Most of us recognize that we are living in an age in which people do not want to bear the consequences of their actions. Two recent examples appearing in Ann Landers’ advice column serve to highlight the situation. The first letter under consideration is from a professional stripper; the second proceeds from an irate mother without natural affection toward her offspring. Both women stand guilty of refusing to acknowledge that they are the cause of their own problems.
Stripper StandardsThe letter from the stripper complains about her colleagues who might become involved with one of the guys after a performance at a stag party. She proudly states: “When I entertain at a bachelor party, I explain the rules up front: no touching, no dirty language, no photos or videos, and no making dates for later. I do my number and give them their money’s worth, and there are no encores” (October 8, 1995).
Apparently, it does not occur to this woman why she needs to have such rules in her line of “work.” Would a female physician, interior decorator, shop owner, university professor, or secretary feel the need to give instructions like these to those with whom she works?
The reason that she senses the need for such restrictions is that her line of work is immoral, and immorality begets immorality. Let’s face it. People do not think of a stripper as a wholesome member of the community. They think that anyone who would seductively remove her clothes in the presence of a group of men would likely be susceptible to a few other lewd suggestions.
How can a woman who is giving men their “money’s worth” possibly be so naive as to think that one or two of them might wish her to go a step further? Her job is to move in such a way as to excite those present to lustful thoughts. And what does she expect in return: pure speech and nobility of soul? Sure. Maybe when she completes her “act,” they can all sit in a circle and participate in a discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics.
In trying to attach dignity to her “work,” she points out that strippers are not “porno queens” or “hookers”; they are housewives, college graduates, medical students, and dental assistants. So what does that really prove–except that if “the price is right,” some women will do anything?
Can you imagine a woman coming home and informing her husband that she applied for a job as a stripper? No self-respecting man would allow his wife to be ogled by a degenerate public. And no godly woman would consider such a “profession.” After her “performance,” how does she know that she has not inspired one of the men present to rape an innocent woman or his girl friend? What guarantee does she have that he might not stalk her? Without question, she has opened the door to or contributed to sleazy, immoral behavior.
To defend herself (and soothe her conscience) she writes: “Those who think stripping is obscene should go to the beach and check out the latest swimwear. They’ll see four inches of fabric held together with a string.” Isn’t that like saying, “Because others are immoral, I have the right to be, also”? “The state hosts lotteries and allows riverboat gambling; therefore, it’s all right for me to host a high stakes poker game.” Two immoralities doth not a virtue make.
She is correct, of course, that swimsuits are immodest. Even if a Christian were not wearing one comparable to the above description, he or she certainly does not need to be in a place where other people are. Donning a swimsuit with six inches of material (instead of four) is scarcely an improvement. Immodesty has never been successfully defended by members of the church (those in the world admit they are designed for lustful purposes); they just participate in such shameful activities anyway. [By the way, open-minded Ann Landers commented: “You have acquitted yourself admirably. The Sisterhood should be proud.” We doubt the Lord shall “acquit” her on the day of judgment, and godly sisters thoroughly reject her rationale.]
The Outraged MotherOn January 16th of this year, a woman wrote to protest that her parents had discovered and met with the daughter she had given up for adoption several years previously. Notice the selfishness drip from the page as she complains about her parents initiating the search for their granddaughter (her child): “I am still trying to sort out what this may mean and to what extent it will disrupt my life. I am angry and upset that the search took place against my wishes, and I feel that my right to privacy was violated.” Now wait a second. Who gave birth to the child? Why did she give her up for adoption? Was the child the result of this woman’s actions (passions)? If so, she put her daughter out of sight for years. Why? Because she is a reminder of her immorality?
Apparently, this “mother” has her life arranged into a tidy package which precludes flesh and blood concerns. Her life is being disrupted. Aww. Lady, you’re the one that gave birth. Your daughter didn’t ask you to conceive her. Her feelings and those of your parents apparently do not count. In fact, nobody’s does but yours.
Her cold, compassionless attitude continues: “I don’t wish to be included in any family gatherings from now on. Nor do I want any information about me given to the ‘new’ family member.” Sounds like a spoiled child, doesn’t she? She also does not want to know anything about her daughter. It’s only January (the date of her letter), but this woman could easily win “the most calloused mother-of-the-year” award.
Sadly, Ann agrees with her. She denounces state laws which aid in the discovery of family members and adds: “The great Justice Louis D. Brandeis suggested we pay more attention to ‘the freedom to be left alone.'” Oh, really? So we should be free to fornicate or commit adultery, bring an innocent life into the world, adopt her out, and then claim PRIVACY?!!
Sorry, but this woman deserves no sympathy. And with her unmerciful and uncharitable attitude, it is doubtful she will receive either in the judgment.
Why is it that people think they have a right to behave any way they desire to, ruin other lives, or create lives, and then bear no responsibility for their actions? God holds a different philosophy. He will have people give an account of the things done in their bodies, whether it be good or bad (2Cor. 5:10). There will be nothing “private” on the day of judgment; all will be brought to light. No laws of mankind will be substantial enough to prevent it, either. Why don’t we face up to our actions now and take responsibility? Let’s humbly acknowledge our sins, live righteously, and use our Christian influence in a positive way.
Some brethren are just on a witch hunt,” defenders of apostates like Max Lucado affirm. Of course, such a flippant accusation is absurd on the face of it–as if most preachers wouldn’t prefer spending time on other areas of endeavor. But even if the charge were true, in this case, we’ve found one. A witch, that is. Truly, Max has somehow cast a spell over quite a number of brethren.
