, this book has been on the New York Times’ Best Sellers’ List for 160 weeks, which is more than three years. For most of those weeks it was one of the top ten books being sold in America
What can explain the popularity of this book? It has its own Web Page on the Internet, and groups are being formed all across the country to discuss the contents of this work of fiction. The average work of fiction lasts nowhere this amount of time on the best seller’s list; What is behind this book’s phenomenal success?
It deals with mystical matters and could be classified as New Age literature. The book is copyrighted in 1994, which means that it has been a best seller practically since the day of its release. Published by Warner Books, who placed a disclaimer regarding the book’s contents, it contains a quote from Daniel 12:3-4 near the title page. The author does not say what translation he is using, but instead of the usual “those who are wise,” the reader finds “those who have insight.”
Even the NIV is not this loose in its rendering of the verse, which makes one wonder if Redfield did not just substitute the word (insight) that fits his theology. The book concerns the discovery of nine insights that were written in Aramaic in Peru about 600 B.C. (9).
The author does not elaborate or speculate on the mechanism that would allow for the manuscript to be written in a language peculiar to one part of the world, but which finds its way to a distant corner of the globe. Perhaps Thor Heyerdahl (author of Kon-tiki) could help us out. The Book of Mormon, after all, is theoretically an account of how Jews migrated to the Americas. Is Redfield implying that some of Daniel’s friends fled to the South American continent where someone wrote these nine insights about what would happen around the year 2000? Only he knows for sure.
The story itself concerns a man who is informed about this ancient manuscript by a friend. He decides to go to Peru to find out what he can about it only to find that there is severe hostility against it on the part of the government (which is not only suppressing the manuscript but also denying its existence). Behind this government conspiracy to do away with the manuscript stands a Roman Catholic Cardinal who deems the manuscript dangerous and a threat to their religion. The main character spends half of his time fleeing from the persecutors and the other half being taught the contents of the manuscript by various individuals he comes in contact with (many of whom are Catholic priests).
Obviously, if Redfield had just written nine insights, he probably would not have had a best-seller on his hands, but by incorporating them into an adventure story he can sustain the reader’s interest, much as Ayn Rand did with Atlas Shrugged (still a great novel despite her unworkable and flawed system of morality). Nevertheless, the appeal of the book is the nine insights, a discussion of which follows.
The First Three Insights
“The first insight occurs when we take the coincidences seriously. These coincidences make us feel there is something more, something spiritual, operating underneath everything we do” (119).
At first reading, this “insight” sounds like some who have overemphasized the Biblical doctrine of Providence or the philosophy that some Pentecostals have who feel that God is directing every step of their lives by means of the Holy Spirit. The one who buys into this precept has begun a journey of subjectivism. In other words, the word coincidence becomes meaningless. Every action is part of a divine plan, and guess what? That divine plan involves ME! God is advancing me spiritually–if I have enough insight to realize it. Seems a tad egotistical, doesn’t it?
The second insight involves waking up to spirituality, to consider why we are really here (27, 119). Although this question is one that Christians frequently encourage others to consider, the solution here is not to go to the Bible to get answers.
“The answers I’m talking about are coming from many different areas of inquiry. The findings of physics, psychology, mysticism, and religion are all coming together into a new synthesis based on a perception of the coincidences” (36).
These first two insights would probably seem relatively innocuous to most people, but how rational souls get beyond the third one is a mystery. The third insight “Defines the physical universe as one of pure energy, and energy that somehow responds to how we think” (119). Wow! What does that statement mean? It means that there is “an energy field hovering about everything” (44). Furthermore, you can see it! Yes, there are energy fields even around plants; the main character in the novel focuses on the plants and sees their energy fields (humans have them, also). Not only that, but several people are experimenting with the plants, projecting their energies on the plants, and (as a result) the plants grow healthier and are more full of vitamins! Now the reader knows he is reading fiction for sure, but insight #3 is an integral part of the Celestine system. Anyone who wants to see these energy fields around persons or plants should try it at sunrise or sunset, the two optimum times of the day (50).
Incidentally, a little known fact (which is an interesting sidelight) is that: “When a person has sexual thoughts, the person’s energy field sort of swirls about and actually propels outward toward the person who’s the object of attraction” (49). As if sexual harassment lawsuits were not cloudy enough already, how will a judge deal with a woman who says, “Your honor, he didn’t say anything and didn’t touch me inappropriately, but I definitely saw his energy field swirling in my direction!”?
The Fourth and Fifth Insights
Having established that human beings have their own personal energy, the fourth insight causes us to realize that we try to enhance our own energy at the expense of others. This goal is achieved by winning arguments or tearing another person down. We rob them of their energy level while increasing our own.
“And the Fourth exposes the human tendency to steal energy from other humans by controlling them, taking over their minds, a crime in which we engage because we so often feel depleted of energy, and cut off. This shortage of energy can be remedied, of course, when we connect with the higher source. The universe can provide all we need if we can only open up to it. That is the revelation of the Fifth Insight” (119-20).
How does one get energy from a higher source? “‘When you appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of things,’ he explained, ‘you receive energy'” (113). The main character has already experienced such an epiphany as he became one with nature. Everything was part of him, and he “experienced the entire universe” (98).
