A few decades ago the Herald of Truth was a weekly television program, and occasionally those who produced the program would send out contact information to churches located near an individual who had sent in a request for material. Members of the congregation meeting nearby that individual would then call on the person to see if the information had been received and to determine if they had any questions or needed additional material.
Another brother and I went to call on a lady who had requested a sermon. She invited us in, and we visited for a few minutes. She had received what she had requested and was not interested in anything else. In the course of our brief visit, she let us know that she enjoyed watching religious TV shows on Sunday morning while sipping wine but that she was not really interested in getting out and visiting any churches in the area. We talked afterward about whether to try to follow up further with her; the other brother commented, “No. She doesn’t want to get out or be involved with others. She’s content to sit at home and watch religious programming while getting soused.”
Now, there is an alternative for those who enjoy imbibing but want a more social and religious context. A church is being formed to accommodate just such individuals. On the front page of last Sunday’s Orlando Sentinel (Nov. 20, 2016) is the headline of an article (“Lutheran Church Founders Brew Faith” (A1). It tells the story of a couple of men who decided to brew their own beer in a garage, but in the process a church bubbled up. The beer lovers who met each week began conversations about God; then people started asking for prayers and sharing meals. Before they knew it, they had the makings of a “church” group.
In light of a recent survey, we should scarcely be surprised. When asked what people could not live without, heading the list at about 45% of those responding was WIFI; alcohol came in third. Imagine! Air conditioning and hot showers did not even make the top three. What is amazing is that so much of the population thinks that they could not do without alcohol. Why? Many of us have done without it our entire lifetimes. We don’t miss it, crave it, or need it to have a good time—or to help us worship God.
But the two founders, according to the newspaper article, are receiving approval for a “church” from a religious denomination.
Now, thanks to backing from the Florida-Bahamas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the two Lutherans are refining plans to open a brewery/church in downtown Orlando. They say it’ll be a place where a taproom and beer vats can coexist with an altar and sanctuary (A1).
Can we anticipate seeing a future Headline: “Fight Breaks Out In Church”? It’s possible. But the quoted paragraph is bizarre on more than one level. Look at what it says about denominationalism—something never authorized in the Scriptures. Is there really a Florida-Bahamas Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Does that statment imply a Synod for the other 49 states? And this is just one branch of the Lutheran Church. Do all the others have Synods, also? Does every religious denomination have “official” organizations like these? If so, just imagine how many of them exist all over the United States.
Lest someone fail to take the story seriously, there are beer kegs in one of the founders’ garage labeled, Castle Beer, produced by the Castle Church Brewing Community (A11). We have also noted in time past that some “church” groups have been meeting in taverns, but this goes way beyond that idea. Some say they are trying “to shed a holier-than-thou image” (A1). This effort should accomplish that goal; however, it will do nothing to cause people not to associate “Christians” with hypocrisy. Their motto—“brewing community, fermenting love” apparently is working. The support of beer-bibbers has reached 375. Currently they are meeting in homes “to study the Bible over craft beer” (A11).
The Concept
Most people instinctively know this mixture of the profane and the sacred is a bad idea. “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits’” (1 Cor. 15:33). Alcohol is not like caffeine that people get in coffee or soft drinks; it exercises a more dangerous influence on people. The first thing it does is affect the brain, loosening inhibitions and sound judgment. Solomon clearly wrote that people should not even look upon wine—let alone consume it (Pr. 23:31). The wine of which he spoke was not far different in alcoholic content than beer. Many beers (especially the Lite versions) are in the 4% range; others fluctuate between 6% and 8%. A few reach as high as 10% to 12%. Wines without today’s fortifications average, through natural fermentation about 10% and could reach 12%. To take something intoxicating and mix it with the Word of God is a profane move.
Although God does not approve of holier-than-thou attitudes (consider the Pharisee and the publican in Luke 18:9-14), He does expect genuine holiness. In fact, one of the Scriptures that will probably never be mentioned favorably at the Castle Church is Titus 2:12. God’s grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men, “teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age.” How many associate drinking beer with this description? And if people consume alcohol during worship, what about the rest of the day?
The Goal
Just when a person might think that this situation could not get any weirder, it does. The co-founders say that alcohol is not their focus. Really? Was it not already stated that the whole thing began while brewing beer in a garage? According to the news story, however, their “goal is to knock down the barriers separating many churches from their neighbors.” Wow! Who would have thought that beer could accomplish something that the Word of God could not? But, wait for it, guess what the missing ingredient is in this “evangelistic” approach?
If anyone answered, “Doctrine,” that is correct. One of the co-founders (who once “pastored” a Lutheran church) is quoted as saying, “We’re not gathered around a belief system. We’re gathered around a dinner invite.” They believe that “breweries and beer create natural contexts for friendships to form and attract people who might never set foot in a traditional church,” the other co-founder said (A11). Well, this idea has been expressed before with respect to the Cowboy churches. With thinking such as this, why should we not expect Golf Course Clubhouse Services, Bowling Alley Worship assemblies, and Bikini at the Beach churches? People drink beer at all of those places, and they get entertainment as well. Why not combine all the things that people like to do?
The whole concept of “a traditional church” is wrong to begin with. Yes, we need to have a place to gather, but worship is about God—not us. Some groups have the idea that only professionals can be in control of worship. Therefore, the average member is not involved except to read a text together or to repeat something already written out. In worship, as God desires it, all are involved with the singing, and everyone is supposed to be attentive to each prayer and gospel message, as well as the Lord’s Supper. Some lead; all participate. Each one gives as he has been prospered. Worship is offered to God, but it has a benefit to each member, as well. It is not some formal ritual that members go through; it is communion with our God, and we ought to be sober when offering it. We do not know if alcohol played a part in the sin of Nadab and Abihu, but in Leviticus 10:9, God told Aaron: “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die.” God does not approve of combining the sacred with the profane.
As for the style of evangelism advocated, it is certainly appropriate to get together with others over dinner (minus the beer). Sometimes, Christians only think in terms of inviting someone to worship, which is all right, but it may not be the best way to reach him. A study of the Word, perhaps before or after a meal, in the friendly confines of a home, may yield better results. It is often the case that some have an aversion to entering a church building, but once they have studied the Bible and learned what God‘s will is for them, it does not remain a problem.
