Gary Summers, Author at South Seminole Church Of Christ

“Homosexual Editorials”

It all started with a column by William Raspberry, the syndicated columnist. His article, entitled “Why are So Many People Afraid of Same-Sex Marriage?”, appeared in the obviously pro-homosexual newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, on January 29th of this year. Some excerpts from that column appear below from page 17A.
. . .[W]hy are so many of us so adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage?
. . .[T]he polls suggest a repugnance that is more visceral than technical or religious–a distaste based on fear.

But a fear of what? That allowing same-sex marriages will increase homosexuality and perhaps even spread such diseases as AIDS? But that makes sense only if you believe there is a value in keeping homosexuality in the closet and that committed couples are as likely as casual sex partners to be promiscuous.

A fear that some people will abuse the privilege by marrying AIDS patients in order to extend to them medical coverage?. . .

A fear that stretching the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian unions will weaken marriage for heterosexuals? But how? Is the strength of my commitment dependent on the nature of yours?

A fear that homosexual couples will (gasp!) adopt children? And do what to them? Turn them gay? Leave them sexually confused? Make them laughingstocks?. . .

But sometimes (as used to be the case for transracial marriage), they are mere prejudices–no matter what social or religious evidence we offer in their defense. If I put my mind to it, I could come up with a fair load of evidence against same-sex marriage.

What keeps me from doing so is experience. I have known enough committed gay and lesbian couples to lose my fear that they are somehow dangerous. Many of the couples have seemed as loving and devoted to each other as my wife and I.

And if they want to mark that commitment by invoking the religious and civil forms used for that purpose, why isn’t that a good thing? What are we afraid of?

Of course Raspberry’s column is seriously flawed in a number of ways. In response to his experience with loving and committed homosexual couples, for example, it could be appropriately pointed out that Lot’s experience was not nearly so positive. No doubt, Lot was trying to keep an open mind and avoid being called prejudiced. After all, he continued to live amongst people that vexed his righteous soul daily (2 Peter 2:8). His fair-mindedness nearly merited him a night of homosexual rape and abuse by those tolerant, loving, committed homosexuals (Gen. 19:9).
Raspberry ignores all Biblical evidence (including God’s definition of homosexuality as sin in a number of Scriptures) and spends his time fighting “straw” men (perhaps he should change his name to Strawberry). Howard Horton responded to this column. What he wrote appeared in The Dallas Morning News on February 16.

Re: William Raspberry’s Jan. 29 Viewpoints column, “Why are so many people afraid of same-sex marriage?”
First of all, it isn’t necessarily a matter of “being afraid” of homosexuals, same-sex marriages and such like, that’s the issue. The “issue” is that another “voice” needs to be heard, needs to be vocalized or written.

Homosexuals and lesbians (and supporters of such activity) all cry and demand to be heard; that they have rights, too. Well, are we (Christian or non-Christian) supposed to sit still? Be quiet? Roll over and die? All because of what they want?

This is the land of the free. Men and women have died on foreign soils (and in some cases, maybe even homosexual soldiers died as well) so that people could have the freedom to speak and write their mind.

As a preacher (Church of Christ), I will continue to bring lessons which are Bible based to deal with such lifestyles. I will not ignore, delete, change, water down any of the Bible passages which clearly and concisely deal with such activities. And it isn’t a matter of interpretation whether or not homosexuality is condemned by God. It is a matter of easy-to-understand language that such activity is sin (Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). All of the yelling, marching, “marriages” and protests will not erase these passages.

Second, lest I be castigated as being unloving, the reason why I and other Gospel preachers will continue to preach with these passages is because of the love of lost souls and love of mankind. And an unloving person will let a man (or woman) in sin continue on down a Bible-condemned road without ever warning him or her.

Fear? No, sir. That is not the issue at all. It is the right and freedom to voice a different view and, as well, it is the right and freedom to preach, herald, teach and give a Biblical viewpoint.

Brother Horton makes a valid point about the heart of the problem being one of sin. BUT another reader wrote in to take him to task. Gaston C. Maurin of Irving replied as follows (published on February 26th).
In the Sunday Reader, Feb. 16, letter writer Howard Horton says he believes “that homosexuality is wrong.” He bases his belief on the biblical text. He has, of course, every right to express his view. And, yes, as he suggested, homosexuals did die serving our country to protect his freedom of speech, along with the rest of the U. S. Constitution. This is the same U. S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and mandates separation of church and state.
Now I chose to join the Metropolitan Community Church, one that does not condemn homosexual behavior. Our law rightly recognizes Metropolitan Community Church as a legitimate church by awarding it tax exempt status. I, too, have a right to hold, practice and express my religious views.

Mr. Horton, however, wants his religious views to determine civil law. What has happened to the separation of church and state? To respect for the Constitution of the United States?

When will we wake up to the fact that the Bible is a religious document and is not–according to the Constitution, should not be–the law of the land? Mr. Horton had the right to warn me that I should not “continue down a Bible-condemned road,” but should I not have the right to reject that warning as irrelevant to my religion?

The law of the land should allow all citizens to behave freely as long as they do no harm to their fellow citizens, or the state. Mr. Horton, you may freely continue to warn me, pray for me and love me, but please stop trying to get the government’s help in running my personal life.

Since this letter deserved an answer, I sent one to them via E-mail. To my knowledge, the newspaper has not printed it. Below is my unpublished response sent in on February 27th.
On the Feb. 26 editorial page Gaston C. Maurin takes Howard Horton to task over his comments about the freedom of speech we have regarding homosexuality. The following observations are in order.
1. The Bible is not a collection of opinions and views; it is Divine law.

2. The Bible condemns homosexuality in all eras of Divine government (Gen. 19:4-5; Lev. 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).

3. Any church (such as the one to which Mr. Maurin belongs) that promotes homosexuality (rather than condemning it) has clearly rejected Biblical teachings.

4. The vast majority of our founding fathers believed the Bible (read John Eidsmoe’s Christianity and the Constitution, a well-researched and well-documented analysis of their beliefs).

5. The Constitution that they produced upheld the moral laws taught in the Bible; they did not see a conflict between Christianity and the state.

6. Mr. Maurin does not want those who abide by the Bible “to determine civil law.” But he is more than happy for people who share his views to determine civil law (how’s that for hypocrisy?).

7. Homosexuality does harm society, as do pornography, child molestation, and drunkenness. People do not violate God’s laws in a vacuum–for long. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah as examples.

As a final thought, does Mr. Maurin consider that the government is trying to run his personal life when it legislates against child molestation in his own family or against the use of drugs? Such practices are injurious to the individual and can easily involve harming others. Besides, admitting that one is a homosexual and demanding public acceptance of it takes the controversy out of the realm of personal privacy.

Interesting, isn’t it, how that homosexuality is just a matter of personal preference, and the government shouldn’t interfere in the personal lives of homosexuals? The fact is that all homosexuals’ private lives are exactly that–private. They are the ones who have made homosexuality a public issue with their “gay pride” parades and innumerable media bombardment of their “personal” lives. Homosexuals are the ones who have sought all the publicity; the rest of us have just responded to these attacks on morality and public decency.

THE ABC PHILOSOPHY

It’s not so much spoken; it’s more of an attitude that people convey. It’s evidenced in the way the eyes dart away when you mention that you are a Christian; it’s the way the face wrinkles when the Bible is mentioned; it’s seen in the shrug of the shoulders when Biblical common sense is applied to a person’s problems.
How often have brethren listened intently and commiserated with brethren (or those in the world), who wanted to know what they should do? After a careful study of the Scriptures, the comment is made, “You don’t really understand my problem.” Translation: “I don’t like God’s answer to my dilemma.”