Part of what he experiences is the entire process of “evolution,” beginning with the “big bang” and continuing to the present day (98-100). The author tries (unsuccessfully) to tie evolution to the Bible. When the Cardinal later objects to evolution as a violation of the Scriptures, a priest tells him:
“Yes, I fought against the idea of evolution as a replacement for God, as a way to explain the universe without reference to God. But now I see that the truth is a synthesis of the scientific and religious world views. The truth is that evolution is the way God created, and is still creating” (236).
No, the truth is that God made Adam and Eve in the beginning (Matt. 19:4). The truth is that God created the world in six days (Ex. 20:11). The truth is that God has revealed to us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3); mankind is not evolving spiritually. Everything we need to know has been revealed to us and available to us since the first century! Redfield is right to anticipate objections to his “Insights”; unfortunately, he does not answer them adequately.
Occasionally, the author attempts to appropriate Christian ideas for his own use. He says the shortsighted Cardinal is attempting to approach spiritual knowledge “by faith alone,” meaning that he is seeking God only through the Bible (115). Then, referring to the mystical approach, he says, “The truth shall make you free” (115). Jesus says that truth comes through a study of His objective teachings (John 8:31-32); these verses actually refute Redfield’s notions. He also asserts that praying before eating “is not just about being thankful, it is to make eating a holy experience, so the energy from the food can enter your body” (113).
The Sixth Insight and Beyond
Next we must recognize the unconscious control dramas we all act out daily. We receive these attitudes from our parents, and they determine how we behave and react in certain situations. We may interrogate, intimidate, remain aloof from others, or take refuge in being a victim (127-29). Our parents formed one of these dispositions in us, the author avers.
The seventh insight involves ridding our minds of negative images. “Love is the way we keep our vibration up. It keeps us healthy” (174). The final two insights build on the earlier ones and intensify them. Consider this affirmation: “Whenever people cross our paths, there is always a message for us. Chance encounters do not exist” (200).
Try this system in your next discussion group:
“As the members of a group talk, only one will have the most powerful idea at any one time. If they are alert, the others in the group can feel who is about to speak, and they can consciously focus this energy on this person, helping to bring out his idea with the greatest clarity” (214).
And there is much more. Visions and daydreams can foretell what is about to happen. As our energy levels increase we become lighter, and (if we eliminate fear) we can become invisible! Also, money will soon become obsolete; people will voluntarily give up its usage. In the near future earthlings will agree to have fewer children, and we will develop powerful forests from which to raise our energy levels.
What about love? “Love is not an intellectual concept or a moral imperative or anything else. It is a background emotion that exists when one is connected to the energy available in the universe. . .” (153). Alas, love can deteriorate into a power struggle for each other’s energy; neither should be subservient (194).
The Upshot?
Is this stuff a threat to Christianity? Anyone who believes these precepts might possibly be a better person (by treating others politely and with respect), and surely they are no danger to the rest of society if they want to focus on plants and raise their energy levels. But the philosophy of the entire system is wrong, just as all New Age ideas are. The overriding goal is self-development; there is no emphasis at all on morality or attempting to please God. Jesus becomes only a being of higher consciousness, not the Savior of all mankind.
Although there was no mention of reincarnation, there was this sentence: “This is your evolutionary question, your quest this lifetime” (139). Ideas such as these capture people’s fancy because they sound new and different. New Agers will be lost because of their failure to obey the gospel, but they pose no direct threat to others–unless they decide to force their ideas upon us.
Probably by now everyone is tired of hearing about the homosexual media event of the season, otherwise known as Ellen’s “Coming Out,” which occurred about one-and-one-half weeks ago. Some, of course, yawned and wondered why anyone would care, but the answer became clear Wednesday evening as the media hyped the event and homosexuals threw parties.
Public reaction seems favorable. Comments have included: “That’s the funniest Ellen I’ve ever seen”; “Why would anyone object to it; it was so tastefully done”; and “These people just want to be themselves; they’re not harming anyone.”
The “tastefully done” gambit appears to be in an infinite loop. “Well, yes, this movie does glorify two gangsters, but it is so tastefully done.” “Sure, this movie has some nudity and sex in it, but it is so tastefully done.” “All right, so Jesus is blasphemed and made to contradict His own teachings in this movie, even to the point of immorality, but Scorcese made it, and it is tastefully done.” Hasn’t this phrase outlived its usefulness?
A movie or television program can be as immoral, offensive, and anti-Biblical as it wants to be, and someone will come along to defend and praise it with such epithets as: “Oh, it has a few shortcomings, but the music is fantastic, the cinematography is gorgeous, the script is hilarious, and it was so tastefully done.” It’s the same attitude that Professor Henry Higgins expressed in My Fair Lady about the morals of a neighboring country: “The French don’t care what they do actually so long as they pronounce it properly.”
One wonders if God has categories: ugly sin, regular sin, tastefully done sin. All efforts to mask and disguise sin are simply part of Satan’s deception to get people to accept it. Sadly, it seems to be working on many. Although the influence of the entertainment and news media (according to statistics) appears to be waning, they still have enough power to convince the weak-minded to elect to office a morally bankrupt candidate or win public approval for one of the most despicable sins that ever occurred to womankind.