So what follows is a portion of a speech that he made at Trinity Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas, and, yes, I have a tape of the entire “sermon” in case anyone thinks the transcribed portion below was taken out of context. [Why is it that faithful gospel preachers must be scrupulously careful about documenting one false teacher, but we may be lumped together, indicted wholesale, and summarily dismissed by thoughtless phrases such as witch-hunters (without any evidence whatsoever)?]
Max Lucado: “But the longer I’ve been in this battle, I’ve noticed that there are some curious soldiers who share these foxholes with us. For example: there’s an Anglican by the name of C.S. Lewis, whose books put muscle in my faith; a Presbyterian (of all people) by the name of Stephen Brown, formerly of Key Biscayne, Florida (somehow I got on his tape mailing list), and he helped me understand the sovereignty of God; another Presbyterian by the name of Frederick Boettner, who writes books somewhere in Vermont, helped me see the passion of Christ; a former Catholic priest named Brennan Manning convinced me that Jesus is relentlessly tender; a Nazarene by the name of Jim Dobson helped my family skills; a pastor of the Evangelical Free Church named Chuck Swindoll helped my preaching; a Baptist in Miami taught me about grace; a Pentecostal in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, helped me understand prayer.”
“Some day, when we all get to heaven, I’m going to finally learn the name of some radio preacher who was on the air in 1978. I was home working in an oil field job, wantin’ some extra money. My faith was very fragile. I had more questions than I had answers, and I was literally at a crossroads as to whether or not I was going to believe. While making some deliveries for an oil field company in a pickup truck, I could only pick up one radio station. I don’t know if that’s because of west Texas or because of the truck, or both. But that one radio station had a radio preacher, and in fifteen minutes, he put the heart and soul of the faith in a little sermon on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And all of a sudden I realized it wasn’t what I knew, it was Who I knew. And I pulled over to the side of the road and rededicated my faith. [It] may have been a Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, or an angel. Or all four!”
Anyone should be able to read these word of Max Lucado’s and understand that he accepts all who abide in religious denominations as brethren, Christians. Never mind if they were immersed, sprinkled, or whatever. If they claim to be a Christian, that’s good enough for Max. The following observations are in order.
First, does not the Bible teach the grace of God? Who made the Baptists the guardians of this doctrine? In fact, when they teach salvation by grace and faith ALONE, they have perverted the Biblical doctrine. Did Max get his false ideas of salvation from them? Does not the Bible proclaim that God is sovereign? Must we go to Presbyterians to get a clue? Is the Bible so mysterious in its teaching about prayer that we have to import teaching from Brazil? Perhaps if Lucado had spent more time in the Book and less time with popular authors, he might have learned a great deal more than he currently knows.
Second, It’s too bad that in all of his gleaning he never found anybody to teach him a love of the TRUTH. Those lacking such a love cannot be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). Since he is so influenced by the writings of men, too bad he never read The Bible Only Makes Christians Only And the Only Christians by brother Thomas B. Warren. In fact, Max did not see fit to credit even one faithful brother with enough knowledge to teach him anything.
Third, the fact that these men have written some helpful things does not make them brethren. Fourth, it does matter what you know as well as Who you know. Who (Jesus) said it matters what(“If you continue in My word, then you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). [See also Romans 16: 17-18 and 2 John 9-11.]
Some people are selfish; others are thoughtful. Some leave you depressed; others cause you to be hopeful. Some are easily forgettable; others are an inspiration. Adrean Warmick was one of the latter.
Her death came as a surprise, though it probably shouldn’t have, since she had suffered with health problems for several years. Her affliction was scleroderma, a disease which tightens and toughens the skin. One can only imagine how awkward and painful a person feels who is stricken with it. She was only 41 when she died in September of this year.
During the eleven years we lived in Peoria, I visited her a few times in the hospital when her condition placed her there. Patients are seldom predictable. Some are whiners (“Why did this have to happen to me?”–a direct quote); some are depressed; others somehow remain cheerful. I never left her hospital room without feeling better for having been there.
Even though at least on one occasion we talked for nearly two hours, I don’t claim to know her that well, but she always impressed me as a humble Christian who loved Jesus and His body, the church. She enjoyed talking about various ways of building up the congregation. Having mentioned some things that had been done in other congregations she had attended, she wondered if Southside could do them, also. She did not just talk, however, about possibilities; she helped make them realities. She helped design some very successful programs for the ladies of the congregation.
A person with her physical problems might have been content to indulge herself in self-pity. But she was not like some who complain, “Why hasn’t anybody called me?” or “Why hasn’t anybody visited me?” yet who for twenty or thirty years never personally telephoned any brother or sister, let alone visited them in the hospital. Adrean knew how the body of Christ was supposed to function (Eph. 4:16, 1 Cor. 12). She tried as best she could to build others up.
The spiritual attitude and emphasis in her life (despite her own limitations) have served as an inspiration to me. Over the years we have noticed so many who have enjoyed a heaping portion of good health, who have wasted much of it on frivolous pursuits, seemingly unthankful for the advantages God blessed them with. Those of us empowered to offer more of ourselves on behalf of the kingdom of God should be doing so. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Luke 12:48).
Some awake on a beautiful Lord’s day morning and immediately plan personal activities apart from the Savior who died for us (and who asked to be remembered–1 Cor. 11:22-29) and their spiritual family, the church. Most of us will probably never know how much of a struggle it is for those like Adrean to prepare herself to meet with the saints (as recently as two weeks before her death), but she was committed to being present for worship, if at all possible.