Incidents like these only serve to demonstrate that oftentimes, when people ask for advice, they are only seeking confirmation of what they have already determined to do. One of the Biblical examples of this practice is seen in the book of Jeremiah; it concerns an event that happened shortly after the captivity.

The governor over the land had been murdered by a rebel named Ishmael. Johanan led the Israelites in a battle against him, but Ishmael escaped. Now they were worried about Babylon; how would their conquerors view the death of their governor? They came to Jeremiah and asked him what they should do, insisting that whatever the answer was, they would comply.

Then they said to Jeremiah, “Let the Lord be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not do according to everything which the Lord your God sends us by you, whether it is pleasing or displeasing, we will obey the voice of the Lord…” (Jer. 42:5-6).
Aren’t those the sentiments of most people who ask for advice? “Tell me anything. I’m so lost and confused. My life is in such a mess. I can’t see any way out.” But look what happened to the Israelites when Jeremiah delivered God’s answer.

The answer was two fold. First was the assurance that remaining where they were would be all right; God would take care of them and protect them from the king of Babylon (Jer. 42:9-13). The second part of the message was: “Don’t go to Egypt; you will be destroyed there” (Jer. 42:14-22). And what was Israel’s response? The proud men, including Johanan, said: “You speak falsely! The Lord our God has not sent you to say, ‘Do not go to Egypt to sojourn there.'” (Jer. 43:2).

What was the problem? Neither Jehovah (nor Jeremiah His prophet) told the people what they wanted to hear. They might just as well have said, “We were hoping you’d confirm the best of our human wisdom and tell us that the smart thing to do would be to flee to Egypt.”

Some in the Lord’s church today, and many more who are not Christians, have duplicated the above scenario. They would prefer listening to Buddha, Shirley MacLaine, or an outright atheist than to the Lord.

The ABC’s of the Natural Man
Anything but Christianity;
Any way to walk but Christ’s;
Any wisdom but the Bible’s;
Any cost–but not that price.
Any answer but Jehovah’s;
Any leading but the Spirit’s;
Any wisdom but the Word’s;
I refuse to even hear it.

The above poem (penned by this poor poet) exemplifies the attitude that many people possess. It’s a very fundamental creed that folks use when trying to arrive at practical solutions to life’s problems; it’s the ABC philosophy to problem solving–Anything But Christianity. It’s as if those who are troubled will try any bit of advice under the sun–except that which will do them the most good: the Truth.

“Tell me anything; I’m desperate. Advise me to try yoga and transcendental meditation. Tell me to study my daily horoscope. Take me to someone who can read tea leaves or interpret tarot cards. I’d be willing to sit underneath crystals and wait for the sun to strike them at just the right angle. Tell me to climb a mountain to speak to a Tibetan monk. Charge me all kinds of money if it will lead to clearing matters up. I’ll do anything except study the Bible; that’s not an option.”

Why People Reject The Word
The typical person does not reject Biblical counsel because it does not apply–but because it does, and they do not like the application. Many are just like the Israelites of Jeremiah’s day: God’s will concerning the matter is presented to them, and it was the very thing they did not want to hear. So they refuse it. Some will go so far as to say, “God never said that.”

Take fornication, for example. When young people engage in such, the consequences become several. First, they must find a way to live with the guilt they experience. Then they look for ways to be deceptive–they begin lying to their parents. Next there is the possibility of pregnancy, which (especially if they are like the girl, whose letter to the editor is on the next page) may result in the worse sin of murder. Fourth, the possibility of syphillis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, or AIDS is great. “Safe sex” does not appear to be protecting a very large segment of teenagers.

But if someone points out that the Biblical method of avoiding all these problems (not to mention SIN) is to abstain from fornication (“flee” from it, in fact–1 Cor. 6:18), he will be scoffed at: “Tell me anything but that. That’s not realistic.” Why is it not realistic? Because such is not the advice that those eager to commit fornication wish to hear!

Mankind has always wanted to be told that he can sin and still be acceptable unto God. He stands ready to try almost anything that will allow him to continue practicing whatever sin it is that he favors. Perhaps the New Age philosophy is gaining in popularity for the precise reason that it makes few moral judgments.

Consider the individual in a major marriage mess. He or she comes in to study the Bible with great protestations of, “I just want to do what is right. What does the Bible say about my situation?” But when the Scriptures are presented, it becomes obvious that what God says is not of paramount importance; the person simply wants someone to agree that the marriage may safely be exited.

If the Scriptures do not grant that option, many will go ahead and then deal with the consequences of their “remarriage” later. If one congregation adheres to the truth on the matter, they will search until they find one less legalistic, more loving, and with advanced measures of compassion–in other words, one that will allow them to continue in their adultery (and unfortunately, usually find one). Like their Old Testament counterparts, they reason that, “God wants what I want. He wants me to be happy. How dare you suggest I can’t divorce and remarry? God never said that.”

Many in the ranks of the homosexuals seek to soothe their consciences by saying that the Bible doesn’t prohibit their vile actions. “Why, Sodomites were just inhospitable; that’s why God destroyed them. How could God call me a sinner when He made me this way?” Individuals of this stripe will never be convinced of their sins; like Johanan, they are convinced that God could never have said such things. They will go to Egypt no matter what the cost.

Of course, people can deny the Bible by refusing to obey positive commands, also. “What do you mean, attend worship every Sunday? Hey, that’s my day to rest. That’s a time for family get-togethers.” The mere existence of 150,000 sermons and bulletin articles on this subject cannot move such “brethren” any more than an ant could tilt Gibraltar.

The same holds true for personal evangelism. “Why, preacher, I’ve only been a member of the church for 25 years; I can’t remember where all those verses of Scripture are on all those subjects, like salvation. Anyway, what are we paying you for?”

Brethren do not think verses requiring all of us to be evangelistic apply to them for the same reason that the homosexual can’t find a verse that condemns his behavior–it’s not what he wants to hear. As Simon and Garfunkel once sang: “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

The Bible is right; the Scriptures are Truth. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Pr. 14:12). Those who are truly wise will conform their thoughts and views to God’s, not try to bend His to their way of thinking. The ABC philosophy will not yield everlasting life; usually, it will not even bring about earthly happiness. Don’t exchange the feast of eternal life for a few crumbs of satisfaction.

“Why Then Has All This Happened To Us?”

The question in the title of this article has been asked by numerous people during the history of the world; it could have been asked by several people in the Bible. The person who actually voiced this sentiment, however, was Gideon. When the Angel of the Lord told him that God was with him and that he was “a mighty man of valor,” Gideon responded:
O my Lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, “Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?” But now the Lord has forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites (Judges 6:13).
Gideon represents the way many people think today regarding God when things are not going well. They wonder, “Why has God forsaken me? Why doesn’t He care about me any more?” Implicit in questions like these is the idea that God has fallen down on the job–that He is somehow failing in His responsibilities.

Notice that the solution to the problem is seldom sought within the individual; the search for an explanation begins outside of self. Perhaps the fault lies in society’s evil influence, or in one’s genes, or maybe even with God; surely I have not brought any of this on myself. Victims of AIDS (and their allies in the news media) absolutely bristled when anyone suggested that the virus might be God’s judgment upon them for their “against nature” practice of homosexuality. Such a notion was rejected without even a minimum of consideration. Why, the very idea that God might hold someone accountable for his sins!