The Problem
First of all, the media’s continual bombardment over the last five years in favor of homosexuality has changed the attitudes of many people. It is almost as though someone threw a switch and most of the newspapers, magazines, and television executives all said, “Let’s get homosexuality accepted.” Those who contradict this “politically correct” view are maligned as homophobes and bigots. Many sheep-like Americans have concluded, “Duh, yeah, it’s just an alternate lifestyle. It’s too bad all those prejudiced people exist out there.”
Acceptance of this sin is so widespread that it begins with the seediest back alley in town and ends with endorsements from the White House. [Come to think of it, in Washington, D.C., the two may not be all that far removed.] The following account came across the Internet a few days ago; it appeared in The London Times and has also been cited by other news sources. Unfortunately, it reflects the view of our national leadership and a growing segment of society.
In what is fast becoming “lesbian week” in America, Ellen DeGeneres, the television star, and her newly-declared girlfriend embraced and stood with their arms around each other when they were presented to President Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, who is, if anything, a president for all minorities, smiled broadly and did everything he could to encourage Ms. DeGeneres and her lover, Anne Heche. The couple met the President at a Washington dinner at which, arguably, they and Mr. Clinton vied for top billing.
In the past, to meet the President was to stand to attention, straighten one’s collar and remind oneself to call the fellow “sir.” Ms. DeGeneres and her girlfriend showed that this has been replaced by a new protocol. With her right hand, the television star gave a passionate squeeze to the waist of Ms. Heche who, with her left hand, gave her lover’s shoulder a sisterly stroke. Mr. Clinton’s reaction was to laugh and smile.
Yes, it is disillusioning–not to mention obvious–that such a public display is nothing less than an “in-your-face” demand to accept the perversion of homosexuality. The television show has “created extraordinary excitement in gay circles.” Hundreds of “Come Out With Ellen” parties occurred in the United states “and in countries as far flung as Finland and Japan.” A group calling itself the Human Rights Campaign sent out “2,600 party kits to applicants.” They included “gay rights trivia questions, a promotional video, and exhortations from 20 prominent lesbians.”
The Real Problem
These events would not occur in a nation that feared God and respected His word. Christians must face the fact that this country’s citizens no longer know nor care what the Bible teaches. Such are the fruits of the theological position “doctrine doesn’t matter,” which many adopted years ago. It should be no surprise that now the philosophy has become “morality doesn’t matter.” If TRUTH does not matter in one area, it does not matter in any area. So just as we have been asked to fellowship every false doctrine, we are now being asked to fellowship every immorality.
The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, hardly anything could be clearer. As if Genesis 19:4-5 were not enough (and this should be read by all the naive live-and-let-live Americans), the Law of Moses required the death penalty for homosexuals (Lev. 20:13). And in case anyone wonders if God changed his opinion of the sin, Paul calls it a vile passion, against nature, and an evidence that God has given up on such a people (Rom. 1:24-28). And if that is not enough, Jude, the brother of the Lord, wrote that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, for their going after strange flesh, “are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 7).
However, one cannot expect that people who are ignorant of the Word of God will stand up for what it teaches. The battle for America’s soul has been lost. From a once lofty height, we have slithered down the pathway to DeGeneresy. Thirty-five million abortions attest to the fact that we have far surpassed any pagan nation that offered up their children to idols. We have little respect for human life, and we cannot blush at perversion.
Most Americans think that if we have a strong economy, God approves of us. So did Israel. Amos declared: “Woe to you who are at ease in Zion” (Amos 6:1). Yes, as long as they could stretch out on their couches (even though they didn’t have a remote to channel surf with), eat sumptuously, and lose themselves in entertainment (Amos 6:4-6), they could put immoralities and injustices aside. “Yes, as long as I am comfortable, God is in his heaven, and all’s fairly right with the world,” we fool ourselves into thinking.
Solutions
At this point options are few. The first thing to do is to make sure that we know the Bible ourselves. The second thing is to cut ourselves off from all corrupt influences that we have control over. The third thing is to speak out against immoralities publicly, as we have opportunity. Fourth, pray for God’s patience to be extended for a while longer.
Fifth, we need to get back to our work of evangelism. It is incredible how sidetracked we in the Lord’s church have become. Have we not quenched the evangelistic spirit we once had? How many people are being converted to Jesus every year? Cults are growing; other world religions are growing. Satanism is growing! And we sit around arguing about how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian when both sides agree that He does. Others have elevated the use of “women translators” to one of pre-eminence, dwarfing practically all else. Maybe next we could tackle the medieval question of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
What a luxury it is not to have anything important to do so that we can devote all of our attention to these major issues. Meanwhile, this nation stands on the brink of the abyss, and our fervency for preaching the gospel of Christ has cooled. [Note well: these observations are not offered to denigrate or minimize doctrine, which is previously stated in this article as crucial; the purpose is to question our priorities (Matt. 23:23).]
The only hope America has is US. Preaching the gospel carries with it a double benefit–it saves people’s souls and causes them to adhere to Biblical morality. Who knows how much longer we have to reach people before those freedoms are taken away or severely hindered? Let’s conduct ourselves as if we had important goals to reach and time were running out!
When Terry Hightower directed the Shenandoah lectures, he produced some of the most outstanding, informative books available anywhere. It did not seem likely that very many brethren could continue such a rich tradition, but Don Walker admirably takes up where Terry left off with this year’s book: Balanced Christianity: Maintaining Biblical Balance.