The “Testimonial”
No religious article would be complete without a testimonial. A former Catholic who stopped attending “Mass” as a child has taken a shine (not the moon variety) to this new group’s casual system of Bible study. At first he was skeptical but was encouraged to just try it out. His bartender girlfriend told him, “We’re not going to outcast you because you don’t think the way we do” (A11). Hmm. How different from what Paul told the Corinthians about being united in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Is it really that loose—that it does not matter what someone believes? Then this “church” is more of an exercise in friendship than in trying to please God because the Lord has always had teachings that His adherents are commanded to follow.
Under the beer umbrella of fellowship, one person could believe that people are saved by “faith only” while others might think that repentance and baptism are necessary. One could advocate that we are born totally depraved while others believe that children arrive in the world innocent. Some may say that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation while others disagree. So all of these views are permissible? Why not just call it the Church of Whatever?
The boyfriend not only liked the way the group did things, he was “impressed” that the leader “didn’t pretend he had all the answers, and the atmosphere was inquiring and nonjudgmental” (A11). Are people so easily satisfied to be with a religious outfit that doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t care what its adherents think? Are people willing to glory in ignorance—and fermented ignorance at that?
Luther’s Legacy
According to the article, Lutheranism and beer go hand in hand because Martin Luther himself “had a documented fondness for ale. His beer mug was even inscribed with the Lord’s prayer so he could commune with God while tossing one back, according to religious historian Jon Pahl” (A11). This professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary reasons that “everything on earth is a gift to humanity and, when used responsibly, enhances our happiness” (A11). Really? Does that include whiskey and vodka? How about marijuana, heroin, and cocaine? How does one use responsibly that which—first and foremost—dulls one’s self-control?
Well-known religious figure, John MacArthur (a diedin-the-wool Calvinist) had the good sense to point out: “The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse are too wellknown, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze” (A11). He is one who is definitely against the mixing of alcohol and evangelism. Jesus did not need alcohol to make His message more palatable, and the multitudes never thought to ask for any. It is easy to see which most people are more fond of—God or alcohol. How many would attend “worship” if it was going to be a “dry” service? That answer says a lot about people’s priorities.
Periodically, as folks are reading through the Scriptures, they see a word or phrase that they haven’t heard much; so they quickly adopt it and begin using it. Some denominational people (and perhaps some brethren?) have taken a fancy to calling themselves ambassadors, since Paul uses the word in two verses. However, a careful reading will discover that he is speaking of himself and the other apostles—not all Christians.
In the Greek are six related words. The root word is presbuteros [Strong #4245], which is used 67 times in the New Testament and translated “elders,” referring to one’s age or the men who oversee the work of the church. The Greek contains a variation, presbutees [4246], which is used three times of aged men, and presbutis [4247], used once for aged women. Presbuterion [4244], appearing three times, also refers to a presbytery or group of men.
This root word is found in two other words, however. Luke uses Presbia [4242] twice—once in 14:32 and once in 19:14. The former refers to a group of men that the King James calls “an ambassage” and the New King James “a delegation.” The latter verse is translated “message” and “delegation” respectively. The delegation consisted of representatives of those who sent them.
The final Greek word under consideration is presbuo [4243], which is translated “ambassadors” in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Ephesians 6:20. In Ephesians, it is clear that Paul is speaking of himself as an apostle (an official representative of Christ). The one in 2 Corinthians is not as easy to discern, but it does refer to the apostles. Paul writes that God had committed to them the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). Christians still try to reconcile men to God through the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Verse 20 then says: “Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” The apostles stood in the place of Jesus; what they did was by His direct authority. Are Christians today apostles—selected by and specifically sent out by Jesus? No. Neither can we be ambassadors in that regard. We are, however, sent by God’s providence; further we do represent Jesus (if we teach and practice the truth). We do not have the authority of the apostles, however, and cannot be ambassadors or apostles in that sense.
“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God were pleading through us:
we implore you on Christ’s behalf,
be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
“…Pray for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may
open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,
for which I am an ambassador in chains…”(Eph. 6:19-20).
Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things.
These words come from the song, “My Favorite Things” (The Sound of Music). We probably could all make a list of things that we delight in, but how often do people ask, “What makes God happy?” The Bible provides an answer to that question.
The first verse that comes to mind is John 3:16, which is amazing, and it prompts the question, “Why does God love us so much—especially when we are rebellious, disobedient, and sinful?” Deuteronomy 10:15 teaches that God “delighted only in your fathers, to love them….” Why? They all were imperfect. Perhaps He loves us for what we can become if we devote ourselves to Him. He demonstrated His love toward us, however, while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8). He made the first move toward reconciliation—sending Jesus to die on the cross for our sins.
While God loves (shown by His actions), nevertheless, all shall not be saved because all do not respond to His love and grace. While God offers salvation universally, only few return that love properly. These He especially loves and ultimately saves. Jesus confided to the apostles: “For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God” (John 16:27). This thought echoes what the psalmist wrote: “Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he has known My name” (Ps. 91:14).
From these two verses, we must recognize that God loves those who love Him and believe in Him. Again, Jesus told His apostles, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love” (John 15:10). Jesus included a condition there that the “once saved, always saved” crowd will never see or admit: Abiding in God’s love is conditional; it involves keeping God’s commandments.
Faith, love, and obedience have always been part of the requirements to receive God’s love and salvation. “Therefore know that the Lord God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Deut. 7:9). When Nehemiah prayed to God about the rebuilding of the wall, he cited parts of this very verse (Neh. 1:5). Daniel also makes reference to it (9:4). God respected Daniel and his requests. He was told, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard…” (10:12). Faith, love, humility, and obedience are a few of God’s favorite things.
Yes, as Paul wrote, God “is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us” (Eph. 2:4). In the sense of doing what is best for every individual, God loves everyone and has shown it, but those He especially loves and will save are those who respond to Him in a positive way, who make an effort to be like Him. David wrote: “For the Lord is righteous, He loves righteousness; His countenance beholds the upright” (Ps. 11:7; cf. Ps. 33:5).