The fact is that God has and might very well bring a measure of judgment upon an individual or a group of people for the sins they have committed. Such was the case in Gideon’s day. When the people cried out to God because of their treatment by the Midianites, God sent them a prophet, who explained the event to them:

“Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you out of the house of bondage; and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out before you and gave you their land. Also I said to you, “I am the Lord your God; do not fear the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.” But you have not obeyed My voice'” (Judges 6:8-10).
Here we have a Divine commentary on the reason they were being dominated by the Midianites–they had not obeyed God’s voice. Specifics are not cited in this particular case; all that is revealed is: “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord. So the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian. . .” (Judges 6:1). They had probably strayed doctrinally (idolatry again), which in turn led them into immoralities. The results of their sins brought about their punishment.

When people experience evil, the first question (rather than the last) should be, “What have I done? Is this suffering my fault? Am I failing to obey God?” Yet for some reason self-examination seems to be the last avenue people want to explore. After seven years God sent a prophet to inform Israel of their offenses. Gideon remained perplexed, but disobedience was the cause.

Three Options
There are three ways to look at evil occurrences: 1) They are never sent by God as punishment for one’s sins; 2) They are always sent by God as punishment for disobedience; 3) They may or may not be directly brought about by God as retribution for rebelliousness.

The first option is refuted by Judges 6:10, which specifically states that one’s actions have provoked God. Furthermore, we know that God chastens those whom He loves (Pr. 3:11-12, which is quoted in Heb. 12:5-6). Therefore, the first course of action to pursue is self-evaluation–an honest and brutal one.

A cursory examination that downplays obedience will not suffice. Some are so shallow that they probably figure if they attended worship once or twice last month, such would be more than sufficient to please God. Never mind the times they willfully missed being gathered at the Lord’s table with other brethren to honor the One who redeemed them. Never mind that they have not encouraged a brother or a sister, comforted anyone, opened their homes in Christian hospitality, attempted to lead lost souls to Jesus, devoted themselves to holy living, or even read the Book. One wonders how some could ignore God any more than they possibly do.

Yet they still desire to be called by the name “Christian,” and they want all the benefits to which they think they are entitled. They are not unlike the Israelites of old, are they? They had not totally discarded Jehovah when they pursued other gods. They still knew what He had done in the past; they had passed down from generation to generation the account of their deliverance from Egypt and the miracles God had performed. Too bad they could not equally remember His Divine laws and commandments, such as not having any other gods before Him and not making any graven images.

Some appear to have the philosophy that it’s their job to enjoy living and God’s job to take care of any problems and hindrances that would get in the way. The Jews were way ahead of their time; they were multi-cultural (not to mention multi-deital) before it became politically correct. They must have reasoned that, as long as Jehovah remained in their pantheon, they could worship others, also. Probably the general philosophy was that it didn’t so much matter whom one worshipped-as long as he was sincere.

But God does not accept all who say, “Lord, Lord”–especially when they put other gods (or their equivalent, such as materialism, comfort, etc.) on an equal plane or when they erroneously conclude that some semblance of religion is all right even though they ignore specific commands (Matt. 7:21-23). God expected out of Israel what he also expects of us–“to do the will of the Father who is in heaven.”

Those who would insist that every unfortunate circumstance is definitely the punishment of God for a person’s sins also make a mistake–the same one that Job’s “friends” made. They accused Job of bringing upon himself all of his misfortunes. He needed (in their estimation) to acknowledge his sinfulness and repent.

When Job tried to explain that he had not violated God’s laws in any way that corresponded to the misery he was experiencing, they accused him of being hypocritical: “So, you don’t sin, eh?” Of course Job sinned, but he was humble and repentant. He had examined himself–probably much more thoroughly than his unhelpful visitors ever had; he knew he had not merited such suffering. And he was right. God can afflict the unrighteous, but it is equally true that the devil afflicts the righteous. All of the apostles (except John), who preached the gospel and lived righteously, were persecuted and put to death, as were many Christians. It is not safe to assume that all tragedies are the result of a person’s individual sins.

The third option is the correct one–sorrowful situations may or may not be punishment from God. One must evaluate carefully to make the right determination. If God is chastising us, we must repent and be restored. If the devil is troubling us, we need to call upon God for strength to endure (Heb. 12:1-4).

Understanding
When suffering does descend upon us, we look for logical explanations. We want to know why we are in this particular predicament. There may be no answer that satisfies us. Job was not given one in the midst of his suffering; and when God answered him, it was to inform him that he was not in a position to demand an answer.

Of course, we are in a much better position to understand than Job was; we have his story recounted, as well as many other passages of Scripture which reiterate the point of that book. Paul, for example, asked the Lord three times to remove the thorn in his side, “a messenger of Satan” (2 Cor. 12:7), but God told him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Understanding, however, does not make enduring less painful, but it helps to fortify the soul.

Let us not lose sight of these facts, lest we become like the people of Gideon’s day, who still retained a knowledge of God (and His wondrous deeds) but could not understand why He had deserted them. “Why then has all this happened to us?” There is a reason–either God is punishing us because of our sins, or the devil is afflicting us because of our righteousness. If the first alternative is true, we must repent; if the second, we must endure, as did Job and Paul.

“A Parable Of Unparallel Proportions”

Previously we detailed how a popular author was inappropriately assigning unworthy motives to Biblical personalities–even to angels–in his attempts to paraphrase various events. As a writer of parables, Max Lucado is unparallel (not unparalleled). That is to say, his contrived story is not parallel to the facts, to the truth, or to any known Biblical situation.
His recent book, In the Grip of Grace, begins with a chapter entitled “The Parable of the River.” Since this parable forms the basis for what follows, it is fair to examine the particulars of it to see how closely they align with the Scriptures. The reader might also keep in mind that the text cited (and apparently upon which the parable is based) is Romans 1:21-32, which primarily describes the Gentiles’ descent into idolatry and immorality, resulting in God’s giving them up.

Lucado leads off by describing a family situation, in which five sons live with their father in a mountain castle. Only the oldest son is obedient; his four rebellious brothers disregard the warnings of their father about getting too close to the river. They all fall in and end up far away downstream (1). The father is intended to represent God, the older brother Jesus, and the four younger sons various types of sinners.

Whoops! We have just begun, and already the parable has been invalidated because the particulars previously mentioned do not match any real Bible situation. In a true parable, one thing stands for another, such as the seed of a sower representing the word of God or the soil characterizing different kinds of people.

Certainly it is permissible that an earthly father represent our heavely Father and that his son might be The Son; for Him to be “the firstborn among many brethren” is even Scriptural. So what’s the problem? When does the Bible ever have all of us dwelling together in the same castle? We certainly never lived together in the heavenly realm, for all who were disobedient there were angels, not human beings. While Jesus dwelt among men, He did not isolate Himself with four–or even twelve–younger brothers. Furthermore, the Father remained in heaven.

The entire situation cannot be compared with Eden, either, because, although God had fellowship with Adam and Eve there, neither the Father nor Jesus was personally present. Also, once the four sons fall into sin (the river), there is no message from their father, which really fails to parallel Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were confronted by God and punished for their disobedience, but (even in the midst of the Lord’s judgment upon them) He promised a Redeemer to bruise the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15). In Max’s story nothing similar to the Biblical text occurs.

The four brothers, after several hours of fighting against the current, are finally able to exit the river–only to find themselves in a land with “savage people.” (2). Such did not happen to Adam and Eve when they left Eden; the question must be asked: “What exactly is being compared?” It cannot be man’s fall from sin; too many items do not match. So when did the event, upon which this parable is based, occur? One cannot have a valid parable without correct corresponding details.

