Your Best Life Now: A Review (Part 1)

Joel Osteen is one of the most well-known and popular religious personalities in the nation. In 2004, he wrote the book, Your Best Life Now, which was #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list. It remained on that list nearly four years and sold more than four million copies. Who knows how many people have read the words that he wrote? He is the latest successor to Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller. He appeals mostly to the power of “positive thinking.” What is dangerous about the book is that he mingles truth with error so that his teachings sound almost plausible and convincing—unless one looks a little deeper than the surface.

Well, okay, but did none of the other contestants envision themselves as winning? In fact, the following year after Osteen published this book, what if all the contestants read it and imagined themselves as winning? With only one young woman to crown, there must, of necessity, be 49 disappointed ladies who “conceived” of victory and “believed” she would have it—but lost anyway, which is one reason this type of psychology cannot always work.

Another example involves Roger Bannister, the first man to run the mile in less than 4 minutes, something that Osteen alleged that “experts” said could not be done. Why would they say that? If someone could run the mile in 4 minutes and 2 seconds, what is so hard about believing he could do it three seconds faster at some point? Nevertheless, Bannister was the first to set the record on May 6, 1954. He beat it by six-tenths of a second but had only trained minimally. That record lasted only 46 days before another runner broke it. The current leading time is far better than Bannister’s 3:59:54. Hitcham L. Guerrouj flew through the mile at 3:43:13—more than 16 seconds faster. Noah Ngeny is almost a half-second behind at 3:43:40.

Osteen tries to make a point regarding the original breaking of the record. Bannister believed he would do it, and he did. Okay, but then he added these words:

Within ten years after Roger Bannister broke that record, 336 other runners had broken the four-minute mile record as well! Think about that. For hundreds of years, as far back as statisticians kept track-and-field records nobody ran a mile in less than four minutes; then within a decade, more than three hundred people from various geographical regions were able to do it. What happened (29)?

His answer is (try not to laugh) that all the runners up until Bannister believed the experts! “They were convinced that it was impossible to run a mile in less than four minutes” (30). Right! So, how did that work? As they are coming down the backstretch, did they all experience a wave of defeatism and talk themselves out of breaking the record? If their efforts were of no use, what were they racing around the track for in the first place? Surely, no one seriously believes such a theory. Did Osteen ever think that running techniques improved—or training—or diet? Besides, some records stand more than 50 years once they are set. Everybody knows it is possible to achieve it, but no one beats it for decades. Positive thinking may be helpful, but it is not a panacea for attaining excellence.

Besides giving examples that people ought to be able to see through, Osteen will cite a Scripture. Unfortunately, he often twists it to mean what was never intended. Take, for example, the first one he mentions. He claims that God wants to pour out “His far and beyond favor” (5). The allusion is to Ephesians 2:7, which reads thus in the New King James: “that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace [far and beyond favor?] in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” The verse describes God’s grace extended toward all mankind with respect to salvation and the spiritual benefits we have in Christ. Whatever translation he is using remains a mystery, but once having mentioned the phrase, he will keep referring to God’s “far and beyond favor” as though the phrase had some sort of validity.

Another such example involves God saying: “Behold I am doing a new thing. Do you not perceive it?” (10). This reference is to Isaiah 43:19. In the remainder of the verse, God says: “I will even make a road in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” According to the Pulpit Commentary, Isaiah 43:19 refers to God leading His people back from captivity. The passage has an historical context, which Osteen ignores entirely. Here is his application: “God is ready to do new things in our lives” (10). He wonders if people are perceiving what God is individually and personally doing for them. In other words, are you making room for the possibilities God is setting before you in your own thinking? “It’s time to enlarge your vision.” None of these things relates to Isaiah 43:19. Osteen forsakes the context and just lifts out of it a phrase he likes.

He does the same thing again on the same page. He points out correctly that Christians do not need to depend on their own power and their own might. If he had referred to Ephesians 6:10 about being “strong in the Lord and in the power of His might,” he would have had a point—had he applied it to fighting the Lord’s spiritual battles. But instead he writes that God is telling us something similar to what he told the Virgin Mary—that the “power of the Most High God shall come upon you and cause it to happen.” Seriously?

When the power of the Most High came upon Mary, she conceived and bore Jesus, the Son of God. Does anyone besides Joel Osteen think that God is bringing that kind of power upon us? How can he even think of comparing the two? This is the result of reading pop psychology instead of studying the Scriptures. For someone to claim that kind of power, which resulted in the unique birth of the Son of God, not only suggests megalomania, but it borders on (if it has not snuck across the border) blasphemy.

Then Osteen tops this off with, “If you believe, then all things are possible” from Mark 9:23 (11). Once again, the author ignores the context of the passage in order to rip an idea from it—whether or not it is applicable—as a general operating principle of life, which it is not. In that marvelous event, a man came to Jesus, describing the condition of his son, who apparently had seizures. They brought him to Jesus, and the poor lad convulsed right in front of them. He asked the father how long this behavior had been occurring, and he answered, “From Childhood.” (v. 21).

The distraught father pleaded with Jesus, “But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us” (v. 22). It is at this point that Jesus tells Him that if he can believe, all things are possible. The man honestly cried out: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (v. 24), whereupon Jesus healed him. This problem had been lifelong. The father wanted to believe something could be done to help his son. He had certainly heard about Jesus. Did he dare believe that Jesus could heal such a persistent problem? Yes, God is great in His power. Honestly, he did have some doubts, however. He need not have worried. What an account of a great event, in which a man is strong enough to overcome reservations.

However, Jesus is not saying that whatever you conceive and believe will occur. He is not saying, for example, if a woman believes she can be Miss America, she will attain that achievement. God has no obligation to make that happen (especially when she wears immodest clothing). Nor is God necessarily going to arrange for a bank to grant someone a loan for a college education. No Scripture promises a happy marriage when someone has chosen a mate who is unreceptive to God (despite all the wisdom and warnings of friends). That is not to say that one’s personal circumstances might not undergo improvement (and with God’s help, depending on the person’s motive), but they are not what the passage refers to.