An Old Testament passage that sums up much of what has been said is Deuteronomy 10:12-13:
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
Not only are doing these things for our good, but they prompt God to love us in return. David expressed God’s love of humility in a negative way when he wrote: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise” (Ps. 51:17). The opposite of God not despising these things is embracing them. Humility impresses God; He loves it. Samuel had to make that point to the haughty King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22:
“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”
Many have the idea that they can give offerings to God in place of their love and obedience. God is interested in what we give Him. The Scriptures tell us that “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). But the higher priority is obeying Him in all things. Some even think that giving will atone for the evil deeds, but it does not. “The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but He loves him who follows righteousness” (Pr. 15:9).
An inspired apostle states that the opposite is true in 1 John 3:10: “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” The second qualification is of equal consideration to the first. If one does not love his brother, he does not love God, either (1 John 4:20-21, also 4:7-8). God cannot love the one who remains in a state of hatred (prejudice), loves wickedness, maintains arrogance, or flouts the Law of God.
God’s love that made salvation available is permanent. However, God’s love that will forgive sins and take people to heaven is conditional. He loves the humble, the righteous, the loving, and the obedient.
Jim Croce, from South Philadelphia had only a few hits, although they have endured since he was killed in a plane crash in Louisiana on September 20, 1973. His songs were fairly simple and occasionally contained some thoughtful expressions, such as these words from “Time in A Bottle,” a song not intended for release as a single but which became number 1 after his death: “But there never seems to be enough time to do the things you want to do once you find them. I’ve looked around enough to know that you’re the one I want to go through time with.”
He wrote those words when his wife was pregnant with their son. He wrote another song for her after they had experienced a spat over finances. After brooding alone for a while, he wrote these words: “Yeah, I know it’s kinda strange. Every time I’m near you I just run out of things to say. I know you’d understand. Every time I tried to tell you the words just came out wrong. So I’ll have to say I love you in a song.”
However, his first song, “You Don’t Mess Around With Jim,” had an entirely different focus: It had to do with a pool hustler named Big Jim Walker that was so good that it was advised: “You don’t tug on superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger. And you don’t mess around with Jim.” In the song he gets his comeuppance and his replacement becomes the next guy nobody messes with.
Some of today’s recording “artists” might have taken a cue from the words of the song, if not the style of music. First of all, those who are at the summit of their success will eventually be toppled and replaced before too long (the message of the song). There is One, however, to Whom that will never happen. God never seeks re-election; no other king will ever take Jesus’ place. Some other Head of the church is not waiting in the wings. The reason is that God is all-powerful, and no one can mount a serious challenge to His authority. If there is Anyone you should not want to mess around with, it is the Lord. So, how is it that many of today’s entertainers have shown themselves to be crude, vulgar, and irreverent? Is that wise?
The fact that some “artists” use vulgar language is by itself enough to antagonize God Who opposes anything that could be classified as corrupt communication (Eph. 4:29). Rap artists especially are known for their use of vile language, which could be construed as a “tug.” But what Jay Z has written goes way beyond that.
He is married to Beyoncé, a former member of Destiny’s Child, who has grown up to become Destiny’s Witch. Beyoncé herself said, “I have someone else that takes over when it’s time for me to work and when I’m on stage, this alter ego that I’ve created that kind of protects me and who I really am.” Who is she, really? According to her November 15, 2008 album, she has another name; that title was: I Am… Sasha Fierce. The hugely successful album sold 8 million copies worldwide. “So?” some of her fans might want to know. “What’s wrong with having an alter ego?” Well, nothing in particular. I’m known to a few people as, “Phil.” Whereas I got that identity by accident, she selected specifically her other self. As the paragraph below reveals, her choice was intentional; she associates herself with the author of a book on witchcraft.
The Book of Shadows, written by Sasha Fierce, is a collection of wiccan spells, pagan spells, black and white magic spells. The author of this book is a well-known Indian spiritualist healer. He had a lot of practice to use different spells for treatment with the help of spirits. Sasha Fierce is a great specialist in the study of the spirit world. In his book he has collected the most efficient and easy spells. In his Book of Shadows there are detailed descriptions of love spells, candle magic, earth magic, different rituals….
So, she did not make up the name but borrowed it from an already-existing source. And it says something about what she has become. She and husband Jay Z are infamous for a song she does called “Partition,” the subject of which is the two of them having sex in the back of a limousine. The MetroLyrics are nothing like those of “Time in a Bottle.”
But to return to husband Jay Z, he has a song called, “Dirt Off Your Shoulder,” that he did at a certain candidate’s rally about two weeks ago. Most of the words could not be printed, and the Metro-Lyrics below are highly offensive.
I probably owe it to y’all, proud to be locked by the force
Tryin’ to hustle some things that go with the Porsche
Feelin’ no remorse, feelin’ like my hand was forced
Middle finger to the Lord… (all quotes from Internet).
Seriously? This masquerades for entertainment these days? It’s bad enough that they write and perform these scummy words, but people pay for it?
At least one writer ties Beyoncé to Jezebel. Noting how that, as Sasha Fierce, she puts paint on her eyes and adorns her head, the writer compared what she does to the description in 2 Kings 9:30. Hmm. Maybe, but what would be the point? Jezebel was cast down from the window, trampled underfoot by horses, and eaten by dogs. Is that worth being very powerful and famous while alive?
And those who blaspheme God? Some of them have managed to stay around awhile. Ahab, in his wickedness, managed to reign 22 years, and Jezebel lasted about ten years longer. But they still paid a price for their insolence and rebellion against God. Ahab was even told by a prophet of God that he would be put to death if he went into battle, but since Micaiah always spoke evil of him, he paid no attention. He even had a great plan. He would go in disguise, and Jehoshaphat would wear kingly robes. It was a great plan, but born of human wisdom, it failed. Jehoshaphat nearly was killed due to his foolishness, but an archer shot an arrow “at random,” which proved that Ahab was not as invincible as he thought. He died.