Four Choices
Over a period of time, the brothers move in four different directions (Max writes long parables). The first brother decides to join the people of the land in their sinful practices (3). He has given up ever getting back home again; so he just decides to blend in and put down roots. He represents those who join the world and live immorally. [Ironically, this is what Max has done in a spiritual sense.]

The second brother becomes incensed at the first brother; he decides to keep a record of all his wrongdoings (3). Are these two men supposed to represent the Gentile and the Jew? If so, it is highly uncomplimentary to refer to God’s holy people, to whom were given God’s holy laws, as record-keepers of the wrongs of others. It would also be inaccurate, since they eventually partook of the same immoralities. Their problem is never defined as their being mere observers of others’ sins; they are accused of participating in them and thinking that somehow God would overlook their behavior because they were Abraham’s descendants. This is just another instance of nothing fitting any New Testament text. [Oh, sure, there is the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14 and the older brother in Luke 15:11-32, who may have thought this way, but that realization only serves to heighten the problems of this “parable”; it cannot be considered a good construction when the foundation keeps shifting all over the place.]

The third brother decides to work his way back by stacking rocks in the river to return to his father (4), which proves to be an impossible task (Max must think nobody has heard of grace yet). But exactly whom does this describe from Romans 1? Once again, it is obvious that the basis for this “parable” is as slippery as a waterfall.

Ah, but now we come to the hero of the tale: the fourth brother. What admirable, inventive qualities does he possess? What clever stratagems does he employ to return home? He does NOTHING. This smart fellow just sits by the campfire vegetating until the older brother shows up to take him home (4). What a guy! He doesn’t make smoke signals from the campfire to signal the father; he doesn’t try to get the ingredients needed for a flare; he doesn’t even climb a tree to get a better picture of the situation. He does nothing and is rewarded for it! He makes the unprofitable servant look good; at least he dug a hole to hide his talent in.

But, of course, doing nothing is Max’s Calvinistic point. Once you do anything by way of response, you’re trying to earn your way to heaven, like the rock-stacker. Therefore, his hero is only slightly more active than someone who is comatose–or undergoing an MRI. In Lucado theology (what little of it there is) God does everything. There is absolutely nothing for man to do.

The Missing Ingredient
Finally, one day the obedient, older brother (Jesus) shows up. He talks to his brother who had capitulated to the savages. He refuses to leave his hut for his father’s mansion (finally, a genuine point about the great riches people are exchanging for worldly things of such little worth). The next brother is too busy keeping track of the first brother’s sins to leave and go home (5). The rock-stacking brother thinks he must first prove himself worthy in order to return. In fact, he turns quite nasty, accusing the older brother of heresy to suggest he cannot work his way back (6). [Say, you don’t suppose Max is talking about us in the churches of Christ, do you? Notice that he said the unkindest things of all about this individual. He even has him throwing rocks at the older brother.]

Oh, but there’s a happy ending for the sluggard; he climbs on his brother’s back and gets a free ride home (7). In the Bible, the prodigal son came home of his own free will; the father didn’t send his older brother to go fetch him (Luke 15:11-32). Manipulating Max contrived this situation to make it say exactly what he wanted to say–that grace does everything.

What is missing from the “parable” is anything that corresponds vaguely to reality. Without any communication from the father whatsoever, the older brother just shows up. Is that how God offers salvation? Students of the Word know better. Not only did He promise redemption immediately after man’s sin, He gave His law to Israel and continued to send the prophets afterward. But all of these forms of communication are missing from Max’s “parable.” Furthermore, God has always expected faithful and loving obedience to Him.

For there to be a genuine parallel to the Bible, the brothers should have received messages from the father telling them how to get back to Him. Setting forth conditions of return does not nullify God’s grace. First of all, God has chosen to tell us the way to Him; we did not merit it. Second, we could not have discovered the way through the forest on our own, without Divine guidance. In other words, every step of the way is due to the grace of God, including the sacrifice of Jesus, which makes the return trip possible.

Max and his Calvinistic cronies miss the point of obedience. God has prepared salvation for us at great cost (by His grace), but He will not save us arbitrarily, contrary to our will, or in the absence of any response on our part. Peter exhorted: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). These same facts apply after initial salvation: God expects us to work–not to earn our salvation–but because we are saved. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” Paul admonished (Phil. 2:12). We are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10).

Rock-stackers, Beware!
The problem with Max is that he has deserted the Biblical position. He thinks that either God does everything or that we do everything. Apparently he does not recognize any middle ground (probably can’t see the forest for the trees). Consider how far he extends his doctrine of “do-nothingness.”

We think: If I do this God will accept me.
If I teach this class. . . .
If I go to church. . . .
If I give this money. . . .
If I read my Bible, have the right opinion on the right doctrine, if I join this movement. . . .
“The impact on rock-stackers is remarkably predictable: either despair or arrogance. They either give up or become stuckup. They think they’ll never make it, or they think they are the only ones who’ll ever make it (12).”

First of all, do brethren really think that, if they teach a Bible class or give money to God, they will have somehow earned their way into His good graces? Most of us have never heard brethren even come close to enunciating anything so foolish.

But, by the same token, are these things he has listed unimportant? Does he really mean to say that God is just as pleased with us if we refuse to study the Bible, reject the idea of meeting with the saints to offer up worship to God, and hold to any opinion we choose? What about, “If you continue in My word, then are you My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32)? If our views on matters such as salvation and worship don’t matter, is that not the same as advocating that truth and error are equal? If not, why not?

Notice the “dig” about some thinking “they are the only ones who’ll ever make it”? The alternative is that “most people will make it” or “everyone will make it.” Never mind what the Scriptures say, such as: “Not everyone who saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Another two verses apparently not in Max’s memory bank are Matthew 7:13-14 about the broad and narrow way and “few there be that find it.” An additional forgotten verse is, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

According to Max, those of us who have not given up are stuckup. It’s too bad we don’t possess his humility and non-judgmental attitude! But we poor souls will just keep doing our best to please the Lord, and one of these days we are confident that we will be “stuckup” in heaven where those who have fought a good fight shall receive crowns of life (2 Tim. 4:8).

“Satan’s Seeds Of Dissatisfaction”

Most people have probably met the person who could never seem to be satisfied no matter what. Everybody else may be perfectly content, but this one individual finds something to complain about. The prototype of all such people is Satan himself.
Satan and the angels he influenced once experienced the joys and bliss of the heavenly realm. What could possibly be wrong or even less than adequate in God’s perfect kingdom? Heaven is usually described as a place without pain, sorrow, or death (Rev. 21:4). We also know that God is love (1 John 4:8).

The vision of eternal life set forth in the Scriptures has sustained many a Christian in overcoming sin and in facing persecution or death. How faithful Christians long for the day! The apostle Paul had “a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better” (Phil. 1:23). He certainly was not averse to mortality being “swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4). And when the time of his departure was at hand, he was looking forward to receiving a crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8).

Satan, however, was already in that place that most of us only have an imperfect glimpse of–but he grew dissatisfied. Then he originated sin. Without anyone to tempt him, he became convinced that despite what God had blessed him with, he should have more. One of the qualifications for the work of an elder is that he should not be a novice, lest “being puffed up with pride, he fall into the same condemnation as the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6). Most commentators hold the interpretation that the devil acted out of pride and was condemned because of it.

Did Satan think that he should even be more highly exalted than what he was? Perhaps he reasoned, “God is holding out on me; I am worthy of greater honors.” Or maybe he envied someone who possessed greater honor than had been bestowed upon him. Whatever his thinking was, he was wrong, for God is always just and fair.