The graduating senior (on her way to pick up her high school yearbook) struck and killed by a truck was hopeful and ready to enter her future that for her came to an abrupt end. Nobody expects to be hit and killed by a drunk driver—especially in the afternoon. No one expects to be called down to the principal’s office for possessing marijuana in school—especially when the student suspected is not a user. (Someone planted it.) The point is that things occur despite any positive expectations we might have.

Once again, Osteen notices that Jesus says, “According to your faith…be it done to you” (14), which is part of a conversation Jesus had with two blind men when He healed them (Matt. 9:29). As with the man whose son suffered from epilepsy, what Jesus did constituted a miracle. This is not merely an example of conceiving and believing. Neither of these events involved being healed by doctors in the providence of time because of a positive outlook. How many are deceived into thinking they will have what they desire if they just believe they will receive it?

The author continues by referring to what Elijah told Elisha—that if he saw him ascend into heaven, he would receive a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Osteen’s conclusion is: “If you can see it, you can be it” (18). First, this was a specific promise to a specific person made on one occasion—not a general principle, such as a proverb would be. Second, Elisha did not visualize anything; he literally saw Elijah’s ascent. Yet Osteen immediately continues by talking about visualizing something—seeing it with your “spiritual eyes.” Elisha saw this occurrence with his physical eyes.

Another of Osteen’s favorite sayings is that “God will pay you back double for your trouble,” which is based on “a twofold recompense for our former shame” (31). Isaiah 61:7 states: “Instead of your shame you shall have double honor….” Does anyone want to know what the context of the statement is? This is another post-captivity passage, in which God promises His people that they will have double their former glory, as well as possessions. These words may also have a Messianic fulfillment, which is indicated by the first verse of Isaiah 61, which is quoted in Luke 4:18-19. If Osteen insists on stealing verses out of context, he ought to at least say that intense suffering and repentance must precede the wonderful blessings that come afterward. No, none of us will be holding our breath on that one.

Praying for Healing

Ask Amy is an advice column with which Spiritual Perspectives has taken issue (and rightly so) because the author of it frequently contradicts Biblical values. However, the March 6th column was intriguing—not so much for the advice but for the problem itself. A woman in her 30s was sitting outside at a café, drinking a cup of coffee. She was sitting in a wheelchair because of a congenital defect. A man at another table asked “Chairchick” (as she signed her letter) if he could pray for her. She shrugged and said, “Okay.” He then grabbed her hand and asked Jesus to heal her. Then he continued to explain to her how that she could be healed if she “accepted Jesus” into her heart.

Chairchick found his behavior a “tad presumptuous,” undoubtedly being a little sarcastic at such appalling nerve. The zealot who accosted her, however, probably meant well, but he has been woefully misguided by those who preach the “health and wealth” gospel, which is false. The adherents of this doctrine have never learned anything from the Book of Job. All health problems do not result from sin; only God knows if they should be cured—or when. The man who prayed for this woman assumed that sin was the cause for her being in a wheelchair.

“Yes, if you are poor or sick, it’s your own fault,” many have been taught to believe. “It’s God’s will that you be rich and healthy. Only Satan inflicts diseases on people; you must cast him out in order to be well.” Many people hear these inaccuracies week after week, and they believe them. However, such ideas fly in the face of reality. Plenty of wealthy people sin frequently. Many righteous people are afflicted. Have they never heard of Lazarus in Luke 16? With all the so-called “faith” healers in society today, one wonders why it is so difficult to get a room in a hospital at times.

Furthermore, where is the passage that sets forth the idea that “accepting Jesus into your heart” will cure anyone of all maladies? Is that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost? “Repent and be baptized for all your illnesses to go away” (Acts 2:38); is that what he said? Even Jesus never said, “If you accept Me into your heart, you can live pain free.” In the first century people were healed—not just for their own benefit—but so that the gospel message might be validated. Chairchick is not the type of individual to feel sorry for herself. She wrote: “I have a loving family, good friends and a rewarding career. The wheelchair is just transportation.” Now who has the healthier attitude toward life?

“I’m Not Here Telling People What They’re Doing Wrong.”

Does it really matter what the subject is when a leading religious figure makes a statement such as the one in the above title? After thinking about the meaning of that sentence, different words come to mind from the Scriptures. Jesus taught:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Jesus taught that there is a broad way that leads to destruction and a narrow way that leads to life. Is that where we want to leave this subject? Or do not people have the right to know what is wrong and what is right? Did Jesus not come into the world to tell people what was wrong? Was He not telling people what was wrong when He said the following things defile a man: “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:18-20)?

It was that same Jesus Who said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” seven times in Matthew 23 (13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). In each instance the Lord told them specifically what was wrong with their behavior. He also said they were fools and blind (sometimes blind guides) for behaving the way that they did (16, 17, 19, 24, 26). It’s almost as if Jesus came to tell people that what they were doing was wrong. John records these words of Jesus:

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (3:19-21).

Man’s deeds are evil, but we are not going to tell them what it is that they are doing wrong? What kind of attitude is this? Jesus further warned that all would perish unless they repented (Luke 13:3, 5). Repent of what? If no one explains what sin is and the need to repent of it, then how could anyone be saved? Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Matt. 18:11), but they cannot be saved unless they repent, and they cannot repent unless sin has been clearly defined for them. Somebody must be the harbinger of bad news in order for people to profit from the good news. John the baptizer did not mince words. He came, preaching this message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:2). And guess what? The response to this stern message was great! The people “were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:6).

Norman Vincent Peale published The Power of Positive Thinking in 1952, and the book had a tremendous impact in various religious circles. Another individual of this stripe was Robert Schuller, associated with the Crystal Cathedral and the Hour of Power television program for 40 years. He wrote a number of books on thinking positively. The new heir of this mentality is Joel Osteen. He is the author of the quote under discussion and is well-known in Houston and for writing books that spread this philosophy.

His comments were made specifically in connection with homosexuality. Several articles can be found on the Internet involving Osteen’s recent interview. Among other things, Osteen said these words to the Huffington Post:

It doesn’t matter who likes you or who doesn’t like you, all that matters is God likes you. He accepts you, He approves of you.