Apparently, some athletes and entertainers feel the same way as they ride the crest of their popularity and believe their own press clippings. But God can humble anyone—any time He chooses to do so. When Pashhur, the chief governor in the house of the Lord, heard some of Jeremiah’s prophecies, he put him in the stocks. He released him the next day, but Jeremiah told him he would henceforth be called Magor-Missabib, “terror on every side.” The man who dared imprison God’s prophet and restrict his preaching would, along with his family, be taken to Babylon to die (Jer. 20:1-4).
When Micaiah prophesied of Ahab’s death, he was impiously struck by Zedekiah, a false prophet. Micaiah told him that he would one day be going into an inner chamber to hide (1 Kings 22:22-25). God does not always pay people back for their sins immediately, as He did with Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) or Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). He may grant 10 or 20 years before taking action. He may even wait until the Day of Judgment. But everyone will give an account for what they have never repented of (2 Cor. 5:10).
Jay Z and Beyoncé should not count on their popularity with their fans to shield them from the righteous judgment of God. They are vulgar and have no respect for either God or man. It would make most people extremely nervous to make an obscene gesture to God. Exactly who does he think he is? Can a mere mortal actually be so deluded as to think he has power over His Creator? Or that he will escape punishment? It would be hard to have a greater ego than that. In the final analysis, high exalted opinions of oneself will not avail; neither will flashing their illuminati symbols (such as the triangle) at awards’ ceremonies protect them. They should have learned from Jim Croce that it’s not wise to tug on Superman’s cape.
As if the devil needed any help, he now has at least one evangelistic disciple named Lilith Starr. If that is her real name, it would be an interesting irony. Lilith, according to some Jewish mythology was created attached to Adam’s side. God separated her, but she did not want to be his wife—being way too independent for something like that. Apparently, according to the myth, God created Eve as a replacement. The name Lucifer, which some mistake as a name for the devil, means “light bearer, morning star.” Is she a star like Lucifer? Further irony is that she is married to a man, whose surname is Black, and he introduced her to the Satanic Bible, written by Anton LaVey, which challenges the precepts of the Bible, including The Golden Rule.
Starr is the founder of the Satanic Temple in Seattle, and she is trying to counter Christianity by forming after school Satanic clubs. Her biography is called, The Happy Satanist. She has composed Seven Tenets by which to live, which are analyzed below.
First Tenet
“One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” It only took until the second word for her to blunder. Without God, there is no should; there is no ought. Perhaps Lilith thinks that no one will notice and just take her word for it, but why should one do anything? Such implies right and wrong—some kind of moral standard to which people ought to conform. If God exists and He sets moral standards, then should makes sense. But if God does not exist, then morality becomes purely subjective, and ought cannot thrive.
Is abortion, for example, right or wrong? If we read the Bible, then we know that the life in the womb is called by the same Greek word (brephos) as life out of the womb (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). But if we do not accept the Holy Scriptures and God does not exist, then we do not know if abortion is right or wrong. Some atheists oppose it for medical and scientific reasons; Christians oppose it for those plus Biblical reasons. However, other atheists accept the practice. No basis for morality or should exist apart from the Scriptures.
“Okay,” Lilith might answer, “so we just let people make up their own minds.” Should we hold the same view toward murder, or does that comprise a “should not” in the mind of Miss Starr? Shall we simply let everyone decide if he wants to murder others or not (without penalty)? What about child sacrifices? Suppose Baal worship were resuscitated—or that of other Old Testament deities worshiped in Canaan, Moab, and Ammon? Should adherents be allowed to sacrifice their children after they are born as the law now allows them to do so prior to birth? Miss Starr’s Seven Tenets offer no basis for should.
The rest of the first tenet is rather ambiguous; it mentions being empathetic towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” What does that mean? More importantly, where does Miss Starr think that we got reason? The animals do not possess it; they operate primarily on instincts. What distinguished man from animals is the ability to think, reason, and evaluate. He possesses those qualities because he was created in God’s image. How does Lilith account for logic?
Second Tenet
“The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.” God has written more on justice than anyone. He has also included the penalties for injustice. This tenet makes no mention of what “ought” to happen to those who violate it? Nothing? Is it just a suggestion then? Why “should” people observe it?
Third Tenet
“One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” Does that mean that if a person decides to destroy it, it is all right? It is interesting that Lilith Starr tried to kick the addiction of nitrous oxide for several years before succeeding. She apparently was tired of harming her body. Should people be allowed to use drugs which harm their bodies? Many in this day and age would probably say, “Yes, it’s nobody’s business.” But when innocent children are born with addictions, and family members must mourn the loss of someone killed by a drunk driver, it becomes society’s problem. This tenet would also seem to authorize abortion, the killing of a unique human being.
Fourth Tenet
“The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.” There’s that word should again. Why should people respect one single thing about a fellow human being? Everyone cannot be free in an urban society. Having to stop at red lights and observe speed limits encroaches on freedom. Some say, “Why should I have to temper my driving to suit others. I’ll go 60 in a 40-mile zone if I feel like it.” It is obvious some share this attitude by the way they drive. Does Miss Starr rejoice when someone zips around her, cutting her off? Does she happily say to herself, “I respect his freedom to offend me”? And if some dolt rear-ends her, will she congratulate him on his rudeness?
All members of society are poorer when everyone operates on the basis of selfishness. No world exists in which everyone gets to be as nasty as they are inclined to be. Jesus’ plea for meekness was uttered in a world where getting one’s way was already practiced.
Fifth Tenet
“Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.” That is precisely what evolution does. It ignores scientific evidence in order to establish a theory which has never been proven. That theory, by the way, is the one that implies a godless universe—one in which there is no sense of ought. If this existence is all there is, then what prevents anyone from trying to gain riches and power at the expense of others. The world has seen the results of such a philosophy in Adolph Hitler, as well as the philosophy of Japan prior to and during World War II. Is anyone taught any more about the rape of Nanking? Such atrocities exist because the God of the Bible, Who teaches love, kindness, and respect for others, is ignored.
Joseph Stalin did not believe in God. He also did not believe in should. He reportedly killed more than 20 million people. Apparently, he did not think he “should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.” He was, however, big on the freedom to offend.