He was not content, however, to rebel against God all by himself; he enlisted the aid of other angels to back him up. God “did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). Jude also mentions these angels who did not keep their proper domain (“their first estate,” KJV) but left their own habitation (v. 6). Jesus taught that God created eternal fire (elsewhere referred to as hell) for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41).

When God created the earth and put mankind in the Garden of Eden, Satan hesitated not to enter there and sow seeds of dissatisfaction before our human parents. Having been lifted up by pride himself, he knew exactly how to tempt others. He communicated to Eve the same sentiments he had developed while in heaven. “God is holding out on you,” he told her in so many words. “God forbade you to taste of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil because He knows that if you gain this information, you will be like Him” (see Genesis 3:5 for the exact wording).

Undoubtedly Eve thought that this was an unfair situation; so she ate of the fruit. She had allowed herself to be deceived into thinking Paradise could be improved.

Rebellion
The history of mankind is one of perpetual discontentment. God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice because it was not according to what He commanded in that there was no blood shed to atone for sins (study carefully Heb. 12:24 on this point). We can almost hear Satan saying to Cain, “How dare God not accept your offering? It was just as sincere a sacrifice as your brother’s. God is just not fair; he’s partial to your brother even though you’re the firtstborn. First of all, He threw your parents out of Eden, and now he won’t accept your sacrifice. But you don’t have to take this kind of treatment. You can do something about it.”

The devil always misrepresents God to us. He tries to get us to think that God does not care about us, that He is unfair to us, or that He is holding us back from something that is really great and beneficial to us. These are all lies, “for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). Another fact about Satan which this verse teaches is that “there is no truth in him.”

But the insidious thing is that Satan allows us to imagine that we are “free thinkers”–that the ideas of rebellion we have are our own. Thus we arrive at the same erroneous thinking that Cain had about worship (“I know what God commanded, but I don’t see what’s wrong with doing it this way”), and the devil lets us think we are original with a philosophy that is nearly as old as the world.

Mankind continually falls for the pompous notion that, despite what God has commanded, He will be satisfied with what we give Him. It did not work at the very beginning with Cain; Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire from the Lord when they tried it (Lev. 10:1-2); Jeroboam caused Israel to offer up vain worship for over 200 years to golden calves that were supposed to represent Jehovah, which is called “a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21); the Pharisees in the first century were worshipping God in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:1-9).

People are no different today. Many Americans see no point in worshipping God at all; they think that spending time “in church” (not a Biblical phrase) is a waste of time; of course, that idea came from Satan, not the Scriptures (which exhort Christians not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together–Heb. 10:25).

But even among those who know that weekly worship is essential, there are many who allow false ideas to govern their actions. Some think it is a time for entertainment (an occasion to receive instead of to give). Others will not complain if the Lord’s Supper is omitted. And the majority of those calling themselves Christians want instrumental music (even though God does not authorize it) because they like it.

People apparently have a difficult time seeing that worshipping according to what pleases us (instead of the way God commands) constitutes rebellion. But, although the particulars of man’s disobedience may change, the attitude is essentially the same one possessed by Cain. Mankind has seldom been content to worship God just as He commanded.

Discontentment
Even God’s own people have worked themselves up into various levels of dissatisfaction (with Satan’s assistance, no doubt). God saved Israel from Egyptian slavery. He delivered them from Pharaoh; their salvation was procured when they crossed the Red Sea on dry gound and God closed it upon the Egyptians who had foolishly pursued them.

Were the people grateful? Absolutely! They sang praises to God concerning His great salvation. Did the people remain grateful? No. [How soon they forgot. How soon Christians forget the great joy they felt when they obeyed the gospel and their sins were forgiven.]

After being in the wilderness a few months the people grew discontented. Why? Satan probably sowed some seeds of dissatisfaction. “Say, is it possible that God brought you out here to die?” he whispers. “When was the last time you ate meat? Have you noticed how thirsty you get out here in this hot sun? How long should it take to get to Canaan?”

God’s attitude toward complaining is made known at the outset. “Now when the people complained it displeased the Lord; for the Lord heard it, and His anger was aroused” (Num. 11:1a). Ingratitude in response to His loving care is not acceptable. Notice: 1) The complaining displeased Him; 2) He heard it; 3) He did not ignore the comments; His anger was aroused, and He punished them by sending among the people fire, which consumed some of them (Num. 11:1b). Neither the dissatisfaction nor the rebellion it led to diminished, however, and God destroyed that entire generation in the wilderness.

Has the church in this century fared any better than our spiritual forefathers did? No. Some have not been content with adhering to what the Scriptures teach; they want to bind their opinions and interpretations upon others–even if the entire basis for their doctrine is based upon one passage of Scripture easily subject to equal or better interpretations.

Others have become dissatisfied with teaching what several passages of Scripture repeat–such as baptism for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21). They want to take liberties God has not granted: moral liberties, such as divorce for every cause; doctrinal liberties, such as fellowshipping those whom God has told us to avoid.

Should we not all learn that it is Satan sowing the seeds of dissatisfaction? God has given us perfect salvation, the perfect Christian system (Heb. 8:6-7), the perfect promise of the perfect after-life (1 Peter 1:3-9). Can we not learn to be content with what God has done for us, as well as what He will yet do for us? Or will we pay heed to the voice of the one that could not even be satisfied with heaven itself?

“The Politics Of Sex”

The above title is from chapter eleven of Robert Bork’s most recent book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah (which we plan to review next week). Although he does not refer specifically to Riane Eisler’s book, he does offer a few choice comments about the “goddess” ideology.
Before the patriarchy took over about 3,000 years ago, Hite [feminist Shere Hite, gws] contends in a burst of bogus history, mother-child societies existed. (Feminists find it useful to fictionalize the past; for example, that prehistoric Europe was a peaceful, egalitarian, matriarchal society that worshipped the goddess, but patriarchy was forced upon these societies by conquering horsemen from the east.) She seems pleased that there are a large number of fatherless families today because, contradicting all the social science evidence, she thinks males raised without fathers will treat women better (205).
One wonders how anyone could have such a distorted view of life, but most feminists loathe men in particular and Christianity in general.

The hostility towards the traditional family goes hand in hand with the feminists’ hostility toward traditional religion. They see religion as a male invention designed to control women (206).
Many will recall hearing about the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China back in September of 1995 (196). Although much could be cited from this conference that would be of interest (although repugnant), the following relates to the preceding series of articles. It was reported that:

. . .in Beijing feminists built a shrine to the Goddesses out of red ribbons in the shape of a Christmas tree decorated with paper dolls representing the goddesses. Women were invited to make and add their own goddesses. The organization headed by Bella Abzug (a former member of the United States House of Representatives) held daily programs, each one dedicated to a different goddess–Songi, Athena, Tara, Pasowee, Ishtar, Ixmucane, Aditi, ashe” (206).
In case it went unobserved, Ishtar is not only the name of an incredibly bad movie (which bombed at the box office a few years ago), it is also the goddess of love and fertility in Assyrian and Babylonian Mythology, called by the Phoenicians Astarte and the Hebrews Ashtoreth (who are mentioned in the Bible) (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 693). Consider the significance of the actions of these feminists. They hate Christianity so much they prefer pagan religions and idolatry to it. Maybe the idea is not so farfetched after all; they already believe in sacrificing their children–before they are born.