Adrean Warmick was not loud, domineering, or even all that visible (and an article like this one would probably have embarrassed her); yet she preached a number of eloquent sermons by her godly example. In my memory, at least, she will remain a quiet heroine of the faith.
On Friday, December 8th, I was able to attend the second night of the debate between John T. Lewis, a graduate of Brown Trail, and Jason Weatherly, who resides in Beebe, Arkansas. Brother Lewis, from Lone Grove, Oklahoma, the town in which the debate was held, refuted the idea that either Holy Spirit baptism or miracles are part and parcel of the New Testament Church today; Mr. Weatherly affirmed that they were.
The focus of attention was partly on Ephesians 4:11-16. Brother Lewis argued that the use of miraculous gifts was given for the equipping of the saints till we all come to the unity of the faith in order that we can fight against false doctrine. Obviously, if we still have apostles and prophets, who yet reveal the will of God (and who will continue to do so until the second coming), then we will not arrive at the unity of the faith until this world ends. Such an interpretation leaves us with an unsavory dilemma: either we become totally equipped to fight false doctrine when it no longer exists, or there will be false doctrine in heaven to fight against.
Mr. Weatherly responded by trying to weaken the force of the passage. He tried to bypass the duration expressed in verse 15 altogether, but also held that we can fight false doctrine with incomplete revelation today by asserting that if Paul could do so without the entire New Testament, so could we. The flaw in this theory is that he can not prove that Paul did not know the entire body of New Testament teaching. Just because he did not write it all down at one particular point in time does not mean that he had not been divinely taught it or that he had not revealed it orally.
In his next affirmative speech, brother Lewis concentrated on the purpose of the miracles as stated in the New Testament: to reveal truth, and to confirm the truth. The word of God having been completely revealed, no need has existed for miracles since the end of the first century. Weatherly countered by mentioning that there was still a need for non-doctrinal matters to be prophesied of such as the famine mentioned by Agabus in Acts 11:28. This is not a bad explanation, but it carries with it a tremendous risk–the possibility of being asked for some of these types of prophecies. Wouldn’t it be nice for Christians to know ahead of time of upcoming famines, or earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, etc.? But who has foretold such things? Not Jason Weatherly, nor Don Finto, nor anyone else claiming to be a latter-day apostle or prophet. It is not cruel to insist on examples of these kinds of prophecies; they are found in the Bible; they should be found today among those claiming these powers. They cannot duplicate what is in the Bible because they are not apostles, prophets, or divinely inspired.
FAILURE TO END THE DEBATEBrother Lewis chided Mr. Weatherly for coming in word only and not in power, also. He showed a chart listing past debates that brethren have held with Pentecostals. Not once in all those occasions has a single miracle been performed which would effectively and conclusively ended the discussion. After all, if one disputant is denying that miracles are occurring today, and the other one heals a man born blind (for example), what more can anyone say? The debate would be over by virtue of the demonstration of such power. Even Pharaoh’s talented magicians finally had to conclude of the things Moses did, “This is the finger of God” (Ex. 8:19).
Brother Lewis challenged Mr. Weatherly to end the debate as Paul had effectively done with Elymas (Bar-Jesus) by striking him blind (Acts 13:6-12). The Pentecostal’s response was weak–he declined to do what Paul did on the grounds that he did not want Lewis to be blind; he wanted him to see. Does he not think Elymas’ spiritual vision improved dramatically after Paul performed a miracle on him? Yes, he undoubtedly saw better in his blindness than he ever had with physical sight.
This passage in Acts 13 is devastating to the old Pentecostal argument that one must have faith before a miracle can be performed on him. No, that was exactly Elymas’ problem–he had no more faith than the fig tree that Jesus cursed, which withered immediately. Yet this faithless adversary of the gospel received a miracle. To teach that Christians today possess the same powers as the apostles and prophets but then refuse to demonstrate such only proves that they, in fact, lack the powers they claim after all.
In his closing remarks, Jason Weatherly thanked Harding College for giving him access to their library so that he could prepare for the debate. And he did display a knowledge about many of the doctrines we teach. But if he believes that the Holy Spirit works today as He did in the first century, why did he find it necessary to prepare for this debate? The disciples were promised “a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist” (Luke 21:15). Those who hold his view of the Bible should not have to spend hours in diligent preparation; the Holy Spirit should provide wisdom.
Brother Lewis conducted himself well. His opponent talked throughout much of his first speech (to his moderator) and violated the “spirit” of the rules by insinuating that brother Lewis was a liar. Furthermore, Weatherly’s moderator challenged brother Lewis’ quotation from a tract which made their position seem preposterous. The fact is, however, that they had sent him the tract to help him understand their views so that he could use it to prepare for the debate. Their behavior was at times tacky. Some good questions were raised on both sides, which should provoke further study.
Nineteen years ago I attended the Warren-Flew Debate here in Denton. Later, at a preachers’ meeting, I was asked questions about the debate, several of which centered around attendance. Yes, there were about a thousand people there each evening. Yes, brethren seemed to be supporting the debate. How many atheists attended? “I don’t know. I saw several church buses from Dallas and Fort Worth in the parking lot, but none that read First Atheist Church.”
Invent the silliest thing imaginable, and if you live long enough, you may see it come to pass. The concept of atheists traveling on their own church bus seemed humorous at the time, but after reading the November 11th front page of the Religion section of The Dallas Morning News, it would not be impossible to see such a strange sight.