In an age of Extremism (politically, socially, and spiritually), there is a need to emphasize “balance,” to which the first chapter of this book calls people. As pertains to some of the “issues” that brethren love to discuss, the question is asked, “Are you balanced in your approach to this topic, or toward those with whom you disagree?” (14). Certainly it is the case that sometimes our zeal for truth can outstrip our love for our adversaries and our sense of fairness in dealing with the topic.
The second chapter makes a distinction between “balance” and “compromise.” Os Guiness’ four steps toward compromise are recounted. Illustrations are given of Jesus achieving balance without compromising. This good article is followed by one that demonstrates various ways in which God calls for balance.
Next is “Spiritual Balance: The Whole Truth of God,” which was prepared by brother Troy Cummings. He takes issue with those popular “evangelists” who do not preach the whole counsel of God with respect to salvation. He also imagines how today’s “doves” would react to the boldness of the apostle Paul when he rebuked Peter. Undoubtedly, those who possess the irenic (or is that anemic?) spirit today would be miffed at Paul for washing the church’s “dirty linen” in public. He also envisions some of our liberal brethren asking Paul, “Do you think that you are the only good apostle?” (58). Brother Cummings follows up these matters with an astute observation undoubtedly aimed at those who have been traveling down Compromise Alley. He cited a Scripture that has been all but forgotten.
We must remember that Jesus Himself was (is) not only “a chief corner stone elect, precious” for our salvation, but also He was (is) “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense” to many people, because they will not believe and obey Him, but being disobedient they use Jesus as an excuse or stumblingblock for not doing God’s will! (Read 1 Pet. 2:6-8.) (59).
Succeeding chapters include “Biblical Balance Demands Proper Attitudes,” a concept which cannot be promoted too often, “A Balanced View of God,” which devotes itself to a discussion of His attributes (including His goodness and severity), “A Balanced View of Christ,” which discusses His Godhood and His Manhood, as well the balance suggested in the images of His being a Lion and a Lamb, “Christ Was Balanced in His Growth” (based on Luke 2:52), and “A Balanced View of Man.”
These are followed by Johnny Ramsey’s excellent “New Testament Survey,” which summarizes each New Testament book, but also details some of the key events that occurred in the interval between the Old and New Testaments.
In the chapter, “A Balanced View of the Old and New Testaments,” there is an interesting section which begins with: “Logic demands the inspiration of the Scriptures” (203-204). The analysis that follows should prove useful to every child of God.
Two chapters follow which are devoted to balanced preaching and presenting the whole counsel of God. All preachers would benefit from a periodic review of these chapters. Next is “Paul’s Balanced Answer in 1 Corinthians 8,” a look at the way Paul dealt with two opposing views within the congregation.
Darrell Conley writes a long exhortation, entitled “Balancing Knowledge and Action.” Every Christian ought to study this chapter from time to time, so good is it at reminding us of our God-given responsibilities to put into practice the precepts of Christianity that we continually study.
The next two chapters, “A Balanced View of Grace” and “A Balanced View of Faith and Works,” are necessary because of the imbalance in the religious world that exists at this time regarding these concepts. Unfortunately, there are some “brethren” that have dived head first into the sea of religious error and emerged dripping Calvinism.
Always needed in the church are men who are qualified to be elders and who will do the work which God requires of elders. Two chapters are devoted to this important subject area. Imagine the Herculean effort there would be in answering this question: “What Is Christianity?” In only a few pages attention is focused on concepts such as “Successful Christianity,” “Balanced Christianity,” “What It Means to be a Christian,” “What Makes Christianity the New and Living Way?” and “A Christian Is. . . .” (324-46). This material could easily be the springboard for a number of sermons.
This lectureship book also contains “A Balanced View of Discipline,” which is surely one of the most comprehensive looks at the subject that could fit into a mere seventeen pages. Also receiving thorough treatment is “A Balanced View of Judging.”
“Fellowship” has been and continues to be a subject of importance to all members of the body of Christ, and a great deal of confusion exists in the minds of many. The material the reader finds here may not solve every problem, but it will get one down the road a piece.
Another realm in which balance is needed is in the home. Besides an excellent example of the problems of no discipline (409), there are keen observations, such as: “Some husbands have developed the ‘King of the Castle’ attitude when it comes to demanding their way, but have abdicated when it comes to being the moral and spiritual leader in the home” (408). Perhaps women would be content to be women if men were truly men.
“A Balanced View of Sex,” “A Balanced View of Love,” and “A Balanced view of Anger” follow next. The last of these three deals with justified anger, a concept that has nearly become extinct in the world’s unbalanced pursuit of love. Readers are called back to a Biblical perspective of anger.
Balancing one’s priorities may be of interest to many who have experienced problems along these lines. Some have also struggled to overcome the past or are pessimistic about the future. Particularly valuable will be the material on “A Balanced View of the Past, Present, and Future.” Applications may be made to individuals and congregations. The exhortations made here are sensible, sound, and Scriptural; they can help keep us from becoming our own worst enemies.
One of the most unusual (but fascinating) chapters, written by Carl Garner, is “A Balance Between the House of Mourning and the House of Feasting,” based on Ecclesiastes 7:1-6. Two questions receive attention: “Why Must We Experience the ‘House of Mourning’?” and “Could God Remove Pain and Sorrow From Our Lives?” Epicurus’ “Problem of Evil” is effectively answered, and the reader will delight in a number of the author’s insights.