Is that right? No, such a statement is not even close to the truth. God loves all men and sent Jesus to die for their sins (John 3:16). His love is truly amazing in that it is extended even to those who are hostile to Him (Rom. 5:8). God “desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). None of these passages, however, teaches that God accepts or approves of anyone while they remain in their sins.

Osteen’s false ideology that God accepts and approves of sinners (including homosexuals) is what makes him so popular with people like Cher and Oprah Winfrey. Who doesn’t want to hear that you can have your cake and eat it, too? The message that God loves all people regardless of what they have done is powerful; to say that He accepts people in their sins is anti-Biblical and an attack against the atonement provided by Jesus Christ, Who died that we might be delivered from our sins—not abide in them.

When asked if Osteen’s philosophy included homosexuals, he answered, “Absolutely. I believe that God has breathed his life into every single person. We’re all on a journey. Nobody’s perfect.” What? God created Man in His own image, and he breathed the breath of life into Adam (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7). What is the intent of saying, “Nobody’s perfect”? The meaning is, again, that God accepts all of us as we are. Why doesn’t Osteen ever think of Scriptures? In this case, he might have thought of, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Osteen looks at man’s sinfulness, shrugs his shoulders, and says, “Nobody’s perfect.” God wants us to be cleansed of sin and go on to perfection (Heb. 6:1).

Osteen apparently knows that if he defined sin and encouraged people to repent of it, he would lose his vast audience. So he doesn’t want to say anything negative.

But I believe every person is made in the image of God, and you have accepted them as they are, on their journey. I’m not here to be preaching hate, pushing people down. I’m not here telling people what they’re doing wrong.

One wonders what people like Osteen think of when they sing the song, “Just As I Am.” Apparently, they think God approves of them just the way they are. Actually, the song does not mention repentance or even allude to it. It does recognize sin, however, and the need for Jesus to cleanse it. The words of verse 5 seem to teach salvation by “faith only.”

Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Why should God receive, welcome, pardon, cleanse, and relieve the sinner? Because the sinner believes His promise to do so. There is no sense of “Trust and Obey” here. The closest mention is in the first verse. He bids me come, and on that basis I come, but obedience is not otherwise mentioned anywhere in the song, nor is repentance. Certainly no mention is made of baptism. Billy Graham claims that he was “converted” when this song was sung at the conclusion of a revival in Charlotte, North Carolina. He then used the song in all of his “crusades” during the latter half of the 20th century. The song talks about our need of salvation—our need of forgiveness—but not a word is spoken concerning man’s need to repent; God accepts us just the way we are. What could fit Joel Osteen’s theology any better than that? He can always skip verse 2, which deals with sin—or say that God has accepted us in our sins, as cited above: “…you have to accept them as they are.”

Another justification for accepting homosexuality, which he has admitted is a sin, is that Osteen says: “The Bible said a sin is pride, a sin is selfish ambition. We tend to pick out these certain things.” Apparently, that comment means we shouldn’t select one sin to target when plenty of others are available to discuss. That complaint would be legitimate if preachers only selected one sin and neglected to mention all others. The Bible defines sin and lists many of them numerous times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:21-32; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, et al.). So, yes, it would be wrong to focus on just one, but who is doing that? Christians study the whole Bible, which has the proper emphasis. Osteen is the one who selectively cites verses of the Bible, ignoring most of those that deal with sin.

In his book, Your Best Life Now (2004), he mentions zero lists of sins and barely mentions the concept, period. One of his strongest statements is:

God does not always approve of our behavior. He is not pleased when we go against His will, and when we do, we always suffer the consequences and have to work with Him to correct our thoughts, words, actions, or attitudes (67).

Immediately afterward, however, he undermines what he just said by asserting that “nothing you do will ever cause God to love you less…or more. His love is a constant you can depend on” (68). If this statement were true, how could God condemn anyone to hell on the Day of Judgment? While God’s grace and love is unconditionally offered, they are appropriated on the basis of man’s response. God loved all of those who perished in the Flood and made salvation available to them, but they rejected it and perished. Osteen says that we must “correct our thoughts….” But then he says it doesn’t make any difference if we do. Well, then, why waste the effort?

Osteen later provides this scathing denunciation of sin: “We never have permission to live an ungodly life” (92). Whoa! Probably, everyone is trembling in his boots! So, we don’t have permission to live ungodly, but what is the penalty for doing so? God doesn’t love us any less, according to him. Osteen surely cannot be classified as a “hellfire and damnation” preacher.

The only reason for emphasizing a certain sin at a particular time is that it happens to be pertinent in society. When citizens realized the problems associated with alcohol, many spoke against it, which led to prohibition, which (despite problems associated with it) improved the quality of living for all. When Roe v. Wade was legislated from the bench, many preached lessons pertaining to the value of human life, including when life begins. Just because a great deal of attention was given to one of these sins did not mean that other sins, such as pride or selfish ambition, were ignored.

Likewise, the attention given to the sin of homosexuality has received a great amount of condemnation during the past 25 years because homosexuals established an agenda to get the “grievous sin” (Gen. 18:20) accepted into society. Their success has culminated in the acceptance of even homosexual “marriage,” which very well may hasten the destruction of this nation which was founded upon Biblical principles and which it has mostly abandoned.

All sin offends God and needs to be repented of; national sins such as idolatry (in Israel’s case), abortion, fornication, unscriptural divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality lead to the downfall of nations. Christians have lost all of these moral battles, but hey! we still have Joel Osteen to tell us how great we are and that God loves us no matter what.

Never Able to Come to the Knowledge of the Truth

In 2 Timothy 3:1, Paul warns of perilous times to come, after which he describes what ungodly men will be like. One of the last descriptions says that they “creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6-7). Are there individuals who really are that gullible and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? Yes!

While conducting our door-knocking campaign, one of the workers came across a Jehovah’s Witness named Diego. He was very pleasant at the first meeting, so much so that the worker even commented that he was “the kindest Jehovah’s Witness I have ever met.” However, when he and I made a return visit, the situation had changed—not that he was nasty, but he suddenly seemed to have no desire to continue the discussion. We asked him some questions anyway, but he kept repeating that he was learning and was not allowed to talk to anyone.