The reason for that is that in Irving, Texas, the North Texas Church of Freethought has been formed, nicknamed “the church for the unchurched” (1G). Now some might think that this is a very bold and inventive approach, but don’t give these people too much credit. They are just mostly copycats, as the article clearly reveals.
Take, for example, the statement: “There’s no communion, no Bible readings, no prayers” (1G). What’s unusual about that? Barb and I visited one of “our churches” in Wisconsin on a Wednesday evening a few years ago, and nobody prayed there, either. In many of our churches one could yawn long enough to miss the morning’s allotment of Scripture altogether–if there is one. Surely atheists would feel at home in such an environment. As for communion, some of the denominations gave up on that a long time ago. Having attended a Methodist Church in my younger years, I was not even aware of anything called communion for a long time. Atheists could surely feel comfortable among some of these “religious groups” without having to form one of their own.
Or consider this quote: “It looks like a church, acts like a church, and calls itself a church, except we don’t have the theistic beliefs that go with a church” (1G). Wake up, Mr. Sullivan. Most religious groups gave up on theology years ago. Just talk to some folks who attend various denominations; most of them have no idea what Calvinism is and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that babies are depraved sinners. But such is the theology of their denomination. Most churches have gotten away from preaching such “heavy” items as “the nature of God” or Biblical doctrine. Probably, it would just confuse people; so it has been discarded for more relevant issues such as the importance of recycling. Many of our own brethren have given up talking about doctrine due to its divisive nature.
WORSHIPNow what could atheists possibly do for worship? “To begin the service, Mike Sullivan–one of the church’s co-founders–juggles two bean-bag balls and a plastic bowling pin for the congregation. Wow!! Talk about “going with the flow”? Nearly anybody who wandered in would think they were in a regular “church service.” Denominations for years have had clown ministries, juggling acts, judo for Jesus, and a hundred other forms of entertainment (many brethren have joined the bandwagon). One would think with their rejection of God and their fierce disposition to stand on their own that atheists would at least come up with something a little more original.
Those interested in becoming members are told to attend two or three services before deciding because “each one is quite a bit different. There are no set rituals and no sacred books” (3G). Well, isn’t that just what some brethren have been advocating? Decrying tradition and charging that true worship is being stifled, they argue for more spontaneous assemblies. The only difference is that what the atheists might call human genius so-called “Christians” would attribute to the Holy Spirit.
They conduct services the first Sunday of each month (1G). Some brethren adopted that pattern years ago–although most of us meet each week. It’s a small consolation to know that these atheists apparently don’t want to be fanatical about their religion.
Why did this group decide to meet? They wanted a time “for socializing, performing community service, and helping each other through difficult times” (1G). Such goals sound very close to brotherhood, benevolence, and comfort, all of which are things taught in the Word of God. How interesting. They reject the Bible but want all the benefits of being a Christian.
Why did they seek the publicity of this newspaper article? Mr. Sullivan, again lacking in originality, commented, “We don’t have horns and a tail.” Now this statement must be strenuously objected to on the basis that he has plagiarized our brethren’s glib speech from the Joplin Unity Summit. When those from the churches of Christ met with those from the Christian Church, that same observation was made. I am offended that atheists would rip off such a sterling and astute insight. Everybody knows that the devil has horns and a tail. We all saw those that belonged to Hitler, Mussolini, Charles Manson, and others of the devil’s disciples.
After reviewing what this church of “freethought” does, it’s obvious that these atheists are a lot more familiar with religion that they would care to admit. How else can you explain them patterning themselves after Christianity? And their lack of horns and a tail should prove that they are not much different than we are.
Atheists have taught us that it is rational to be ignorant; if, however, we learn Truth, we immediately become irrational. Some atheists (see last week’s article) admit they don’t know how the world came into existence. Christians, however, know that God created the world (Gen. 1:1) because of the natural evidence of the creation (see Romans 1:18-20) and because of the supernatural revelation which God has given us (the Bible), whose authenticity has been overwhelmingly attested in a variety of ways. Atheists reject the evidence, preferring ignorance; then they call Christians irrational.
Among other statements in Nicole Piscopo’s article, “They Oppose Religion in Public Life,” which ran in The Dallas Morning News on Saturday, November 11th, are these:
1. “To some, atheism advocates personal responsibility and is devoid of the ‘wishful thinking’ of an afterlife” (6G).
2. “But fear of divine retribution is not only unnecessary for moral behavior, but is a ‘selfish and depraved’ motivation” (6G).
Does atheism really advocate personal responsibility? Of course, atheists are quick to say so, but such can hardly be the case. Who are all the crimes committed by, Christians? [Now it is true that some who have professed to be Christians have committed crimes and various other sins, but in doing so they trespass against the very teachings they are bound by.] However, what law could an atheist possibly violate, and to whom is he responsible? To be sure, if he transgresses a civil law, and he is caught, then he might face punishment, but he is certainly accountable to no one of any higher authority. How long does it take people to realize, “Hey! There’s a lot I can get away with.”
Without a recognition of the fact that there will be a Day of Judgment, what motivation does anyone have to be moral? To the atheist who contends we ought to be moral, the reply comes back, “Why ought I be anything? And who’s going to make me?” Without fear of the Judgment, motivations become “selfish and depraved.” It is exactly lack of respect for the Bible as the inspired Word of God that has led to the depravity of this age.
Most people are not looking forward to the afterlife in which they give an account to God (2 Cor. 5:10). Many have reinvented it so as to save everyone. People desire the rewards of heaven; they just don’t like the alternative. Accountability and eternal punishment in Hell have become very unpopular doctrines.