The book contains 519 pages of useful, practical, and Biblical information, and may be obtained from the Shenandoah Church of Christ, 11026 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX 78230 (or Valid Publications) for $15.00.
Job was afflicted more severely than most of us will ever suffer. First of all, he lost all of his wealth. Although we understand that these are not the true or permanent riches in life, few (if any) can remain unmoved at their loss. Some have taken their lives when faced with the prospect of bankruptcy; Nabal’s heart died within him when his wife told him she had given away some of his food to David and his men (1 Sam. 25:37). Recently a television program discussing the effects of volcanoes was aired. They interviewed a couple who watched the lava set fire to and demolish in just twenty minutes the house they had built themselves. Viewers could see the agony and extreme sorrow in their faces during this process of destruction. We often sing, “This world is not my home,” but we nevertheless become attached to material things.
Job lost his wealth, but worse things awaited. Job was a family man and a faithful father to his children. He was genuinely concerned about their spiritual welfare (Job 1:5). What misery it must have been to endure the loss of all ten of them at one time. Many have never been able to recover from the loss of one child; we can only imagine the sorrow involved in losing an entire family. Foy Smith was an outstanding preacher, a great spiritual man. The death of his son was a difficult thing to endure.
Dabney Phillips writes about a tragic event in the life of “Raccoon” John Smith, the great restoration preacher with a mischievous sense of humor. This incident is recorded in Restoration Principles and Personalities, first published in 1975.
The saddest event in the life of John Smith had to be the tragedy that occurred on his farm near Huntsville, Alabama, in 1814. . . . Anna [his wife, gws] had been asked to sit with a sick friend nearby. She was an excellent singer, and sought to soothe the ill neighbor with her songs. . . . At approximately ten o’clock, screams of horror reached her ears. Swiftly going outside, she saw her house on fire one-half mile down the road. She grabbed her baby and ran toward the house. She first saw Hiram, the oldest boy, holding the hand of one of the girls, and then she saw three of her other children. But twoÉhad burned to death. A friend had to restrain Anna to prevent her from leaping with her baby into the fire. The weeping mother refused to be comforted as she sat speechless near the ruins of her home.
Anna felt guilty that she had left the children alone. “Raccoon” attempted to calm her, but it was a futile effort. He accepted the loss as an act of God, and made his plans to continue preaching. Anna, however, failed to recover. She died in two months from extreme grief and was buried with the ashes of the two children (111-12).
The patriarch Jacob never rebounded from the supposed loss of his favorite son. After he had mourned for many days, “all of his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, ‘For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning'” (Gen. 37:35). Later, as Judah is offering himself as a slave instead of Benjamin, he says of his father, “. . .since his life is bound up in the lad’s life, it will happen when he sees that the lad is not with us, that he will die” (Gen. 44:30-31). Truly, the loss of children can absolutely devastate the unfortunate parents.
The grief and loss that Job experiences are intense, at the very least. Yet one more tragedy awaits–the loss of his health. He is plagued by “painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head” (Job 2:7). Certainly he was in a situation which appeared to have no convenient solution. People have called Kevorkian who were in better shape. No one enjoys physical suffering; Paul besought the Lord three times to remove his thorn in the flesh but was required to endure it (2 Cor. 12:8-10). Paul turned the pain into a plus: “For when I am weak, then I am strong.” He realized that all pain and suffering are not evil, but rather that they can be of benefit.
Job had a difficult time seeing anything good come out of his situation. Like most other people, he wanted to understand why these things had befallen him. But until an explanation was provided, he was committed to remaining faithful to God. “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. . . .” (Job 13:15). Job persevered and was rewarded for his faithfulness.
In the movie, The Robe, which is inspiring though historically and spiritually flawed, a young woman has a beautiful voice and disposition to match. The centurion who crucified Jesus (played by Richard Burton) has been opposed to Christianity but haunted by His death. When he meets this woman, he asks her why she is a follower of Jesus. She describes the great transformation that took place within herself when Jesus came into her village. Being crippled had made her bitter; she was hostile toward everyone. Jesus, she claimed, took all of that away.
The centurion is quick to ask her, “But if He was so powerful and did so many miracles, why are you still crippled?” She answered, “I’ve thought about that a lot. I think the reason is that it is easy for a person that has been made whole to praise Him and follow Him. But you can also love Him and be His disciple even if you have not been healed.” [These are approximate wordings, not exact quotes.] Could God have healed Paul? Easily, but it was to his benefit to retain his affliction–and ours–because we have an example set before us of one who endured physical affliction but only grew stronger as a result of it.
Job suffered the loss of his wealth, the death of his children, and the misery of ill health. Yet in his remaining faithful to God he demonstrated to Satan and to us that we can trust in God no matter what–even when all we can do is ask, “Why?” No matter how circumstances appear to us, we know that God has not forsaken us and that He is with us every step of the way. He wants us to survive and remain faithful to the end. For this reason we have even the example of Jesus, One unworthy of death suffering on the cross for our sins. We should look unto Him who endured the cross, despising the shame, and who has “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2).
David
The faithful are always rewarded. David suffered many of the problems that people face today. He suffered intense persecution from King Saul–so much so that he averred there was but a step between him and death (1 Sam. 20:3). Many Christians in the first century suffered greatly or lost their lives because of persecution. It cannot be considered other than tragic to watch a loved one tortured, but God did not desert them. Unreasonable and fanatical despots could inflict pain and death, but they could not harm their souls; their crowns and glory could not be taken away.