Sixth Tenet
“People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.” People are fallible is probably the most truthful statement Lilith makes. Unfortunately, atheists have nothing to compel them to rectify anything. For them, no objective right or wrong exists. And jails and prisons are full of those who don’t care if they harm others and have no intention of rectifying anything. They steal, cause bodily harm, and even murder others. What Starr calls making a mistake is a lifestyle choice for some.
Seventh Tenet
“Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.” Starr is so naïve that she makes Pollyanna look like Black Bart. Why should anyone care a fig about inspiring nobility in others? Jesus and the apostles do if one carefully considers their teachings, but she has ruled them out. The people who most inspire others are the ones who live according to Christian principles—something she has ruled out.
All in all, what help do these seven tenets provide for others. They are the product of Starr’s mind. Robert Owen had his 12 jewels; how did those work out? How did the atheistic community of Liberal, Missouri pan out? When God and His objective morality are removed from human beings, no motivation for goodness exists, along with no penalty for badness. Her Seven Tenets can be reduced to: “It’s better to be nice on occasion than nasty. Give it a try.”
Starr’s Goals
Just because her Seven Tenets can be easily reduced to shambles does not mean that she is not in earnest. She says with a conviction that Christians ought to possess about the truth:
“But in reality we are a very serious religion, with our own shared narrative, culture and symbols, a code of ethics—our Seven Tenets—and worship in the form of activism” (Orlando Sentinel, October 20, 2016: A10).
She already has applied for chapters of her After School Satan Club in Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and others. If there is one thing that would help those towns to improve…. She desires a chapter in Salt Lake City. Really?
One sentence in the newspaper article states that: “Christians may have the force of heaven behind them, but the Satanists have the U.S. Supreme Court.” Unfortunately, the part about the Supreme Court is true. (Heaven has always been behind the righteous but does not prohibit the free will of evildoers. Just ask Abel. However, God will punish those who persecute Christians, along with all unbelievers, on His Day of Judgment.) In 2001 one court ruled that schools cannot discriminate against the kind of speech offered at afterschool clubs. The Supreme Court is not always known for its wisdom.
However, the Satanic Temple is not all bad. Their web site says they do not believe in a “personal Satan”—just one more thing about which they are wrong. They also claim not to advocate evil. Why not? Nothing is stopping them. Besides, how do we know they are telling the truth? Obviously, if they told the school, “We are going to advocate rebelling against teachers and boycotting homework,” they might be denied permission to meet. Can anyone honestly explain what motive a Satanist would have for telling the truth? Hmm.
Lilith Starr says that Satanism has made her happy— something apparently her English degree from Harvard failed to do. Her Master’s in Journalism from Stanford did not help, either. She admits that her battle with depression led to “eventually losing her marriage [the first one, GWS] her house, her job and her friends due to an addiction to nitrous oxide.” Now she is able to laugh without gaseous assistance.
Her club has 78 members, and she claims to be fighting against “the religious overreach that is just out of control right now across the nation.” Now, that is funny. Yes, young people are so enthusiastic about Jesus that drugs are no longer a problem, and gangs have all but disappeared. Not. What is she thinking? Does she really think that a Satanic alternative to God is going to raise the morality of the nation and make better young people? It is too bad that her time and energy could not be used in such a way that young people are motivated to do good in their respective communities.
Apparently, many people have been criticizing the Muslim religion for one of its verses in the Qur’an—the one that states: “O Believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you taketh them for his friends, he is surely one of them! God will not guide the evil doers” (Sura 5:56 in the translation by J.M. Rodwell). Therefore, a defense of these words has been given on www.alislam.org.
The main thesis is that these words were only valid during the lifetime of Muhammad. The first problem for the reader of the Qur’an would be, “Which parts are relevant only for the time of Muhammad, and which are always true?” For example, verse 40 of the same Sura commands: “As to the thief, whether man or woman, cut ye off their hands in recompense for their doings. This is a penalty by way of warning from God himself. And God is Mighty, Wise.” Was this punishment temporary, or was it to be followed for all time?
What about the other passages in the Qur’an that echo similar sentiments? Consider, for example, this one:
Let not believers take infidels for their friends rather than believers: whoso shall do this hath nothing to hope from God—unless, indeed, ye fear a fear from them: But God would have you beware of Himself ; for to God ye return. SAY: Whether ye hide what is in your breasts, or whether ye publish it abroad, God knoweth it : He knoweth what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; and over all things is God potent” (Sura 3:27).
The question to ask is: “Are Christians still defined as infidels, or did this classification change after Muhammad’s death?” It certainly seems that many Muslims feel hostility toward Christians. Many persistently shout, “Death to the Infidels!”—which brings about the last point with respect to this “change in meaning after Muhammad’s lifetime” doctrine: “How are Christians or Jews supposed to distinguish which Muslims believe this new doctrine of friendliness and which believe what Muhammad wrote in the Qur’an?” If Muslim men in Europe would gang up on isolated women to rape them, they would scarcely blush at lying about which kind of Muslim they are, would they? See the problem?
In the September Issue of Think is an unfortunate article by Keith Parker (one of the board members of the magazine) titled: “Fussing And Fighting Over Words.” Having thought about the contents of the brief message, it merits a refutation. The words recorded on page 14 are both unwise and misleading; furthermore, they ignore the context of the passage in 1 Timothy 6, as well as the overall context of the Scriptures. The entire issue devoted itself to promoting unity; this article attempts to uphold that theme, but it leads instead to disharmony.
Psalm 133:1 is the Scripture quoted at the outset, and it is followed by Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:20-23 and Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 1:10. These contain excellent truths on the importance of unity in which all Christians ought to be agreed. Then comes a one-sentence thesis: “One thing that often divides us is words, the proper or improper use of words.” So, what comes to the reader’s mind when digesting that thought?
Many will probably recall the way that false teachers change the definition of words to suit themselves and their doctrines. Grace, for example, has been redefined by some as excluding obedience, which was not the case in Genesis 6:8. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, but it included—not ignored—the concept of obedience: “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22; cf. 7:5; Titus 2:11-14).