“The Equality Of Men And Women” (Part 3)

So many are the misrepresentations of the Bible and Christianity in Riane Eisler’s book, The Chalice and the Blade, that it would take a volume of equal length to refute each item she mentions. Before focusing attention on chapter nine, a brief review of the remainder of her book is offered.
All who follow the New Testament must be offended by statements like these: “Ideologically, our world is in the throes of major regression to the woman-hating dogmas of both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism” (153). Could this renowned researcher cite even one New Testament Scripture that supports her baseless assertion that Christians are “women-haters”? Indeed, there may be more women who are Christians than men; how can she accuse women of being “women-haters”?

In the same paragraph she decries hard-core pornography. Who, besides Christians (apparently lascivious women-haters), does she think has been protesting such for years? Those who hold to Christian beliefs have picketed stores, opposed library boards, and spoken before city councils; how many feminists have done so?

Not only does she praise Karl Marx (a popular pastime for professors on college campuses) and his socialist ideas such as the graduated income tax (163), she has the nerve to compare Jerry Falwell to the Ayatollah Khomeini (167). The reason she is so incensed is that Falwell upholds the Biblical values that call abortion and homosexuality the sins that they are. [She doesn’t criticize him for his opposition to pornography–or give him any credit for it, either.]

The book degenerates speedily from this point, and the author blames the Bible for “. . .book burnings and people burnings. . .” and “. . .the centuries long bloodbath of the Crusades” (181). Christians do not deny that these past atrocities were done in the name of Christ, but those who did so were wrong. Where is the New Testament passage that authorizes such behavior?

Jesus
With such anti-Biblical sentiments, the reader expects to see Jesus likewise vilified, but the author likes Him because she thinks Jesus elevated women and taught feminine values (123). Although she is not sure that Jesus even existed, she thinks that the greatest argument for Him is His feminist thought and actions (122).

But is she willing to accept the entire New Testament? Do fish ride bicycles? Pointing out that Matthew-John were written years after Jesus’ death and “undoubtedly heavily edited,” she concludes: “They are probably still a more accurate reflection of Jesus’ teaching than other portions, such as Acts or Corinthians” (121). [Sounds like James Woodroof, doesn’t it?]

Ironically, after bad-mouthing Acts and Corinthians, Eisler proudly lists Dorcas as a Christian leader in Acts 9:36 (122) and highlights “the conversion of the businesswoman Lydia” (123); she further notes the “church in the household of Chloe” (123) in 1 Corinthians 1:11. In other words, Acts and 1 Corinthians would probably have no value at all–were it not for the fact that they mention women in a favorable light.

So how does she explain both favorable and unfavorable treatment of women in the New Testament? “And in the end the church fathers left us a New Testament in which this perception is often smothered by the superimposition of the completely contradictory dogmas required to justify the Church’s later androcratic structure and goals” (124). What that means basically is that church leaders in the second century (and following) tampered with the Holy Scriptures to make them fit their own ideology. What a ludicrous hypothesis!

If their goal was to make women look subservient, they did a lousy job of it. First of all, the “church fathers” did not change the Scriptures at all. To have successfully done so would certainly be a reflection on God’s omnipotence. He inspired every word to be written (Matt. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17), but then He was too weak to preserve its character and integrity. Who can believe it?

A second point to consider is that this alleged tampering is an assertion, which is not based on evidence. Who can prove that such a conspiracy existed? A third consideration is that the people knew the Scriptures so well that there would have been a hue and a cry raised had someone tried to rewrite them.

But if this outrageous hypothesis were possible, and the Scriptures were changed, they certainly did a poor job on their new version. These men knew the New Testament much better than Ms. Eisler knows Judges 19-21, and they would have been much more careful to edit out those portions she takes such great delight in. The entire New Testament could be reconstructed just from the numerous quotations made in the writings of the “church fathers,” so highly did they respect the text. Had these “conspirators” desired to make women into second-class citizens, they would have expunged every vestige of those passages which demonstrate equality and care (Gal. 3:28, Eph. 5:25).

Furthermore, the church fathers did make departures from New Testament teaching. They developed a hierarchy that eventually resulted in the Roman Catholic Church, which the New Testament makes no provision for and does not authorize. Yet God’s teachings on organization remain intact. They did not go back and change the New Testament to justify their false ideas. In fact, men have been departing from the teachings of New Testament doctrine for almost 2,000 years, but the Word of God still stands. [It has even withstood poor and misleading translations, such as the NIV.]

In order to bolster her theory of Bible-tampering, the author appeals to the gnostic gospels, which were written by heretics and have never been considered valid. Eisler likes them because the heretics allowed women to preach and pray publicly, in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

But Ms. Eisler has a solution to the 1 Timothy 2 passage (and one must wonder how long it will be until some of our liberal brethren begin to espouse this same claptrap). She quotes from Elaine Page “unbiased,” feminist [?] author) who wrote a book entitled The Gnostic Gospels:

Despite the previous public activity of Christian women, by the year 200, the majority of Christian communities endorsed as canonical the pseudo-Pauline letter of Timothy, which stresses (and exaggerates) the antifeminist element in Paul’s views (130).
The Pulpit Commentary says of 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus (in which Paul commands the older women to teach the younger women to be “keepers at home”–2:5): “. . .they have never been doubted by any Church writers, but have held their place in all of the Canons of East and West” (23:3:i).

So, is Pagels’ statement based on any kind of scholarship? No. It’s based upon one criterion alone: feminists don’t like it because they think that, if they cannot preach publicly, they are spiritually inferior. They do not and never have recognized the difference between role and worth. Though they can be of service to the Lord in numerous other ways, nothing will suffice for them except to have the leadership role God has denied them. Surely, however, this “conspiracy theory” is the most fantastic scheme ever developed to try to establish the feminist view.

It should not go unnoticed in a study of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that Paul appeals to Genesis 2 and 3 as the reasons why women are denied the leadership role (Adam was formed first, and the woman, being deceived, fell into the transgression). Therefore, feminists must relegate Genesis to “myth” status in addition to making 1 Timothy a “pseudo-Pauline” letter.

Pagels even goes so far as to link the New Testament with the Gospel of Thomas (a non-canonical “book” consisting mostly of fantastic stories about Jesus’ childhood), which records Peter as saying: “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus promises to make her a male so that she can enter the kingdom of heaven (130). No wonder these books were not accepted as inspired of God when they contain such absurdities!

The scholarly (?) foundation upon which books like The Chalice and the Blade rest is so much sand. Riane Eisler has not proven anything except that she is familiar with feminist writers and their research and knows how to cite their works. She quite obviously is guided by her own prejudiced presuppositions regarding the Bible, science, and feminism. [This series of articles was originally published from February 28 to March 21, 1993 in the Columbia City Crusader.]

“The Equality Of Men And Women” (Part 2)

In order to undermine the effectiveness of the Bible, many purported “Biblical scholars” have relegated much of God’s holy word (especially Genesis 1-11) to “myth” status. Instead of being written by Moses as it claims, these “scholars” claim that the Bible has undergone many revisions by various editors.
Riane Eisler takes this approach in her anti-Biblical book, The Chalice and the Blade. She buys into the JEDP fabrication (a modernist contrivance originating in the last century), which alleges that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but that there were a number of authors and editors. To support her assertion that the Bible is a collection of edited myths, she cites what she considers a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

“The first tells that woman and man were simultaneous creations. The second, more elaborate one tells that Eve was created as an afterthought out of Adam’s rib” (86). Ms. Eisler is obviously getting this stuff from liberal scholars rather than the Bible (she parrots them so well).