David lost an infant son, an event that despite our best medical efforts still happens to some. The king took solace in the fact that he would see the child again (2 Sam. 12:23). A person’s faith makes a great difference in the way he responds to a broken heart.
The wife of this shepherd boy’s youth grew to despise David, making their marriage loveless. Of course David could take comfort in the fact that he had a few other wives, but it is still less than ideal to remain continually in a strained relationship.
David even lost two sons forever. Amnon defiled his sister Tamar and then refused to marry her (2 Sam. 13). So far as the text goes, there is no indication that he ever repented of what he had done. Therefore, when he entered eternity (by means of his brother murdering him), he was rewarded according to his unrighteousness.
But then Absalom, who had dispatched his impenitent brother, himself died leading a rebellion against his father. David sorrowed so greatly that his soldiers were just about ready to desert him. Joab jolted him into appropriate action by telling him, “. . .for today I perceive that if Absalom had lived and all of us had died today, then it would have pleased you well” (1 Sam. 19:6). Some might muse, “Why did David mourn so much over Absalom, seeing that he was such a jerk? The answer is obvious: the jerk was his son. “O my son Absalom! O Absalom, my son, my son!” (2 Sam. 19:4).
There could be no consolation as in the case of the infant David lost. He does not say this time, “I shall go to him.” David mourns because death (at the hands of Joab) eliminates the possibility of reconciliation to either David or God. There will be no opportunity for repentance–and thus no opportunity for further fellowship. Many things in life can be undone, but death destroys the opportunity to alter one’s eternal destiny. What becomes of the broken-heated, who face situations such as these? Their faith is tested. They can become embittered and fall away. Or they can gradually accept the reality of the situation, realize that God likewise grieves with them, and realize that others have emerged from these dark sorrows.
What may have compounded David’s intense grief is that he apparently was hopeful that there might be a peaceful resolution to the rebellion Absalom was leading. All the people heard him tell the captains, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom” (2 Sam. 18:5). Perhaps David was even praying for his son’s salvation and deliverance, and it was possible since he ended up caught in a tree and was totally helpless; Joab, however, ruthlessly thrust three spears through his heart, after which ten of Joab’s armor-bearers joined in, thus completing the job (2 Sam. 18:9-15).
David is not the only one to experience such heartbreak. How did Aaron feel when two of his four sons were burned by fire from the Lord? The fact that Aaron “held his peace” as Moses appealed to God’s holiness as the cause of their deaths shows that he was upset by what had occurred (Lev. 10:3).
All who are Christians must mourn the fact that we are going to be eternally separated from those who we love. Ananias and Sapphira were undoubtedly loved by some of the members of the church in Jerusalem, but they were lost. Paul was saddened by Demas’ decision to forsake him and to love the present world more (2 Tim 4:10). Even Judas was somebody’s son. Our grief over these situations should not cause us to stumble; they should cause us to lean even more heavily upon the One Who shares our loss.
Ultimately we must recognize that even loved ones must be given the freedom to make their own decisions–even those with eternal consequences. As painful as “free will” sometimes is, it cannot be any other way. God remains holy and just; His love cannot be questioned. It is up to each individual to choose life.
As long as this world stands, tragedies, afflictions, death, and sorrows will prevail. But Paul wrote: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). God truly understands all the situations we experience, and He is for us (Rom. 8:31). We can remain faithful in the face of all adversity. We know that we can; men like Job and David have already weathered the storms that pelt us.
“I will love you, O Lord, my strength.
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised;
So shall I be saved from my enemies (Ps. 18:1-3).
Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed,
Because His compassions fail not.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
“The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I hope in Him!”
(Lamentations 3:22-24).
Although the song with the above title was popular a number of years ago, it is still played on various radio stations. The subject, of course, concerns those who have been in love but are now alone after a failed romance, looking for “some kind of peace of mind.” Probably most people have been in that situation at one time or another and know the sorrow and the agony that accompany it.
But the concern of this article is not over those who are depressed over lost love (as heartbreaking as that is)–but over Christians who are suffering due to certain tragedies of life. Some of the circumstances that might be included are ones in which: 1) people are living in difficult situations; 2) someone has recently lost a loved one who was a faithful member of the church; or 3) someone lost a family member or friend who was not a faithful member of the church (or who had never obeyed the gospel).
Let’s consider the first category. Someone could be in a difficult marital situation. Suppose two people marry who are not eligible for marriage. Years later they are taught the gospel and realize that it is not lawful to have each other. They must forego the sexual benefits that pertain to God’s institution which they have enjoyed (illicitly) up to their learning the truth. They cannot return to their original mates, cannot enjoy each other, and cannot look for another. These have not lost a loved one due to death, but past indiscretions have put them in an unenviable position (“so near and yet so far away”). Although it is painful to become a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake, the rewards are great.
An equally difficult situation is a “loveless” marriage. Invariably, the uncooperative mate will refuse to go to counseling, refuse conjugal privileges as commanded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, yet be content to maintain the pleasant facade of years past to all their friends. One cannot exit this marriage because there is no unfaithfulness; certainly it qualifies as a situation for the broken-hearted.