Imagine that! The Jehovah’s Witnesses did not want him talking to anyone until they had finished indoctrinating him. Where in the New Testament was anyone forbidden to talk to someone about the Scriptures? We suggested that he might ask his teacher to study with us. No, he was not willing to do that, either. I asked if he was familiar with the book that Jehovah’s Witnesses had used for decades when studying with people which is titled, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. He said, “Yes.” I asked if he knew that it contradicted the Scriptures. No, he did not and seemed quite surprised to learn that. I told him to look up what it taught about baptism and gave him a page number (from memory, which turned out to be wrong). We parted on good terms.

Two weeks went by, and we had not heard from Diego; so we called on him again. He did not look happy to see us. He kept repeating that he was not allowed to talk to us. He advised us to talk to the higher-ups in the organization, which we were willing to do. We asked him for a contact, but he told us, “I’m not going to provide that information.” We asked how he expected us to contact them. He did not know but said that we could find out on our own. We asked if he would pass some information on to them, and he refused. He made it clear that he would not read anything that we left, nor would he give it to anyone else. What is so ironic is that he is learning to be part of a group that goes door to door to talk to people! Yet he refused to talk to us and would not put us in touch with anyone from his organization, which was not only unreasonable but also hypocritical. Realizing that we would not be talking to Diego again, we tried to call his attention to some important facts.

I asked him to permit me to read something from The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1968:

We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.-John 8:32 (13).

“These words,” I told Diego, “we believe 100%. Truth has nothing to fear.” But he refused to budge. He was not allowed to talk to us, nor would he provide someone to study with us—even though their own book encourages that very course of action! He said the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer use that book. He also affirmed that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not debate. I asked, “Why not, if truth has nothing to fear.” The person who was with me said, “But you have debated,” and showed him the published debate. He waved it off and said they might have done so in the past, but they no longer did so.

I told him that I had previously given him the wrong page number regarding baptism and went to page 183 in their same book. On a piece of paper I had written down what Saul of Tarsus was told by Ananias: “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Then I showed him what their book said: “What then does Christian baptism signify? It is not a washing away of one’s sins, because cleansing from sin comes only through faith in Jesus Christ” (183). In other words, baptism

“washes away your sins” (Bible)

“is not a washing away of one’s sins” (their book).

Diego was not interested that what Watch Tower published directly contradicted the Scriptures. We asked if he was familiar with the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses—with the founder, Charles Taze Russell and his successor, Judge Rutherford. He was. We asked if he was familiar with the book written by Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die. He was not. We pointed out that it was written in 1920 and was supposed to be fulfilled in 1925. Now, 96 years after the book was written, there are not millions still living. We asked him if he knew what Moses wrote concerning someone who prophesied that something would come to pass but it did not. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, if what a prophet predicts in the name of the Lord does not come to pass, the Lord did not speak through him; he spoke presumptuously.

Diego (as well as other Jehovah’s Witnesses) do not want to “own” their history. They seek to separate themselves from Russell and Rutherford. But here is the real shocker. They do not even want to consider any of their past materials, period. Concerning The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, a book that Jehovah’s Witnesses both published (several hundred thousand copies) and taught people for decades, they refuse now to defend or to look at anything in it. Diego says, “We have learned more since then.” Really? We asked if that meant that all those who studied that book are lost. He would not answer the question except to repeat what he had already said. He also became hostile and told us not to come back.

What is essentially being argued is that people must disregard what they said yesterday because today they have learned more. How convenient! Nevertheless, the Mormons operate by this principle. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, marriage was clearly to be a monogamous institution. However, he soon desired more wives—so he had another revelation, and by the time he wrote Doctrines and Covenants, polygamy had become acceptable. Mormons practiced polygamy for several decades, but they were told emphatically that they would not be admitted to the union as long as that practice stood. So some Mormon “prophet” had a new revelation that made polygamy wrong again—even though the first two leaders of the Mormon Church both had multiple wives (Smith had more than 50, and Brigham Young had at least 27). (Utah became a state in 1896.) Now that homosexual “marriage” has been approved, who will forbid “throuple” relationships or polygamy. If that happens, how long will it be before another Mormon “prophet” has a new “revelation” okaying the practice once again?

In other words, what these groups believe only goes back to their most recent revelation or publication. One cannot see what they wrote 100 years ago because that is out of date. Fifty years ago does not matter, either. It will do no good to study what they wrote as recently as ten years ago because anything can be rescinded at any time, and then they will say, “Oh, you can’t look at materials from our past because we’ve learned more, and all of that is out of date.”

That sounds a little bit like Mac Deaver, who told brethren, “Unless you have my latest book, you don’t really understand what I believe.” But then he has written another one since he made that statement and is undoubtedly working on yet another sequel. God did not see fit to produce the Bible this way. Yes, He made one covenant with Israel through Moses, but He foretold that another prophet was coming with another covenant (Deut. 18:15-19; Jer. 31:31-34). When that second covenant was established through Jesus, it was not designed to be constantly changing. Rather, it was once for all revealed to the saints (Jude 3). God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Had God not said, “This is the truth,” we would be wondering from day to day where we stood. And that is where Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and Catholics are because they are subject to be told any particular thing at any time. Catholic teaching has changed since the day in which they sold relics and indulgences. If the pope said tomorrow that abortion was all right, what would they do? Does anyone know their current doctrine towards homosexuality? Is the practice right or wrong, according to their latest teaching?

What will most Mormons do if the head of their church says that polygamous marriages are accepted once again? Will they protest the change or practice it? And what about Jehovah’s Witnesses? They seem willing to give up the teachings of Russell, their founder, along with Judge Rutherford. According to Diego, they will not endorse their own published book that they used in studying with people for years. Was it wrong? Can they point out why they no longer use it? And what has happened to those who were taught that doctrine all those years? Are they lost? If they are, how do we know people will not be condemned by studying what they are currently using—because in five years it may become obsolete, condemned, and tossed on the rubbish heap? In other words, why should anyone trust them enough to study with them, period?