Other words have likewise been mangled by some to support strange doctrines, but the article under review did not deal with any of those matters, which is strange since the author told us that he was writing about words that often divide us. He said he memorized 1 Timothy 6:4 years ago but for a long time had no idea what it meant. He still does not. While he made an effort to get to the meaning of the verse, he neglected to look at the verse in its context. Primarily, verse 3 has a profound influence over verse 4, both of which are cited below.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions.
Whatever the violation being discussed, it is serious and certainly not a minor disagreement. Furthermore, it cannot be saying that words and their meanings are not important. God changed the names of both Abram and Sarai for a significant reason. He changed Jacob’s name to Israel because it indicated a fundamental change in his character.
Balaam explained to a frustrated Balak that he could only speak the words that God put in his mouth. Words to the contrary God would not accept. The important doctrine of the Scriptures being inspired of God depends on the writers being given the right words and recording them faithfully. In fact, words are so important that Jesus said: “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:37).
The Meaning of 1 Timothy 6:3-5
So, whatever Paul means in 1 Timothy 6:4, he is not contradicting the fact that words are important and that it really doesn’t matter what we say. What, then, is Paul’s point in 1 Timothy 6:4? First of all, Paul is talking about false teachers, something that he began commenting on in 1 Timothy 1:5-6, and which he provided examples of in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. Now he again refers to those who do not teach wholesome (healthy) words—even the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Their message is especially offensive if they teach against that which is according to godliness. Verse 5 adds that their motivation is to make money with religion.
This shameful practice totally misrepresents the life and teachings of Jesus. This controversy should not be taken lightly; it is not inconsequential. Yet Parker boils it down to: “Don’t go around looking for a fight…especially over words.” This quaint notion does not begin to cover the thought of the text; it misrepresents it entirely. It makes it sound like a minor disagreement over word usage. What comes to mind is the quip by Groucho Marx that most people have probably heard: “Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I’ll never know.” Obviously, he should have said, “While wearing my pajamas last night, I shot an elephant. Below is Parker’s first example of the way we should not strive about words.
Sometime ago, a lady came into my office. She told me that one of our church members had tried to get her to “join the church.” I could have picked a fight with her. I could have said, “Lady, you don’t join the church, God adds you to the church.” I didn’t. I understood what she meant. “Added” or “joined”? No big deal. Both are okay. Read Acts 5:13-14.
It is sad to have to say how incredible shallow this line of reasoning is—especially for someone who seems to be a spiritual leader in the Lord’s church! The reader has probably already thought of the points about to be made, but here they are anyway.
1. Parker indicates how weak the congregation he is associated with is. How embarrassing that members do not themselves know the difference.
2. Would Parker argue that we should leave all people in ignorance? What did he further say to her? Did he tell her she could join the church by being baptized? How did this conversation end up, and why would anyone send someone on her way without knowing the truth?
3. No one intentionally picks a fight by giving a precise answer to a question. To inform someone of the truth ought not to make them angry.
4. He understood what she meant. Did he? Does he also understand what people mean when they mistakenly call a preacher a pastor? It is not a question of, “What do people mean?” It is a matter of, “What does God mean, and how did He choose to characterize it?’ For decades faithful preachers and brethren have been explaining the difference between the denominational concept of “joining the church” and the Bible concept of obeying the gospel, yet Parker just casually shrugs his shoulders and says, “No big deal.” He is the one creating disunity in this instance.
5. As it happens, most of us have read Acts 5:13-14. The word joined in verse 13 does not refer to obeying the gospel. It means that people did not want to be associated with them or become part of the group—which would have necessitated eventually becoming baptized. Verse 14 is a more direct reference to those who had obeyed. The Lord was still adding them to the body of Christ.
Parker goes on to imply that it does not matter whether we say born again or converted. No, it does not matter to us since we know what we are talking about, but we do not live in a vacuum. Does he not know what denominational people mean by the phrase? In fact, they often ask, “Are you a born again Christian?” Does he bother to explain to them that such a phrase is redundant? Or is that something else that is “no big deal”?
He goes on to advocate for the usage of the word communion. Yes, we know that we are communing with the body and blood of Jesus, and we know to what it refers. Does that mean it is all right, however, to mislead others who have a different concept entirely? He also points out the various terms by which the church is designated in the New Testament. Has anyone actually objected to Biblical terminology? We use those designations all the time, but if we have visitors, we will clarify what we mean. If Catholics came to visit and asked if we had a bishop, we might correctly say, “We have two or three,” but would we leave them in ignorance? The same thing would occur if a denominational person asked if we had a “pastor.” Do we really want to ignore how others use terminology? This is the point of the article. These different definitions are “no big deal.” If the thrust of this article is not to leave people in ignorance, what would it take to make that point? The way false teachers succeed is by changing the definitions of words.
Witnessing?
For years members of the church have been careful not to be tied to the denominational practice of “witnessing.” But for Parker this is just one more “no big deal.” He writes:
Does it really matter if a Christian refers to evangelism as “testifying” or “witnessing” or “soulwinning”?
Yes! One practice is Scriptural, and one is not. When denominations use witnessing and testifying, they mean that they should go forth and tell everyone else what God has done for them—all of which is subjective and incapable of being verified. What we mean by winning souls is that we present the gospel, which is objective and was verified in the first century with signs, wonders, and miracles. Is it not strange that such things must be pointed out to an alleged leader of God’s people? No wonder many do not know the difference anymore between the Lord’s church and manmade denominations. How can they not be confused when the definitions of key concepts become fuzzy and “no big deal”?
Scriptures cited to support the practice of “witnessing” are Acts 20:21 and Acts 26:22. Of course, Paul could testify and witness because he was an actual witness to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Cor. 15:8). He was doing no more than what Peter did on the day of Pentecost when he testified and exhorted the Jews to obey the gospel (Acts 2:40). Did Peter not first mention that he and the other apostles were witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:32)? Even if Paul and others did use the term witnessing as an equivalent of preaching (which has yet to be proven), his definition would still not have been the same as the way denominational people use the term today.
After Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and set things in order, he departed for a time from Jerusalem. Upon his return trip, he found several things that were wrong. One of them was that the Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. As a result, “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people” (Neh. 13:24). Will that not likely happen in the Lord’s church if we are not careful? Will not our children end up speaking some denominational language instead of labeling things accurately? Whatever happened to “calling Bible things by Bible names”?
Some may think this response is too harsh, but it does not even compare to what Nehemiah did: “So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair…” (Neh. 13:25). No, that won’t be happening, but brethren need to reject this Think article as one that is ill-advised and not one that promotes harmony within the body of Christ. Let us speak the way the Bible speaks and use the terminology the way God defined it. We must recognize that Satan has perverted much of God’s terminology.
An article on another subject inside examines 1 Timothy 6:3-5, in which it is shown that some unscrupulously use religion to make money off people. Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneychangers who were profiting from religion; some are still fleecing others today in the name of Jesus. In fact, one wonders if those who are selling cures and healings—for a price—actually believe in God at all. One such scoundrel was mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel as recently as September 24, 2016.
The person in question’s first name is (ironically) Christian—one thing he is definitely not. He once had a program on the Trinity Broadcast Network and was “pastor” of the Church of Victory in Longwood. He should have changed it to the Church of Shame, considering what he did, and now it is certainly the Church of the Defeated, since the entire ministry has closed down. It needed to end.
So, what was he charged with? He is accused of “running a gambling operation out of his garage and serving alcohol to two underage brothers, according to the arrest affidavit.” Was the evidence against him sufficient, or was it just the hearsay of these two brothers? It looks fairly convincing. Police have photographs and video footage in their possession. In the garage, there were
“obvious gaming tables” covered in cash and bottles of liquor “arrayed in a manner most commonly seen in commercial bars and lounges,” an Orlando Police Department detective wrote…. Besides depicting the tables, the photographs showed people holding cash… (B2).
The home where these things occurred is in a gated community. Nothing was mentioned in the article of a response from Christian. We do not know the backdrop of the events. How well did he know these boys? Were they members? Why did they take the pictures and go to the police? Presumably, that all might be shown later, but (unless the photos were falsified), the case looks damaging. Atheists must love situations like this. No one associated with Christ should be encouraging young people (or older folks) to sin. This very practice is denounced in the Scriptures. “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2).
“Hate? I thought Christians weren’t supposed to hate.” That may be a popular myth, but it does not square with the Bible. Brother Dub McClish mentioned this point in an October 23, 2016 bulletin article, but it deserves an expanded treatment. He brought up Psalm 97:10, which is a command: “You who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.”
We are so accustomed to hearing, “God is love” (which is true) that it sounds odd that God would tell us to hate anything, but it’s not just anything we are to hate—we must hate evil (Amos 5:15). Why? First of all, evil separated man from God, which is not good for any person. Second, God must punish evil, as He did the great wickedness in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:5). While it is true that God will forgive us our sins, it is also the case that we must repent and give them up. God cannot tolerate evil forever; so hell is a place created for those who love sin more than God Himself.
Evil occurs in many forms, and God’s people ought to despise every manifestation of it. David wrote: “I will set nothing wicked before my eyes; I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me” (Ps. 101:3). Those who fall away from God are a discouragement. How could they love the things of this world more than God? But some choose alcohol or some other drug over God. Maybe it’s the glorification of the flesh in immodest dress or in pornographic displays. Perhaps it is the pride that accompanies false doctrine. Whatever errors or immoralities a former believer chooses, we must declare hatred for that work.
Quite often, some brethren wonder why we emphasize false doctrine the way we do. The answer is found in Psalm 119:104. “Through your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.” It is through truth that we know God and please Him (John 8:31-32). Outside of truth stands error! Why don’t Christians often understand that point? It’s not that hard to comprehend. Believing error causes people to be lost! And that is just as true for Christians as unbelievers. Can we not all understand what Paul meant when he said, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men”? He had declared unto them the whole counsel of God so that they would know the truth and reject error (Acts 20:26-27). For that reason he also exhorted Timothy to take heed to himself and to his doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16; Rev. 2:15). What we believe saves us or condemns us.
For that reason we devoted our entire One Day Lectureship this year to current errors in the church (which will cause people to be lost). How many elders and preachers were concerned enough to come? Many brethren seem not to take the work of elders seriously when it comes to protecting the flock. They should be like the psalmist and hate every false way.
The writer considered this point important enough to repeat: “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Ps. 119:128). Solomon named some specifics, such as pride, arrogance, and a perverse mouth, but he also adds another reason why some may not hate as God does; they may simply not fear Him: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil…” (Pr. 8:13). The wise man links the two together. Do those who prefer to hear positive messages about love and self-esteem lack a fear of God? Why, then, do they not deal with those matters?
The Seven Things God Hates
These six things the Lord hates;
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look, A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
Solomon provides quite a list for all to consider. A proud look would be one that communicates to others, “You better not challenge me if you know what’s good for you.” Pride does far more damage to the one who possesses it than it does to others.
A lying tongue is almost common fare today, and most people even freely admit it. Obviously, the population does not take it nearly as seriously as God does. The psalmist says: “I hate and abhor lying, but I love Your law” (Ps. 119:163). John wrote that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). God hates dishonesty and will surely punish it.
Innocent blood probably denotes all who do not deserve to die. In other words, they were not put to death for any crime they committed. Like Naboth, whom Jezebel set up with false witnesses against him, some are not worthy of death. However, it is difficult to read this description without thinking of an abortion doctor employed by Planned Parenthood (or someone else), killing and removing an innocent life in the womb. It is hard to think of a more despicable person unless it would be those who finance them, such as various politicians. How could anyone conscientiously vote for a person who fits this category that God hates? Furthermore, that Planned Parenthood would harvest body parts from slain infants is unconscionable. These people should be jailed and tried—not given taxpayers’ dollars. One thing is certain—God shall deal with them as they deserve. Unfortunately, abortion has been a scourge upon America for more than 40 years, and we shall have to answer for it (Pr. 14:34). More than 60 million children have been put to death legally during this time. Not one has perished with God’s approval.