LOGIC AND CRIME”This is the country that has the most churches. At the same time, we’re the country with the highest violent crime rate. We have the most churches, but we also have the most prisons” (6G). Is there some kind of link here? Is it commonplace for people to meet for worshiping God and then go murder and rob people? [Actually, most go out to eat dinner in local restaurants.] This statement is about the equivalent of saying, “The United States grows the most corn of any nation in the world, but our literacy rate ranks only 25th. Therefore, we should stop growing corn.”
Anyone wanting a logical connection between crime and something else might consider that we frequently have more taverns than church buildings. Oddly enough, more fights and murders are committed in places that serve alcohol than where people are singing hymns in glory to God. Being “filled with the Spirit” has not been nearly so deadly as being filled with “spirits.”
“MOTHER EARTH” AND RATIONALITYSome atheists are apparently rabid environmentalists. “The planet has suffered under religions that place human life at a higher level of importance than ecology” (6G). “We are profoundly more concerned with this planet and this life because this is all there is” (6G). Are respect for human life and ecology at cross purposes? If so, human life is more important. Man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28); trees are not. Mankind is given dominion over the earth, not the other way around. The earth is not our long-lost mother; God, however, is our Father. What is frightening about atheism is that it pays more homage to rocks and dirt than living human beings. What kind of rationale is that? Will it be advocated that we kill human beings to save the earth?
CHURCH AND STATE”Separation between church and state used to command almost universal respect. Now it’s become a dirty phrase” (6G). Good–it is a dirty phrase–as used by the atheistic lawyers of the ACLU, whose fanaticism has become apparent to most people. The so-called wall of separation between church and state is a myth; our constitution nowhere says any such thing. Our founding fathers believed in God. “Chiseled in the granite of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., are the words of Jefferson: ‘God gave us life and gave us liberty. Can the liberty of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” (Five Lies of the Century by David T. Moore, p. 13). Moore cites a number of quotations, proving that separation of church and state never called for separation of G o d and state.
The Dallas Morning News published two related articles on the subject of atheism which are somewhat unique. One deals with an atheistic church–an interesting concept that will be dealt with later; the other discusses atheistic opposition to religion. Both stories appear under the bold headline banner of “Atheists: Defenders of Nonbelief” on the Irreligion page dated November 11th.
Nicole Piscopo wrote the article entitled “They Oppose Religion in Public Life.” The reader seeks in vain for a clear thesis; the journalist simply slings out a few diverse ideas, connected by the common thread of atheism. Our approach, therefore, will be to comment on some of the major emphases.
One point that atheists seem eager to affirm is that atheism “is not a self-centered endorsement of hedonism or immorality that many atheists say they are accused of practicing” (6G). As was pointed out in previous articles (see #19 and #20), no one ought to accuse atheists of being those things; but to accept their philosophy opens the door to such practices, which they cannot logically defend.
This column begins by whetting the reader’s appetite. The “co-president of the nationwide Atheistic Alliance,” we are promised, “tells how he became an atheist” (1G). Since he had a religious upbringing in the Greek Orthodox Church, we become curious as to how and why he changed his mind. But all we are told is: “By his early teens, he had his doubts. By 16, he and theos had parted ways” (1G). Why, how convincing. It’s a wonder 90% of people are not atheists instead of just 10%!
Actually, the article goes on to delve much deeper into the co-president’s psyche. We are informed that for him “the idea of God touted by most religions goes against all rationality” (1G). Oh, really? So how does the idea of God contradict rationality? Mr. Tzanetakos (whose first name ironically is Christos) fails to say (or maybe he did say, but the journalist failed to mention it).
So, he charges that the idea of God is irrational, BUT then asserts that “energy, not God” created the universe. “The question is, what is energy?” No, Mr. atheist, the question is, “Where did energy come from?” Was it created? No? Then it must be self-existent. But if energy can be self-existing, then why can’t God be self-existing? One must start with intellect, matter, energy–something. Whatever we call it, it was either created (which fails to solve the problem) or eternal.
“We as atheists simply state our ignorance, but we’re not going to create an imaginary entity” (1G). What an admission!! He states that as an atheist he has no explana- tion for the origin of all things (while theists do). Then he goes on to confess ignorance. [Of course, we already knew that. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,'” (Ps. 14:1).] But if you do not know how something occurred, how can you rule out one of the alternatives? The only way to eliminate God as being the Creator of all things would be to disproveHis existence. Possessing a few doubts scarcely qualifies as convincing evidence for his case.
MYTHICAL STORIES?The next atheist whose views are featured is Dr. Tim Gorski, an obstetrician. [This occupation seems grossly incongruent with atheism. How can anyone monitoring life in the womb and bringing newborns into the world even doubt the existence of God, let alone deny it?] “The mind revolts” against the concept of God, he affirms. What does such a statement imply about the vast majority of people whose minds haven’t revolted?
“I started picking the minds of the priests, but I found they didn’t have any good answers,” the doctor says of his Catholic youth (1G and 6G). So, because the priests didn’t want to be bothered with questions from a snot-nosed, ten-year-old, he became an atheist. That makes sense. Or maybe his questions were so intense and crucial that the priests couldn’t handle them. Even Jesus was twelve before He astounded the teachers of the law (Luke 2:41-47). Besides, we could ask atheists like Mr. Tzanetakos some questions about the origin of all things, and he would plead ignorance. Based on his inability to answer questions, perhaps all atheists should become theists.