For those who have lost loved ones (faithful to the Lord) there is comfort. The loss is real and must be grieved, but it is only a temporary separation. When one ponders the length of eternity, what are ten, twenty, or even fifty years of physical absence? No, it does not take away the hurt, but the facts of salvation and eternal life are a great comfort (1 Thess. 4:18).
The third category is much more intense because the loss is permanent, and there is no hope. What comfort can be offered to one who knows that a loved one died outside of the body of Christ without his/her sins having ever been forgiven? Read all of the books that deal with death and grief; try to find one that deals with this contingency–comforting someone who has eternally lost another. There are none.
Why not? Essentially, as a society, we have determined that no one is lost or condemned to an eternity in hell–despite what Jesus taught in Matthew 7:13-14. Even so-called “Christian” authors cannot bring themselves to think that God holds man accountable for his sins. They too pretend that God saves everyone, thus intensifying the problem.
Rather than helping people deal with the truth, we add to their state of denial and hold out false hope to them. “I know that mom (or dad, grandma, aunt Jane, brother, sister) never obeyed the gospel, but she was such a nice lady (so kind to all her friends), don’t you think she will be saved anyway?”
Now who wants to be the first to say, “No, you know good and well she is suffering in torment”? We know the truth (2 Thess. 1:7-9), but we cannot bring ourselves to accept it. Honesty and reality are shoved aside in favor of sentiment. Wishful thinking, however, does not change facts. Self-deception does not change the Word of God. The Bible is right, and despite how much it hurts to accept it, those who do not repent of their sins and submit to baptism for the remission of them are lost, having rejected Gods only plan for their redemption (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38).
But for those who know the truth and are genuinely grieving over the permanent loss of loved ones, what becomes of the broken-hearted?
STEPS OF RECOVERY
There are two directions one will travel in the face of the various situations outlined above. One response is to blame God for whatever has happened (“Why did you do this to me?”) and fall away. The other is to be drawn closer to Him. The first alternative proves to be a very poor choice; the second may be attained (though it requires both time and effort).
Suppose a person blames God for a loved one’s condemnation. In a twisted sort of way he thinks, “I’ll show God. I’ll be lost, too, and then I’ll get to spend eternity with him after all.” How foolish. In the words of an old song (that few people have probably ever heard): “‘Cuz where you’re goin’ to, he won’t be thankin’ you.” In the first place, will anyone in torment be happy to have company? The selfish rich man pleaded with Abraham to let Lazarus warn his brothers (Luke 16:27-31). He most certainly did not want any loved ones to join him in such an awful place. A second problem with such a destructive action is that while you may see one loved again, you will have excluded from your fellowship all other faithful family members and brethren. What a foolish choice.
How can the broken-hearted ever hope to find peace of mind? Step one is to accept the facts of the matter. Although the natural reaction may be to deny the truth, only an acceptance of reality (things which cannot be changed) can possibly set one on the road to recovery. It will not lessen one’s misery; in fact, it will contribute to it, but in the long run it is healthier than denial. One should say to himself, “These are the facts of the matter; now where do I go from here?” And the answer is–to God.
The second step is to realize that God understands what each person is experiencing. He doesn’t just say He knows how a person feels; He knows how we feel. He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and He has lost a lot of people that He loved to Satan and ultimately to hell. He rejoices not in that reality. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11). For every lost soul that we personally grieve God has lost thousands more.
And what about Jesus? He was so willing to save mankind that He suffered the pain and humiliation of the cross. Can He possibly be happy when a soul departs from this life unsaved? For that individual His death did no good. Oh, how He wills that it would have, but He cannot will to be so what people have refused to do–obey the gospel. Each of us makes the eternal decision for ourselves. The one thing neither the Father nor the Son can do is violate our freedom of choice. But they understand our grief concerning eternal separation. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:1).
The third step is to realize that others who have gone before us have suffered in the same ways that we do. Have life’s circumstances been harsh? Consider Naomi. A famine drove her and her family off their land. They sojourned in Moab long enough for her two sons to marry, but then both of them and her husband died. Those are great losses for anyone to deal with. Naomi had a hard time recovering (even though the three men may have been faithful Jews when they died).
When she arrived in Bethlehem and people were excited to see her, she dampened the occasion by saying, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord has brought me home again empty” (Ruth 1:20-21). Naomi’s grief caused her to think irrationally (as it does most people).
First, the Almighty did not deal bitterly with her. He did not become bored one day in Heaven and say, “How can I afflict Naomi? She seems to be too happy.” Sure, it may seem that way to us, but it is Satan who afflicts, not God (Job 1-2, 2 Cor. 12:7). Second, God is for His people, not against them. So often we act as though God does not care, is indifferent toward us, or is downright elated when bad things happen to us. Peter wrote that Christians can cast their cares upon God, “for He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). Third, Naomi did not come back empty. There was this devoted daughter-in-law named Ruth who accompanied her. In a few short years Naomi would be a doting grandmother; she would be happy once again. God understood her grief; He did not hold her state of depression against her (though she was wrong), but even blessed her. Things are never as bad as they seem; God does not desert us.
(to be continued)
The following paragraphs appeared recently in the New York Times:
Wal-Mart is the single largest seller of pop music in the country, accounting last year for sales of an estimated 52,000,000 of the 615,000,000 compact discs sold in the United States. Its refusal to stock albums with lyrics or cover art it finds objectionable has long been a frustration for some customers, musicians and recording industry executives.