We would not settle for this chicanery in any other field. What would we think if a teacher said, “Last year addition and subtraction worked, but we have learned more since then,” and then proposed something entirely different? What if a science teacher said, “The conversion formulas from Farenheit to Celsius and vice versa don’t work this year”? What if traffic laws changed and now blue meant stop and pink go. We have enough trouble getting people to cooperate in stopping on red now, let alone trying to break in new colors.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). His Word remains valid, and it shall never pass away (Matt. 24:35). The fundamentals of salvation have not changed since revealed in the first century. Sure, we may obtain a deeper understanding of the Scriptures as we read, study, and grow. But we do not find contradictions in the Word. We have never had to tell anyone, “Oh, we no longer believe what we did last week concerning salvation.”

It is sad that anyone would be part of a religious group that is always standing on the verge of change—who admit that all of the doctrine that they believe in today may suddenly change and be different tomorrow. Yes, they are unstable, always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Especially must that be the case if truth changes with the pages of the calendar. How could anyone fall for this kind of nonsense? No wonder Paul describes those who are willing to trust their souls to such charlatans as gullible!

Fornication, Greed, and Lying

On February 4th, 2016 (just ten days before Valentine’s Day) the Orlando Sentinel published a local story that claimed in the title: “Ex-Lovers Differ on Lottery Ticket Promise” (B2). Lynn, a retired school teacher from Seminole County, won a million bucks in the Florida State Lottery. Happiness did not ensue. Her former “live-in lover,” Howard, had filed suit to collect his half because she refused to give it to him though, according to him, if either of them ever won, they had a longstanding agreement to share in the reward. He lamented that this “dispute had wrecked their 16-year romance.”

Really? Is that what we’re calling 16 years of fornication–a romance? The dictionary lists a multitude of definitions for romance, including “a love affair” and “a strong, usually short-lived attachment or enthusiasm.” Sixteen years seems a bit long to qualify as a romance. Howard and Lynn also disagree as to how long they were together. She aid the relationship terminated four years earlier than he did. And Lynn told the jury that she “never, under any condition, any place, anywhere” ever promised to share half of any prospective winnings with Howard. So, who is the jury supposed to believe? They did live together and were renovating a farm house that belonged to Lynn. Both are now 62 and still not married to each other or anyone else.

As one might imagine, there are two different versions regarding the winning ticket. Howard says they ate dinner at Red Lobster and stopped at a convenience store later, where he spent $20 on lottery tickets, which she kept. Lynn says she had dinner alone at Sonny’s BBQ and stopped at a convenience store on the way home to her mother’s. She said she ran into him by chance there–after she had paid for her own lottery tickets. However, there is a third version. She listed a different convenience store in the deposition. So, who is correct? Was it a 12-year “romance” or one that had lasted 16 years? Were they together as a couple when the ticket was purchased, or just together by accident?

The jury believed him and awarded him $291,000. No one knows if Lynn has any of the money left, and she left the court house without comment. Howard said their relationship changed immediately after the winning lottery ticket was announced. He said that she cashed out and then disappeared for a month. She refused to answer any of his phone calls. Why should he be surprised? First, they both ignored God’s institution of marriage for 12 or 16 years, depending upon whose version of the story one believes. Second they both had a covetous streak–wanting to get rich off someone else’s money. Is anyone surprised that one or both of them would lie? The willingness to disobey one or two of God’s precepts sets the stage for denying all of them.

Have Brethren Grown Lazy?

Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus to two preachers. For a long time many scholars have referred to these letters as the “pastoral epistles,” which is weird, since Timothy and Titus were evangelists—not pastors. And though they contain the qualifications for pastors (elders or bishops), they are not addressed to those men. They are full of advice to men who preach the gospel. It would be more appropriate to refer to the letters as the Epistles to Evangelists.

This article, however, will discuss one of the qualifications given for a man to be an overseer / pastor / elder. He must be able to “hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). This is actually an obligation that all Christians have—to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

These admonitions to all members and especially for the shepherds of the flock must be taken to heart. Paul warned the elders / overseers / shepherds that after his departure “savage wolves” would come in among them—not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). If the wolves howled in the first century while apostles like Paul were still around, how is it that so many elderships today are clearly blasé about their being any dangers?

Recently a missionary that this congregation supported for a number of years announced that he was going to be “partnering” with a particular “school.” I thought he would be interested in knowing that this particular institution had some problems. I wrote, providing proof of four areas in which they were far afield from the Scriptures. He did not write back, thanking me for the information. He did not ask any questions for clarification concerning the matter. He did not express any concern about the issues that were raised. He ignored everything and merely thanked us for our previous support. It was as if Acts 20:29, 2 John 9-11, and Jude 3 did not exist.

His overseeing congregation continued to write, saying that they hoped they could count on our support for 2016; so I sent them the same information, and they answered in precisely the same way. They sent a note on official letterhead thanking us for our past support while ignoring the problems of the school in question. How is that possible? The information sent to them was brief; so they did not need to wade through pages of material. None of it was speculation or hearsay; it was documented. Nevertheless, they chose to disregard it. Is it any wonder the wolves are being invited to hold gospel meetings, appear on various lectureships, and have their books and various materials promoted? Where is the vigilance that once existed?

Some in the first century needed to be taught sound doctrine because they were insubordinate, idle talkers, and deceivers—especially those of the circumcision (Titus 1:10). Paul declares that their mouths needed to be stopped. Would anyone get excited about this problem today? They should because these men were subverting whole households, teaching things which ought not to have been taught, and they were doing it for the sake of dishonest gain (Titus 1:11). This is what happens to congregations—sometimes in the absence of elders—but today even in their presence (if they remain silent). God gave shepherds for a reason—to keep the wolves away.

One of the prophets belonging to the wolf faction declared, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). Anyone reading this verse for the first time may be thinking that Paul is going to say that generalizations such as this one should not be made, but no. Surprisingly, he comments: “This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).

So what is the explanation for our current flirtation with those of the lupus persuasion (lupus is the Latin word for “wolf”)? Apparently, some who were once sound in the faith have taken on the personality of the Cretans—at least part of it. Many have proven themselves to be lazy. Someone may protest that such a description seems rather harsh. Okay, is there a better word to describe brethren when they refuse to check on certain men? Sometimes, congregations who are challenged for whom they invite to speak respond by saying, “You’re the only one who has registered a complaint.”