Gipson Arnold, president of Atheist Network, thought even as a child that Bible stories were too “far-fetched.” “Jonah and the whale sounded like Jack and the beanstalk”; “And isn’t being a virgin and being a mother mutually exclusive?” (6G).
First of all, what are the similarities between Jonah and Jack? Jonah’s mother isn’t even mentioned. “Jack” is a story of fantasy and never pretends to be true. Jonah was a real man living in historical times who attempts to avoid his commission to preach to real people in a known country (Assyria). Jack lives “somewhere,” and the seeds he casts out the window grow up over night into a beanstalk, which arises through the clouds where a giant lives. Right! No wonder atheists are termed foolish–when they can’t discern between make-believe and a descriptive narrative.
Of course, mothers are never virgins. That’s what all the excitement is about, Gipson! Mary was the only woman who was both! Get a grip; try to distinguish the virgin birth from Cinderella. It’s not that hard if one possesses a smattering of objectivity.
Periodically, over a few weeks’ time, Parade Magazine has published responses of young people to the question, “Do you believe in God?” Much of the thinking has been quite superficial and insubstantial, whether the person believed or disbelieved. The truly disturbing thing about many of the responses is that created beings seem to think they have the right to sit in judgment on the Creator.
Consider what an 18-year-old girl from Riverdale, New Jersey, writes. “I was taught that God was the Almighty and was good, but the past few months have set me straight. There is no God. At least not the God everyone is talking about. If He/She was real, then there wouldn’t be so much disease, death, hurt and heartbreak in the world.
In December, one of my friends lost her mother. In January, a friend was killed on his way to school. In April, a friend of the family lost his long battle with AIDS. And in May, one of my best friends also lost her mother. What God would do this to anyone? None that I know of or believe in.” [This scathing denunciation of God appeared on page 23 of the October 15th, 1995, issue.]
What an outburst of unrighteous indignation! Her philosophy of God may be summarized as follows: 1) God does not run the world the way I think He/She should; 2) Therefore, God does not exist. How arrogant for one merely eighteen years of age to think that she has disproved God’s existence based on so few observations. Those who have watched their loved ones be killed in Nazi death camps (with much greater reason to doubt God’s benevolence) have emerged with a strong faith in God while she has barely become acquainted with life’s tragedies.
She is obviously even less acquainted with the Word of God, to which one goes to find reality and truth. A study of some fundamental matters might be of some help to those who feel as this young girl does. Some crucial doctrines follow.
God Is AlmightyThe Scriptures affirm this truth in a number of passages, but it is the inference some draw from this fact that is erroneous. Many think that since God is Almighty, He will control everything that happens, but such is not the case–yet. When God created man, He gave us “free will.” We may choose to obey or disobey Him. If we choose the latter option, many evil things will result. Suppose, despite all of the warnings against the dangers of drinking and driving someone goes ahead and does so. If he loses control of the vehicle and crashes into a tree and is killed, whose fault is it? If God prohibits harm, there is no free will; if He allows free will, tragedies will abound. God does not stop people from bearing the consequences of their actions.
God Is GoodGod created a perfect world in which man could dwell, but we exercised our free will in a negative way and allowed sin to enter Paradise. Man could not be man without this possibility. We either must be robots, programmed to always do right, or we can enjoy freedom (recognizing that such a privilege means we bear the consequences of our actions). Unfortunately, when a person chooses to sin, innocent people usually suffer, also. The drinking driver, for example, may not simply hit a tree and kill himself; he may suddenly swerve across the center line and kill a family of innocent people. Does God cease to be good because He does not intervene in the natural course of daily events?
Certainly, we are tempted to think so–especially if the victims were our family. But God cannot be blamed for man’s decisions. The person who acted irresponsibly is the one who is at fault. God is doubly good in that He not only created us–He recreates all who obey the gospel. He allowed Jesus to die on the cross for our sins so that we could be redeemed from the consequences of our own actions. Accepting the salvation He offers through repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38) enables us to triumph even over death.
Why Disease?God’s gender, despite the feminist influence, is not a mystery. The student of the Bible realizes that God is not He/She, but He. We pray to “our Father” (Matt. 6:9). The female respondent needs to spend some time in the Book to learn about the One she apparently hates so much.
Why do disease, death, hurt, and heartbreak dominate this world? There is an answer for each of these things–SIN!! God did not sin; man sins. Because we have chosen to disregard God’s commandments and principles, all these things plague us. Why does AIDS exist, for example? Did it come about by mankind being morally pure? No, it developed because of man’s perversions of sex–the practice of bestiality, homosexuality, fornication, and adultery. All of these are denied in the Holy Scriptures as violations of God’s holy law, but mankind has repeatedly rejected these teachings because he would rather satisfy unlawful lusts. As is usually the case with sin, innocent people have suffered for a no more sinister reason than that they needed a blood transfusion (through which they contacted the AIDS virus). But most contracted and suffer from AIDS because they chose to disregard the warnings, just as cigarette smokers indulge themselves–although they are fully aware of the suffering they will one day face.
Man’s dilemma is that he wants to sin without facing the consequences of his actions. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to his Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:7-8). We tell children that fire burns. If they choose to handle it, they will suffer for their poor judgment. God likewise warns against what will burn us spiritually. If we choose to ignore the truth, does that make God evil?