A heart that devises wicked plans recycles old plots and invents new ones. The history of the world is replete with examples of those who went forth to conquer—just for the sake of doing so. But individuals often try to get by with mischief in their personal lives as well. As Forensic Files illustrates, people plot murder all the time, thinking they will not be caught. However, God always knows, even if no court of law can prove it. Some cannot go to sleep at night unless they have devised some evil for the next day (Ps. 36:4).
Some develop evil plots; others use their feet to swiftly carry them out. They would not hasten to do something right. They would not use their feet to swiftly do a good deed for a neighbor, but they will joyously run to do mischief. What a sad set of priorities.
False witnesses were brought in to testify against the Lord. Not much tops that sin on the Scale of Despicability. They even knew that it would bring about His death, but they were so perverted that they did not
care. Sometimes women are brought in to testify against a man who could not possibly defend himself against charges of bad conduct that allegedly occurred 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Uncorroborated (and false) testimony nearly kept Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court. The woman who testified before a Senate committee described several unsavory actions—none of which could be proven or denied. The fact that she invited the alleged sexual pervert to speak at her college and even picked him up at the airport was irrelevant (somehow). A great man’s reputation was nearly destroyed. “Let not a slanderer be established in the earth…” (Ps. 140:11).
One who sows discord could be a whisperer and a talebearer, just as Iago was in Othello. Or he might be a false teacher, who certainly does separate brethren from the unity they once shared. In either case, it is a shame and a disgrace. Some seem to think that the church belongs to them instead of Christ, Who is the Head over the body. Once again, the fear of the Lord seems to be lacking.
Isaiah 61:8
God specifies some other bad behavior not included in the list just examined. Isaiah recorded His words: “For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery…” (61:8). Although robbery may not be a very high priority for police these days, nevertheless God hates it when someone takes what does not belong to him; it was part of His Ten commandments—right after the prohibitions against murder and adultery and right before warnings against bearing false witness and coveting.
God hates it when people steal the property of others. How many people today are defrauding the government, which means they are stealing from all taxpayers? Above all, God is not pleased when people rob Him (Mal. 3:8-10). People can rob God in the poor quality offerings they bring to Him; they can also rob Him of time in worship and in service.
Idolatry
God sent His prophets early each morning to tell the people: “Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!” (Jer. 44:4). What could that possibly be? The preceding verse spells it out. His people “went to burn incense and to serve other gods whom they did not know…” (v. 3). How ironic is it that Jehovah delivered them out of Egypt, but they worshiped and served other gods for hundreds of years! In doing so they provoked God to anger. He absolutely hated the abominations they committed, which included offering their children to false deities.
Hate Thy Neighbor?
How people treat others has always been of prime importance to God. Loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the second greatest commandment from the Law of Moses (Matt. 22:37-40); it appeared first in Leviticus 19:18. God expects His people to speak the truth to his neighbor, as well as execute proper judgment and justice (Zech. 8:16). He adds: “‘Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; and do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ says the Lord” (v. 17).
Perhaps another way of making this point is to say that God hates hypocrisy—whether it consists of phony devotion toward Him or whether a “follower” of His is acting hypocritically against a neighbor. When he mistreats others, he loves neither neighbor nor God.
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream (Amos 5:21-24).
What Some People Hate
A Christian will stand with God and hate the same things He does. They will hate evil in all its myriad expressions. People can tell a great deal about someone by observing what he loves. One can also discern much about someone by noticing what he hates. The ungodly hates the one who rebukes sin and abhors “the one who speaks uprightly” (Amos 5:10). Yes, they “hate good and love evil” (Micah 3:2). Did Jesus not affirm that the world hated Him because He testified that its works are evil (John 7:7)? Yes, people hate the light “because their deeds are evil” (John 3:19).
Would it be wise to make the statement: “I don’t hate anybody or anything”? No, we do not want to hate people
who have been duped by Satan, but we certainly must hate evil. Why is it that many are reluctant to speak out against wicked deeds? Is it political correctness? Or maybe they are fools—who hate knowledge.
Just released on October 21, 2016, is the prequel, Ouija: Origin of Evil. The trailer (available on the Internet) shows several horrific scenes of people being attacked and bad things happening. All the while the viewer hears a recording of Herman’s Hermits singing, “Something tells me I’m into something good.” How’s that for irony? In the movie a mother dupes clients by giving “readings” through the use of a Ouija board. It’s all a scam, but she uses her techniques to “help” people. Inevitably something goes haywire, and an evil spirit is unleashed who manages to kill almost everyone but the cameraman.
Usually, movies like this generate a surge of interest, especially among young people, to ask questions about, if not actually try out, the use of one of these mystical little products. Linda Rodriguez McRobbie’s article on Smithsonian.com explains that the origin of the practice originated with the popularity of Spiritualism and the Fox sisters, who in 1848 conducted séances and received answers to questions through rappings on the wall. Yes, it was a scam, but people were enthralled by the possibilities of the dead communicating with the living.
With short lifespans and many young people dying early, such attempts became popular. Even Mary Todd Lincoln conducted séances in the White House after her 11-year-old son died in 1862. Many others tried to contact their loved ones who died in the Civil War. By 1886, the Ouija board had come into existence. It was patented and distributed as a novelty item in early 1891. It consisted of the “talking” board, which has letters, numbers, and a planchette-like device to point to them. The word, Ouija is a combination of the French and German words for “yes.”
These devices surface from time to time in the movies, such as Thirteen Ghosts (1960), Tales from the Crypt (1972), Amityville 3-D (1983), Awakenings (1990), What Lies Beneath (2000), and a host of others, including Ouija (2014). According to the October 16, 2016 Parade Magazine: “Scientific studies have shown that the planchette [the heart-shaped piece of wood or plastic] is actually guided by unconscious muscular exertions of the players, not by ‘spirits.’” Isn’t that what most people instinctively knew all along? It is probably better if Christians ignore the nonsense altogether—especially for séance purposes, since God does not allow communication with the dead (Luke 16:19-25). Unlike the song cited earlier; nobody gets into something good when fooling around with a Ouija board.