That is a form of the logical fallacy known as ad populum, which means that if someone or something is popular, that settles the issue. In this approach, the merits of the case are not considered because everyone agrees or disagrees. Most everyone agreed that Jesus should be crucified. Did that justify what was done? Of course not. The fact that only one individual may question a speaker is irrelevant. The major concern should be, “Does the objection have validity?”

Furthermore, the majority is not always right, as per the above example, as well as other important considerations. Most people reject God’s grace, as well as the salvation that accompanies it (Titus 2:11) and will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14; John 1:10-11). The majority is not a safe guide; the question ought always to be, “What are the facts? What is the truth?” The majority accepts what is popular and current—often without even a cursory examination. Those who are saved have investigated and discovered the truth. So why are not brethren applying this principle to fellowship?

When Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show, he would make a statement, such as, “It was so hot in Los Angeles today,” whereupon Ed McMahon (and sometimes the audience would join in) asked, “How hot was it?” Then would come the punchline, “It was so hot that the birds were using potholders to take worms from the ground.” Although the answers are spread out throughout the book of Proverbs, it is almost as if Solomon made the statement, “I saw a man so lazy today.” “How lazy was he?” people want to know. And according to this format, Solomon answers, “I’ll tell you how lazy he was.” He was so lazy that:

1. He did not want to get up out of bed. His favorite saying is, “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep” (Pr. 6:9-11).

2. He refused to go outside—for safety’s sake. “The slothful man says, ‘There is a lion in the road! A fierce lion is in the streets!’” (Pr. 26:13).

3. He would not work or plow. “The sluggard will not plow because of winter; therefore he will beg during the harvest and have nothing” (Pr. 20:4).

4. He did not take care of his property (Pr. 24:30-34).

5. He would not work. “The desire of the slothful kills him, for his hands refuse to labor” (Pr. 21: 25).

6. He could not do any assigned job well. “As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him” (Pr. 10:26).

7. He would not even go out and hunt for food because of the possibility of being slain (Pr. 22: 13).

8. He refused to prepare food to eat. “The slothful man does not roast what he took in hunting, but diligence is man’s precious possession” (Pr. 12:27).

9. Once the food was prepared, he could not even complete the action of eating! “A slothful man buries his hand in the bowl, and will not so much as bring it to his mouth again” (Pr. 19:24).

10. He could only dream of possessing what honest toil would provide. As close to success as this idle soul ever gets is to imagine what it would be like. “The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be made rich” (Pr. 13:4).

No one would want to be in the position of relying upon the lazy man. And while the extent of his slothfulness may provoke laughter at times, his way of life is not funny at all. In fact, he is a dangerous man, when consideration is given to the sins that are associated with him. Consider the following list that the Scriptures provide in order to reveal his true character. Think of these in connection with lazy elders.

1. Laziness is associated with being an excuse maker. If the streets are free from lions, some other problem will arise (Matt. 25:24-25). One can almost hear some elders saying, “We don’t have time to listen to everyone who has an objection to another brother or a particular program that we support.” Really? Why do some take the time to alert other brethren concerning such matters—because they don’t have anything else to do? Why did Jesus warn of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:12)? Why did Paul warn of savage wolves and point out some false teachers by name (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18)? Why did Peter give a lengthy description of certain false teachers in 2 Peter 2—because he didn’t have anything else to write about?

2. Laziness brings shame upon others. As a son, he is an embarrassment. “He who gathers in the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame” (Pr. 10:5). Does it glorify God or bring shame to Jesus to ignore warnings against false teachers?

3. Laziness is associated more with talking, not doing: “In all labor there is profit, but idle chatter leads only to poverty” (Pr. 14:23). Believe it or not, some preachers and elderships talk conservative and mouth sentiments about “standing for the truth,” but they are too lazy to practice it.

4. Laziness exercises a bad influence on others. “The way of a slothful man is like a hedge of thorns, but the way of the upright is a highway” (Pr. 15:19). Because some elderships do not consider carefully whom they invite, they allow some to exercise a bad influence on the congregation.

5. Laziness is associated with being a destroyer. “He who is slothful in his work is a brother to him who is a great destroyer” (Pr. 18:9). Yes, without checking after being warned, slothful elders risk the destruction of the flock, which means that some brethren will lose their souls.

There once was an eldership that was so lazy? “How lazy were they?” They were so lazy that:

1. They did not read or study the Scriptures sufficiently to be equipped to deal with those unsound in the faith, which is a fundamental qualification (Titus 1:9).

2. They did not apply the Scriptures they do know to follow Paul’s warning (Acts 20:29).

3. They refused to investigate alleged false teachers or ask other elders to find out the truth of the matter.

4. They neglected to hold men accountable for what they taught and whom they fellowshipped.

5. They are brothers of the destroyer (Ezek. 34:1-10).

Balancing Truth and Unity

A few centuries ago, some began to notice the dis-unity of denominationalism and the confusion that it caused; they realized that this situation was not the way God desired it to be. Some suggested restoration—that Christians ought to forsake the division that had taken centuries to develop and simply try to abide by what the Scriptures taught. If what was written in the New Testament could be respected again the way it was in the first century, surely God would be pleased. Truth in religion needed to be restored.

Accompanying this idea were two concepts necessary to bring it about—truth and unity. First, what did the Scriptures actually teach? Human traditions that had developed over the centuries would have to fall by the wayside in order for the truth to shine forth. Also, separate, conflicting religious groups would need to become a thing of the past as everyone sought to be united in Christ. Jesus Himself had warned that division would be a discouragement to those who might otherwise have believed in Him (John 17:20-21).

And so the process began with the best of motives, and it still continues, but it has enjoyed only limited success. In fact, more division exists today than when many first decided it was time for Christians to unite together. What went wrong? The concise answer is that Satan is still deceiving people. As optimistic as we all might desire to be, unity based on truth will never happen again in this world. Does this seem like a bold claim? Not even a little fear of successful contradiction exists. The longer explanation for disharmony among believers is that probably most were under the impression that, once the truth was known, everyone would be interested in abiding by it.

And doesn’t that seem reasonable? If you, as an individual, are concerned about truth, wouldn’t you assume that everyone else is, also? Did not Solomon command, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Pr. 23: 23)? Didn’t Jesus say that we could know the truth and that the truth would make us free (John 8:31-32)? In fact, won’t all who fail to have “a love of the truth” be destroyed (2 Thess. 2:10)? Yes! So, naturally one would assume that all are vitally interested in pursuing the truth.