“What God Would Do This To Anyone?”This statement is biased enough to be laughable. The youth who wrote it apparently pictures God as a capricious individual who takes delight in finding unsuspecting souls to inflict with pain. God is a God of comfort (2 Cor. 1:3-4) and a help (Ps. 46:1). Satan is the adversary (Job 1-2). No reason is assigned for the loss of either friend’s mother, nor is it explained why a student was killed on the way to school. But without knowing the details, there can be no doubt that the cause was sin. Somewhere Satan is laughing at all the hurt which people experience; he probably doubles over and rolls in the aisles when mankind then tries to pin the blame on God instead of him and themselves. Do we mistakenly think that if everything always went well, everyone would love and serve God? What happened in the garden of Eden disproves that faulty notion. Many live tragedy-free lives and do not believe in God. Why not concentrate on the things that God has done for us and ask ourselves, “Why has God done all this for me?”
Humanists such as Paul Kurtz try to sound as though a moral standard can be easily established in the absence of theism, but the attempt fails swiftly. We examined last week one of the heroines he selected as a model of responsible and ethical behavior, Margaret Sanger–only to find that of her it could truly be said that “anything goes” (Dallas Morning News, October 28th, p. 1G).
Nevertheless Kurtz argues (we suppose with a straight face) that: “We ought to tell the truth, keep promises, be honest, kind, dependable and compassionate; we ought to be just and tolerant and, whenever possible, negotiate our differences peacefully” (3G). He later adds, “A morally developed person understands that he ought not to lie…” (3G). Does Mr. Kurtz really mean that?
He certainly has heard of Joseph Fletcher, who was named “Humanist of the Year,” along with Mary Calderone, in 1974. Fletcher popularized “situation ethics” in two books he wrote back in the ’60’s. Fletcher attempts to show that it is permissible to lie if the circumstances call for it–to save someone’s life, for example. Now which is it: ought a man to lie, or oughtn’t he? Humanist Fletcher says, “Yes”; Humanist Kurtz says, “No.”
The Problem of ArbitrarinessOn what intelligent basis, therefore, can men decide what constitutes ethical behavior? Shall we conclude that we “ought” to tell the truth unless–? Yes, we ought to be honest unless a) it hurts someone else, b) it hurts us, c) it becomes inconvenient, d) I just don’t feel like telling the truth, e) all of these. Although choice d is just a tad facetious, the doorway to arbitrariness is already open when a or b is selected. Who defines what will hurt someone else or when Self is justified in lying to stave off dire consequences. After all, isn’t that why most people lie in the first place–to keep from getting into trouble?
“Johnny, did you break the vase?” The little tyke is no dummy. If he admits the truth, he knows a hearty spanking will grace his posterior. “No, I don’t know anything about it.” Or, if he’s Bart (or O.J.) Simpson, he might say, “I didn’t do it; nobody saw me do it; you can’t prove anything.” A parent might reason with a child, “It is better for you to tell the truth,” but all he’s thinking about is that it will definitely be painful to tell the truth. He doesn’t want to experience pain; so he lies.
Exactly how are adults any different? They don’t want to face the consequences of their actions, either. Most people don’t tell lies for capriciousness’ sake; they do it to cover their mistakes or other wrongs. By humanist philosophy no one can actually be accused of wrongdoing–because each person has his own standards. On the basis of non-biblical morality, mankind will never arrive at a system of law, justice, or socially acceptable behavior. Whenever we all do that which is right in our own eyes (that is, we are autonomous beings, a plank of Humanism), chaos results.
In David A. Noebel’s book, Understanding the Times , the author quotes Paul Kurtz as admitting: “I can find no ultimate basis for ‘ought'” (197). Despite everything else he says, he has given up his case. He finds no basis for “ought”; the theist does. The Christian knows that behind every “ought” stands a moral principle of God. Mankind “ought” to behave a certain way because God has decreed it. Morality emanates from His character. He is truth; man ought to speak the truth. When moral behavior is based on the Word of God, morality is objective; it originates outside of and from above man. But when man vainly attempts to eliminate God, he has no objective place to go to for acceptable behavior. All sources will be subjective; this morality arises within mankind. And since one man figures he’s as good as another, any one person’s systems of ethics is just as valid and right as any other person’s.
As brother Thomas B. Warren pointed out in The Warren-Flew Debate, his opponent knew that what Hitler did was wrong, but he could not explain what law the Germans violated. They did not transgress German law; they did transgress a higher law–God’s law. Kurtz and other humanists are stuck with an evershifting, always negotiable moral code–one that is built upon sand.
Attacking TheismAs is typical of humanists, they attack deeds performed by those claiming to be Christians but who have acted contrary to what the Bible teaches. Kurtz writes: “So many infamous deeds have been perpetrated in the name of God–the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious inspired terrorism in Palestine, the carnage going on among three religious ethnicities in Yugoslavia–that it is difficult to blithely maintain that belief in God guarantees morality. It is thus the height of intolerance to insist that only those who accept religious dogma are moral, and that those who do not are wicked” (1G, 3G).
At least he left out the crazed religious nut who says, “God told me when I woke up this morning to kill Yitzhak Rabin.” Paul Kurtz ought to know that what somebody does in the name of religion does not mean that religion authorized it to be done. The Crusades, for example, came as a result of obeying no New Testament teaching of either Jesus or the apostles. Name the verse or passage that authorizes Christians to fight with literal weapons as though the kingdom were a physical one (John18:36).
The Spanish Inquisition was a terrible tragedy that no one attempts to justify. What verse of Scripture would support the spreading of the gospel in this fashion? What passage grants authority to kill heretics? None. Dr. James Kennedy, in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, quotes Herbert Lockyer as setting the figure at 30,000 for the total number killed throughout Europe during the Inquisition. These died in opposition to New Testament doctrine. In fact, authorities banned the Bible during this time (216).