In the first place, Genesis 1 does not say that man and woman were a simultaneous creation (Gen. 1:26-28). The verses of Genesis 1 are summary statements, not ones devoted to details or a minute-by-minute account. In the second place, the phrase, these are the generations, in the book of Genesis always opens up a new emphasis. There is frequently an overlapping between sections, but a new line of thought is begun. Gen. 2:4 begins the history of man–from man’s perspective. Genesis 1 provides the entire scope of events in summary form. Then we focus on the sixth day and the events of it.

Anyone who saw West Side Story will probably recall the opening shot of New York City. The camera then centers its attention on a few streets and finally zooms in on one block, where the drama begins. Similarly, in the Bible we are provided a panoramic view of the Creation before zooming in on mankind.

The third mis-statement of the author is that Eve was created as an afterthought. How utterly absurd! Only a prejudiced mind could see this great event with such a jaundiced perspective. God was demonstrating to Adam the need for someone who was different yet his equal. Who can think that an infinite God, who could create the heavens and the earth, would be so foolish as to neglect woman (especially since He made the animals male and a female), and that He would then have to say to Himself, “Whoops. I forgot to create a female counterpart to man”?

More fantastical than this assertion is the author’s claim that since serpents were associated with the “goddess” when the Old Testament was being written, the author of Genesis 3 selected a serpent to be the villain in man’s fall. How ironic, Eisler says, that a serpent is instrumental in moving mankind away from “Goddess” worship to Jehovah worship. “The ‘sin’ of Eve when she defied Jehovah and herself dared to go to the source of knowledge was in essence her refusal to give up that worship” (89). What Eisler lacks in genuine evidence she compensates for in imagination.

Women Woefully Mistreated
Eisler goes on to levy several charges against the laws of the Old Testament. She alleges that women were the private property of men, first belonging to their fathers, then being “owned by their husbands. . .” (95). These allegations, with all due respect, are laughable. They seem to arise from some sort of hysteria which is derived from the National Organization of Women (NOW).

Ms. Eisler apparently never thinks that some of the arrangements God made for women were for their protection. She assumes that Jehovah hates women and apparently superimposes our modern society on the patriarchal system, which simply does not work.

Space limitations forbid responding to each error that she makes; let’s focus on what she terms the worst example of dehumanizing women. She complains about the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which a man who rapes a damsel must marry her and pay her father fifty shekels of silver. Her interpretation is that since the girl is no longer an economic asset, the father must be compensated. [Just a thought here: If daughters are so profitable, why do Eisler and other feminists always aver that men were only interested in having sons?] She also adds that a forced marriage to a man who held unlimited power over his wife could hardly be out of “concern for the girl’s welfare” (96).

If the custom was for a bride to bring a dowry (not unusual in many world cultures), then the rapist has indeed robbed the father and should be made to pay. But Eisler’s problem is that she does not understand how these people thought. To violate a woman was a great sin, and it obligated the man to marry her. Even women thought this way. When Tamar was violated by Amnon and then commanded to leave, she pleaded, ‘”This evil of sending me away is worse than the other you did to me” (2 Sam. 13:12).

Apparently, Eisler does not view ancient women in need of protection and imagines a paradise akin to a “free sex” society (the alleged lifestyle of the Cretans). She has a difficult time, however, envisioning modest and virtuous behavior. God did not allow his people to practice promiscuous sex (He still doesn’t). A woman was to be pure when she married (so was a man). If she were not a virgin, a man would know. What man would want an immoral woman, or vice versa? Her virginity is her proof of sexual purity at the time of marriage. Once lost, her husband cannot know on the wedding night whether she was raped or is a harlot. Even though the rape was not her fault, she has been shamed, humiliated, and robbed of her virtue. The one who took it from her must become her husband; otherwise, she would likely remain single.

The Levite’s Concubine
When one sees how Eisler exegetes Judges 19, one must wonder how well she does with archaeological data. In discussing the incident of the Levite and his wife, she misunderstands not only the book of Judges but the details of the text.

First of all, she regards this text as typical of “the biblical view of rape” (99). In reality, the book of Judges shows how degenerate Israel was when they departed from God. The book even ends by making the point: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). To try to pass off man’s own subjective and faulty concept of right and wrong (not based on Bible teaching) as God’s view of rape is dishonest.

But even worse is this sentence: “A bunch of rowdies from the tribe of Benjamin demand to see him outside, apparently with the intention of beating him up” (99). How could anyone misunderstand this verse–unless she was trying to do so? “Bring out the man . . .that we may know him carnally” (Judges 19:22). Beat him up? Is this a serious attempt at interpretation? They wanted to use him for homosexual purposes–and then kill him (20:6).

Also dishonest is the following: “Nowhere in . . . this brutal story of . . . gang rape and killing of a helpless woman is there even a hint of compassion, much less moral indignation or outrage” (99). Apparently she neglected to read the rest of the story. While it is true that the man who pushed the woman out the door and then proceeded to have a good night’s sleep was callous, he nevertheless accused the men of the city of committing “lewdness and folly in Israel” (Judges 20:6). All Israel then rose up to punish the tribe of Benjamin Only 600 men out of the tribe of Benjamin were left after the battle; 25,000 had died (20:46-47). The entire tribe nearly became extinct because of the death of this concubine. “No moral indignation,” did you say, Ms. Eisler? Incredible!!

“The Equality Of Men And Women” (Part 1)

Many books have been published in recent years looking at life from a feminist perspective. Generally, we do not read or discuss books of this sort, but for the next three weeks we want to reply to a thesis set forth by Riane Eisler in her 1987 book, The Chalice and the Blade.
Why? The reasons are threefold. First, although it may be unfamiliar to most of us, her book has nevertheless achieved a certain amount of popularity. In addition to the book, one may buy a taped version read by the author herself. Also, a study guide may be ordered so that groups of people can study the work together (say in a college course, perhaps!).

The second reason is that the book contains the endorsement of various journals and an array of scholars. Ashley Montagu (one of the foremost evolutionists of our day), for example, calls it “the most important book since Darwin’s Origin of the Species.” He adds: “I have never before praised a book so highly.”

The third (and most important reason) is that the book is anti-Biblical and anti-Christianity. The reader could not imagine how far a community of evolutionists will go to try and discredit the Bible.

The book deals fundamentally with the relationship of men and women, arguing that in ancient times the two sexes existed in harmony and equality–and that such conditions can be and are on the verge of being restored today (if religion would only get out of the way).

The book’s strength will be listed first (since it won’t take long): scholarship. No one can look at the notes, see the vast amount of source material at the author’s disposal, and remain unimpressed. She is well-studied, and she documents nearly everything she says.

The reader may well ask at this point, “Then how can what she writes be refuted?” Please be assured that a rejection of her theories is not done carelessly. But we need to realize two things about “scholarly works.” The first is that the researcher begins with his or her own set of presuppositions (such as a rejection of God and an embracing of evolution, as in this case), which can easily alter one’s objectivity.

The second is that her theories are drawn from a few loosely woven facts, which are interpreted by her and others to mean what they wish. Many of us learned years ago with the highly subjective Passover Plot to beware of “perhapses,” “maybes,” and “we must assumes.” No one is disputing the factual evidence Riane brings to light–only her interpretation of those facts.

The Thesis
In a nutshell, Eisler believes that in prehistoric times, men and women lived in relationships in which they shared work and responsibilities, worshiped “the Goddess,” and experienced peace, all of which are symbolized by the chalice. Then the blade was invented; men began to worship its power (xvii), and women became dominated (which has continued until this century).