The truth is, however, that such an assumption is faulty. It might be true if all people were sincere and genuinely wanted to seek God. Ironically, the fact that men love darkness more than the light is also true of some professing to be Christians—although it sounds contradictory (John 3:19-21). People have various reasons for becoming Christians—not all of them are noble. Why did Judas accept the call to be an apostle? Was he just curious? Or was he hoping all along to profit materially? We don’t know if he was sincere at first but later lost his enthusiasm—or what. We only know the tragic results.

Likewise, did Ananias and Sapphira always have a problem with wanting to be exalted? Or did they become envious and succumb to temptation later? How about Simon the sorcerer, who suffered from the same problem? Only God knows the answer to the motivations of each of these, but it certainly could be the case that they never had honorable motives.

It is obvious that some not being interested in truth goes all the way back to the first family. Although Eve carelessly disregarded truth in the first temptation, it was Cain who rejected it as a way of life. He did not care about offering God what He had asked for—a blood offering. Instead, he gave God what was significant to himself, which was rejected. Then he got angry with his brother for doing what God said. This remains a pattern of persecution today. People still become angry with those who are abiding by what God revealed in the Scriptures. Just point out that some aspect of worship is not authorized by the Bible and see how fast some can become irate.

Balaam proved to be more interested in money than the Word of the Lord, which he faithfully spoke. He knew better than to alter God’s prophecies by cursing Israel, but he found a way to get Israel cursed. Upon his advice, the Moabite women enticed the Israelite men, and God destroyed more than 20,000 of them. Balaam earned his reward, all right, although he did not live long enough to enjoy it.

Would anyone argue that Jezebel was interested in the truth—ever? How about the people of Jeremiah’s day who rejected message after message that was inspired of God? Well, surely, these are extreme examples. Not everyone is like them. No, but many do not care what the Bible says; they will ignore it whenever they choose to do so. On Pentecost, Peter preached a compelling sermon, and three thousand obeyed the gospel and were baptized, but how many of those present did not? When Paul reasoned with the philosophers on Mars Hill, how many responded positively? When Paul preached to the zealous Jews in Jerusalem, how many did not try to kill him?

It is abundantly clear that the majority of people neither know nor care about truth (Matt. 7:13-14). We are wrong to assume that they do. But even among those who become Christians, Jude found it necessary to exhort them to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Some would not stand for it, and some would depart from it. We are wrong to assume that all Christians are interested in the truth, also. In an ideal world (where sin did not dominate), our assumptions about others would be correct. But the reality is that on earth not everyone is nearly as excited about truth as we are.

Only two types of unity are possible: 1) unity based on truth; 2) unity that ignores truth. Jesus earnestly prayed for His disciples to be one, but prior to that He prayed for God to sanctify them through His truth, adding that His Word is truth (John 17:17). A mathematical illustration can make the point. If all the students of an elementary class know that 2 + 2 = 4, the whole class has unity which is based on the truth. In fact, if one student, on a quiz, were to write down that 2 + 2 = 3, it would be marked wrong, and the whole class would agree (including the careless tot whose answer was incorrect) because they all know the truth. The other kind of unity is that when a child writes down that 2 + 2 = 5, the teacher says that, if that was a meaningful answer to him, it should be accepted because everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. This kind of unity just ignores the facts.

Is it possible for people to have spiritual unity, for example, when some of them believe that human beings have free will, but others believe that God predestines everyone’s “choices”? No, because these two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other. One of them is true, and the other is false. The only way to achieve unity between adherents of both positions would be to ignore truth. And what kind of unity is that? It is based on a blasé, indifferent attitude.

Consider baptism. Some say that baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation—that we are saved by “faith only.” Others argue that baptism is part of God’s plan of salvation. Both cannot be true. Two conflicting statements in which identical meanings are being used for the main concepts cannot both be right at the same time. The number 3, for example, refers to precisely three items. It cannot refer to four such items without contradicting the definition of 3. Baptism cannot both be required for salvation and not be required for salvation at one and the same time. Those who believe baptism is irrelevant with respect to salvation cannot fellowship those who teach it is a requirement, and vice versa. To attempt fellowship in this instance would be to try to achieve it—not on the basis of truth—but by ignoring truth. Surely one of the two philosophies is true, since they are diametrically opposed, but the two perspectives cannot both be correct.

So at this juncture, the two concepts of truth and unity come into conflict. As those who are interested in fellowshipping all who profess to be Christians, we would like to embrace those of the “faith only” camp, but truth forbids us from doing so. The Bible does not teach “faith only.” Repentance (Luke 13:3) and baptism are also required (Acts 2:38). As for baptism having nothing to do with salvation, is it possible that some have never read 1 Peter 3:21? “There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism (the antitype) now saves us. How dare anyone say baptism cannot save?

Some vainly attempt to argue that this is Holy Spirit baptism. First, baptism in the Holy Spirit was a promise—not a command. Second, that water was involved in it is obvious by the fact that Peter felt compelled to explain that sin (spiritual transgression) was not removed by a physical washing. No one would need to issue this explanation because there would never be any confusion unless water was involved. The church is sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Since baptism in water saves us, how can Christian fellowship be extended to those who deny this very fundamental point?

Do we want unity among all those who claim to follow Christ? Yes! Can we have unity with those who contradict the Scriptures? No. Although truth and unity are both desirable, holding to the former will cause us to prohibit the latter. This division cannot be considered a weakness on our part. God desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus, however, said clearly that the majority of people are going to be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Why? God wants all people on earth to fellowship Him, but many will not follow the path of truth that leads to Him. They behave like Cain or Jezebel, or Simon the sorcerer. They choose to walk in darkness instead of light. The fact that many of these think that God will save them anyway does not alter the truth that they shall be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 21:8). God desires all to be saved, but He will not fellowship or have unity with those who prefer darkness.