What is harder to spot, many in the music business say, is the way the discount chain’s distribution decisions are affecting the production of music. Because of Wal-mart’s clout, record labels and bands will design different covers and booklets, omit songs from their albums, electronically mask objectionable words and even change lyrics to gain a place on Wal-Mart’s shelves.
Needless to say, Wal-Mart’s policy does not sit well with those in the media. You know, the ones who cry “Censorship” every time someone objects to the filth they produce. This is what director Oliver Stone said about Wal-Mart and other companies who refuse to sell pornographic music and videos.
“This is a new form of censorship that’s come into being in this country,” said Stone, whose director’s cut of Natural Born Killers was banned by Blockbuster, K-Mart and Wal-Mart. “Essentially it’s the sanitization of entertainment. Studios like Warner Brothers won’t even release a film rated NC-17. They point to economic pressure from Blockbuster and Wal-Mart, who won’t carry those videos. People don’t understand how much power these corporations have.”
A Wal-Mart spokesperson stated:
Producers of music know up front that Wal-mart is not going to carry anything with a parental advisory on it, and that’s something they’re going to have to factor in when they produce the product. Our customers understand our music and video merchandising decisions are a common-sense attempt to provide the type of material they might want to purchase.
When I read these quotes, I felt like going out to Wal-Mart and buying something, anything, just out of gratitude for their marketing policy.
Now, let’s make a few observations. In case you hadn’t noticed, censorship is a word used in a very biased manner by those in the media. Censorship is a dirty word as far as they are concerned. It’s not that they themselves do not practice censorship; they just don’t call it that. Some of you may remember a few years ago when we approached the public library about the reasons why they accepted or rejected certain books. They said that making such choices was called selection. Mmm, I’ll have to think about that one.
Second, the next time you hear a spokesperson for a company that has been threatened with a boycott because of their practices say, “Boycotts don’t work,” or that they “will not be pressured into giving in,” don’t believe them. The above quotes make it clear that the decisions of Blockbuster and Wal-Mart are having a positive impact in the movie and music industry. Also, when each of us as individuals refuse to buy from concerns that contribute to the moral decline in our society, we are making a difference.
Third, Wal-Mart’s policy runs counter to the cry of many retailers who claim they must sell certain merchandise if they are to compete in the market place. It is interesting that the New York Times article stated that Wal-mart’s policy has been a source of frustration for “some customers, musicians and recording industry executives.” Since they are the leading retailer of compact discs in the country, it certainly doesn’t sound like their customers are feeling frustrated. I strongly suspect it is the musicians and music executives that are really feeling the frustration.
Finally, we should all let Wal-Mart know that we appreciate their policy. We should be as quick to express appreciation as we are to condemn. It would be great if you sent a quick note to Wal-Mart expressing your gratitude. You can write them at:
President/CEO David D. Glass
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
702 S. W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
For quite a while now the American Family Association Journal has been warning about the Walt Disney Company under the leadership of its president, Michael Eisner. According to the brochure on the bulletin board from Florida’s American Family Association:
Gay Day patrons have demonstrated and promoted same-sex behavior to a captive audience of over 100,000 children at Disney World of Florida over the past six years. Disney allows and assists over ten thousand homosexuals to hold a “coming out party” in the midst of tens of thousands of children each year during the first week of June. Homosexuals are promoting Gay Day at Disney for June 1997.
Disney protests that they have nothing to do with this event, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Disney owns ABC. Is it just coincidence that they are airing Two Mothers for Zachary, a movie about two women falling in love, starring Valerie Bertinelli and Vanessa Redgrave? And what about all the hype about Ellen DeGenerate, whoops, Degeneres coming out of the closet on her ABC television sitcom? ABC also does the controversial NYPD Blue, which features a homosexual secretary.
And is it a further coincidence that Disney’s Children’s Book Division is publishing Let It All Hang Out by RuPaul and Growing Up Gay by three homosexual comedians? It seems pretty obvious that Disney has committed themselves to a homosexual agenda.
Letters or postcards of protest may be sent to:
Michael Eisner, Chairman Walt Disney Company 500 South Buena Vista Street Burbank, CA 91521
A Fax may be sent to 1-818-560–1300 or 1930.
Each person should send such a message, even though it will probably not do any good. There is probably only one thing that would do any good, and that would be the boycott against Disney that some are calling for. Such a decision would mean: 1) no more planning vacation trips to Disney World; 2) no more attending Disney movies or buying videos. It is doubtful that enough people would participate in such an endeavor, but what other leverage is there?
There is already too little wholesome entertainment, and if we quit viewing some of the best things done for children, then what? Well, but what is the choice? Keep supporting with our dollars an industry that is pushing the homosexual agenda? Or deprive ourselves of a few enjoyable moments of entertainment? Surely, if we must have movies, this nation’s sixty-year history is not so impoverished that we cannot find materials already produced to use–not to mention documentaries, historical productions, and even BOOKS. [How many young people have read The Chronicles of Narnia?]
Perhaps it would be better to use our imaginations-instead of Disney’s. Who knows where they will go next? According to the American Family Association Journal (April 1997), Disney is producing a movie about a brother and sister who are incestuous twins (1). Where will it all end?