The author wants no misunderstanding; she is not one of those feminist man-haters. She concedes (oh, so graciously), that the problem is not men as a sex.

The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the Blade is idealized–in which both men and women are taught to equate true masculinity with violence and dominance. . . . (xviii).
Shame on Rambo. Although the author makes a good, idealistic point, she does not prescribe a means of dealing with other people’s aggressiveness. Do we all just yield to the Saddam Husseins of this world? Or should we forbid women to be mothers and send them out to fight, while the men stay home? She seems to ignore the fact that in general men are tougher physically.

The Chalice and the Blade purports to show “the story of how the original partnership direction of Western culture veered off into a bloody five-thousand year dominator detour” (xxiii). Statements like these are difficult to accept from one who claims to be an evolutionist. How can evolution veer off course? If God does not exist, THERE IS NO COURSE!! Whatever happens happens; whatever is is right. How can evolution make a mistake or get sidetracked? Evolution contains no standards. If women are raped, subjugated, and treated worse than animals, that’s just tough. Why didn’t women evolve stronger muscles to fight off Neanderthal men? Does not evolution preach “the survival of the fittest”?

The only way anything can veer off course is if there was a course to begin with. In fact, that is precisely what happened, and you can read about it in Romans 1:18-32. “Although they knew God. . . . ” (Romans 1:21). They knew Him! Man was not ignorant of the existence of God from the very beginning. They knew Him. They knew His standards, too.

Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:21-22).
They “did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (28), and they “exchanged the truth of God for the lie” (25). That’s when idolatry began, which resulted in the worship of the “goddess.”

Man cannot escape evolution’s morality–it possesses none; but man can and did depart from God’s Divine judgments and precepts. If everyone in the world practiced the love taught in the New Testament, there would never be a need for war. Armies would grow obsolete if we all practiced patience and kindness. But man rejected God’s way of living, and this earth will never again be the Paradise it once was. Anyone who thinks we are nearing a peaceful coexistence is dreaming.

ANCIENT BUT EQUAL
The author attempts to prove that men and women were complete equals in the distant, prehistoric past. She launches her efforts by tediously recounting what archaeologists have recovered and what the significance of those findings is. She talks about figurines of females (1, 8), rock painting (3), and various other artifacts. The conclusion is that early in man’s existence (and remember she possesses the evolutionary view) “God was a woman” (12). Moreover, there appears to be an absence of fortifications and weaponry, which indicate peaceful peoples (13).

The next two chapters continue with this theme. She describes murals, statues, and figurines of what she calls “the Goddess, whose body is the divine Chalice containing the miracle of birth” (19). She asserts “the Goddess appears to have been originally worshiped in all agricultural societies” (21). Thus, whenever and wherever this Goddess is worshiped, society is peaceful, and men and women coexist as equals. The author describes it as “a partnership society in which neither half of humanity is ranked over the other and diversity is not equated with inferiority and superiority” (28).

The careful reader will notice the use of phrases such as “appears to” (as used above) and “seems to have” (20) or “one possible explanation” (21). In other words, when the author describes what archaeologists have found, she is dealing with hard, physical evidence. When she begins to interpret what those figurines mean, then she is speculating. But a further question: How do we know that archaeologists have “dug up” all that there is to find?

On February 23, 1993, the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel published a story, in which archaeologist Manfred Korfmann acknowledged that Troy (the site of the Trojan War, about which Homer wrote in The Iliad), was much larger “than previously believed, including fortifications, palaces, and cemeteries” (4H). The city was first excavated in 1871; Korfmann began his work in 1988. They have just recently discovered that there is more to the city than they ever thought before!

Therefore, Eisler cannot know that all the evidence around which she constructs her theories has yet been recovered. Additional information might cause her to backtrack on some of her conclusions. Who knows? Something could be discovered fifty years from now that could clearly contradict her current theory.

Eisler lauds the lack of war that existed on the island of Crete and the accompanying glorification of the flesh. “The bare-breasted style of dress for women and the skimpy clothes emphasizing the genitals for men demonstrate a frank appreciation of sexual differences and pleasure made possible by these differences” (39).

Who can believe it? The author’s description sounds amazingly like that of a public beach frequented by lust-laden college students on spring break. For her information, women in Africa still walk around bare-breasted; they are not, however, considered men’s equals.

She continues by stating that the Cretans had a more natural attitude toward sex. One can’t help wondering if they also had natural diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea like their modern hedonistic counterparts get? She then quotes Hawkes as concluding: “The Cretans seem to have diverted their aggressiveness through a free and well-balanced sexual life” (39). The key phrase is “seem to have.” Again, how many of these sexual conclusions about the Cretans are simply guesswork?

Eisler’s Prejudice Against Religion
Most evolutionists fail to have much regard for the Bible, and Eisler is no exception. She is familiar enough with the Bible to be hostile towards it. Consider some of her comments.

The Bible tells of a garden where woman and man lived in harmony with each other and nature–before a male god decreed that woman henceforth be subservient to man (xv).
Moreover, a male-dominated . . . social structure has historically been reflected and maintained by a male-dominated religious pantheon and by religious doctrines in which the subordination of women is said to be divinely ordained (24).

But even now our most powerful religious leaders, as well as many of our respected scientists, still tell us women are creatures put on earth by God or nature primarily to provide men with children–preferably sons (81).

Isn’t it odd that, in a book so highly documented, the author could not give one single reference to support the above assertions? The first quote above neglects to mention the woman’s leading her husband into sin (Gen. 3:1-6), for which God designated him as the leader henceforth in the home (Gen. 3:16) and later in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

As to the third quotation, who are these religious leaders who are only interested in the ability of women to bear male children (rather a self-defeating philosophy, in the long run)? And what scientists have echoed these sentiments? Such is truly preposterous!

“As we can still read in the Bible, the Hebrews, and later also the Christians and Muslims, razed temples, cut down sacred groves of trees, and smashed pagan idols” (83). Can it be that the author is defending paganism over Christianity? What other conclusions can be drawn from statements like these?

Imagine anyone upholding the groves, the temples, the idols of pagans, or religions that advocated the burning alive of infants as sacrifices and sanctioned sexual promiscuity!

And then after bemoaning the fact that these things were eradicated, she has the gall to denounce Judaism and Christianity! What is so glorious about those days of ignorance that the author exalts heathen practices so highly? It’s about like someone today watching television and listening to the radio, using the microwave, the hair dryer, etc., and then sobbing about how the days before electricity were so much better. If Eisler is so charmed by pagan cultures, there are still a few around in Africa; let her leave the comfort of the United States and the benefits of a Christian-influenced society and live with the pagans back in the bush country. If she’s not made the main course at dinner, maybe she can enlighten us further about such paradises.

God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites because of their grievous sins. In granting them time to repent (which they failed to do), He allowed His own people to suffer slavery in Egypt (Gen. 15:13-16).

The author seems to think that everyone ought to live by the secular humanist philosophy that everything is right. “I’m okay, you’re okay.” We can agree to disagree. All types of thinking should be allowed–except the philosophy of Christianity. Everybody should be able to make up and live by his own value system–except Christians!! We non-Christians don’t like those values–particularly the ones governing sex–they ought not to be allowed.

But God’s value system is based on reality and truth. When men become objectively corrupt, He destroys them (the Flood). When nations become perverted, He destroys them (Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, and even His own people Israel). If Ms. Eisler cannot understand how God punishes evil nations for their sins, she will really have trouble with the day of judgment–when God casts the ungodly into hell for eternity (Matt. 25:46).