But how did Hitler, who killed millions (instead of mere thousands), violate Humanist philosophy? He was drawing upon the philosophy of Nietzsche, the man who originally coined the phrase “God is dead” (212). Does it not seem as though Hitler concluded that if God was dead, all things were permitted? At least Nietzsche wasn’t given a “Humanist of the Year” Award–yet. Does Kurtz want to challenge Nietzche’s philosophy? Surely, he would disassociate himself from Hitler, but how can he legitimately do so? Why are they wrong; on what basis would Kurtz be correct in denouncing them? And even if he does, would other humanists join in to condemn Nietzsche? [No, they would not.]
According to Kurtz, humanists “affirm that life is worthwhile and that it can be a source of bountiful joy” (3G). Has the man never taken a philosophy or literature course at the graduate level? Has he never studied Nietzche, Camus, and other modern, humanist writers who champion the meaninglessness of life and vaunt suicide? Come, come, Mr. Kurtz. And with a name like his, he should read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The bottom line is that without God, everything is not optimistic and rosy. There is no rationality and no rationale for living; all is despair. How can meaningful life be defined in an accidental universe, devoid of any design or purpose? And why should people be moral when an account of their actions will never be required?
October 27’s Friday Religion section of the Denton Record-Chronicle led off with a front page article about the Harvest Metropolitan Community Church, located just south of Denton. As is usual for the news media, Jessica DeLeon’s story presented the group in a flattering, positive light. Just as typically, the usual bits of misinformation saturate this propaganda piece, beginning with the first paragraph.
“In 1985, a student at the University of North Texas from Abilene was looking for a way to connect with gay and lesbian Christians” (12A). In the first place, there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, no more than there is a fornicating Christian, an idolatrous Christian, a Christian thief, or a Christian extortioner. Those are all sins that people give up when they become Christians (1 Cor. 6:9-11). [This is not to say that Christians never sin, but they cannot practice sin and be a child of God at the same time (1 John 3:8-9).]
Jesus does not save people in their sins; He saves people from their sins. We are to reckon ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin (Rom. 6:11); we are instructed to prohibit sin from reigning in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12). The Harvest Metropolitan Community Church is not trying to help people leave the sin of homosexuality; they are telling members that it is all right to continue to walk in this abomination.
In fact, the absurdity of their position can be seen by a certain fact recorded in the article, of which they are apparently proud: “It is also one of the few churches in town which has a condom machine in the bathroom” (12A). Wouldn’t that be comparable to the First Metropolitan Burglary Church providing ski masks and manuals on overriding electronic circuitry? Why would the Bible teach sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:19-20, 1 Thess. 4:1-7, 2 Cor. 7:1, Col. 3, etc.) and self-control (Gal. 5:23, 2 Peter 1:6), if it were perfectly permissible to do whatever one’s heart desired to do?
Any church that would encourage its members in immorality instead of giving up sin is no true church of Christ. Rather, it is humanistic–based on the will of man, not on the teachings of God. In fact, this “church” supplying condoms is tantamount to suggesting that had they been available in the first century, Jesus would have gone about teaching sexual purity and self-control while the apostles passed out “protection” after His sermon. If such a scenario sounds blasphemous, then remember that it is a church purporting to be the body of Christ today who is in essence doing the very same thing. The church is His body, over which He is head. If the church is doing it, Christ is doing it (consider Acts 9:4).
God and Christianity MisrepresentedColleen Darraugh, the first “pastor” of this “church” for three years, praised Harvest for its loving atmosphere: “It’s a profound time of healing, especially when you’re told God doesn’t love you” (12A).
And who told her such a thing? The reporter let her get away with the usual false stereotype of Christianity and the Bible: God hates homosexuals; Christians hate homosexuals; Christians are all bigots and homophobes. Apparently, homosexual leaders and the news media think if they repeat these charges enough times, somebody (besides them) will believe it. Therefore, we shall refute it in bold letters–but without any hope that it will make one iota of difference to these people.
GOD DOES NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS; GOD HATES SIN, WHICH HOMOSEXUALITY IS!
Just in case the above statement is not clear, a little more elaboration follows. God does not hate sinners. Notice: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus endured the crucifixion and poured out His soul unto death for sinners. Jesus did not die for some–but for all, even those who commit sins of perversion, even for people who act on their vile passions and do things that are against nature. BUT as with every other sin, in order to receive forgiveness, the homosexual must repent; he or she must give up the sin. Then the forgiveness of God can be experienced as one is baptized and born again (John 3:1-7). It is not God that hates homosexuals; homosexuals hate God because He tells them to give up that which most of them will not consider doing.
In an article in The Dallas Morning News (October 16, 1995), a homosexual son said to his father who was a minister: “If God made me this way, the Scriptures you are citing must be misinterpreted or misplaced” (2C). Truly, man considers himself the measure of all things. Notice that the son did not reason, “God condemns homosexual behavior; therefore, I must be wrong.” No, if I want to commit adultery or fornication or homosexuality, God is the one who must be wrong, not me.
The fact is that some want to hold on to their sin more than they want to love God and abide by His teachings. Furthermore, they want to practice their sin while imagining that God approves. And on top of that, they want Christians to accept them and validate their faulty perceptions. Sorry. Christians (those abiding by the Word of God) will never approve an action which God defines as sin and condemns. Like our Father and our Lord, we love those ensnared by sin; it is our prayer that they will give it up and overcome it. But like deity, we cannot accept as brethren those who stubbornly persist in their sins.