Another example concerns those who have been taught that sprinkling and pouring constitute baptism. Is there some evidence that, when the New Testament uses the word baptism, it refers to sprinkling water or pouring water on someone? No. The very word itself means “to dip” or “to plunge.” John immersed people for the remission of their sins. He didn’t sprinkle or pour water upon them. Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). Baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-5).

Suppose someone, therefore, who has been sprinkled comes to us and claims to be a Christian; can we have unity? How can he be accepted as a Christian when he has never been baptized (immersed) for the forgiveness of his sins? He thinks he is saved, and we would like to have unity with him, but we cannot because sins are not cleansed by sprinkling or pouring water on someone. Baptizing in the way described in the Scriptures is the only way a person can have his sins removed. God never authorized any other way for it to be done. If people were saved through sprinkling, they would be saved by error and a disregard of the truth, which can never happen.

The Scriptures teach that truth and unity (which we all want) are connected. Unity can only exist if we all regard truth—or we all ignore it. The first option is Biblical; the second is Satanic. The devil is happy when people disregard truth. Jesus came to set people free from sin, which is achieved only through obedience to the truth. No substitute for truth can avail.

“The Ayatollah of Alabama”

The term Ayatollah is a loathsome word to most Americans. Older citizens probably think immediately of the Ayatollah Khomeini who became notorious for being Iran’s supreme leader after overthrowing the Shah. He supported those who took Americans hostage in Iran and issued a fatwa for the death of Salman Rushdie for his publication of The Satanic Verses, thus showing zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with or criticizes the Muslim religion. Even former pop star turned Muslim, Cat Stevens, who had once encouraged everyone to jump on the “Peace Train,” would not be critical of Khomeini’s intention that Rushdie be killed. Khomeini also referred to the United States as “the Great Satan.”

Therefore, to accuse someone of being an Ayatollah is not a kindly remark when it was given to Judge Roy Moore by a “civil rights” group. According to the Orlando Sentinel of January 17, 2016, Moore has received a great deal of unfavorable publicity, even though he is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (A16). He has been excoriated by the daughter of former Alabama governor George Wallace as being “more combative” than her father. She claimed he was worse than her father who opposed efforts to desegregate because a judge must be held to a higher code of ethics.

“He believes he is a law unto himself,” opined Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. What could the judge have done to have so much abuse heaped upon him? He is opposed to homosexual marriage. And he argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision only applied to the four states involved in the case; Alabama was not one of those. He claims that he is not defying the Supreme Court, but that a legal precedent in Alabama was not overturned by the Supreme Court. Previously, in 2000, Moore installed a 2 ½ ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments. He did defy at the time a federal order to remove it. (Was there a federal order to remove the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building?) He was then removed from office but then won election as Chief Justice in 2012.

He has been criticized for saying that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Perhaps those who disagree with this definition could tell us what standards they are using; the judge is using God’s (Gen. 18:20; Lev. 20:13; Jude 6). He also said that same sex marriage would prove to be “the ultimate destruction of our country because it destroys the very foundation upon which this nation is based.” Time will tell.

Loving the Church

Peter, an apostle of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not only preached the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost; he also wrote letters to brethren, one of which contains the words, Love the brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17), which is the equivalent of loving the church, the body of Christ. Of course, Jesus taught about love—both for God and one another (Matt. 22:37-40). He even talked about loving one’s enemies, which was something we seldom hear much of even now (Matt. 5:43-48). But Peter spelled out the relationship Christians ought to have with one another—Love the brotherhood.

But what does that mean? First of all, Christians ought to love the church as a whole because Jesus did. He “loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). He also nourishes and cherishes His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:29). Is the church as dear to us as it is to Him? “Of course,” we answer, but it is easy to love the church in the abstract. Do we love her as much when we realize that individual Christians make up that redeemed body? Was there some sort of animosity between brethren when John wrote his first epistle? Consider these words:

He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes (1 John 2:9-11).

Why did John feel the need to express that idea? Was it just a reminder, or did churches have problems with each other? Shortly after these words were written, John called attention to the three main types of sin—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (15-17). Could pride have had something to do with having an unfavorable outlook on one’s brother? John furnishes a good example of a bad outlook in the next chapter.

For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. (3:11-12).

To be sure, jealousy has at times existed within the church. Within a congregation, friction has arisen on the part of one or two elders against the others as they vie for “control.” Or perhaps the “contest” occurred between the elders and the preacher—or the deacons and the elders. Certainly, occasions will arise when an honest disagreement exists between earnest brethren. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking of brethren as enemies. Of course, if there is a Diotrephes, as John later addresses (3 John), such a man must be dealt with by the elders—even if (and especially if) he is himself one of the elders.

But sometimes rivalry may exist between preachers or elders in different congregations. Arguments over personalities and methods (provided that they are Scriptural) should fall by the wayside. Of course, if a man’s teaching were seriously flawed doctrinally, he would need to be challenged by all. Some have refused to take a stand in clear-cut instances—to the harm and detriment of the church. Loving the brotherhood not only means that we should be patient and tolerant toward one another, but genuine error must be stopped (Titus 1:9-11). We do not love the church if error is allowed to have free reign, thus subverting the truth. Those who have publicly taught error must humble themselves and repent of it. But John has more to say on the subject of brotherly relationships.

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:14-16).

Not only must Christians refrain from hating their brethren, they must be willing to lay down their lives for them. Whoa! That’s asking a lot. Yes, but our brothers are to be held in high esteem. “Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another” (Rom. 12:10). Do we view our brothers and sisters the way Jesus viewed us—in that He was willing to lay down His life for us? Or do we instead view ourselves as worthy but other Christians as less so? In 1 John 3:23, the apostle encourages us to continue to believe in Jesus—and love one another. But he is not done with the subject yet.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).

The ability to love our brethren is tied to the new birth. Have we truly been born spiritually, or have we retained worldly attitudes and prejudices? John himself had transformed from being a son of Thunder.

Saying something one time is usually sufficient to make a point—especially in a letter, which people can reread as often as they like. So why does John keep returning to this subject? It is not that he desires to be “soft” on those who teach error. He wrote in 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” We can only conclude that deep-seated problems of some nature were affecting the church. Once more he addresses the issue:

If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also (4:20-21).

For whatever reason, John has emphasized this subject greatly. Perhaps Christians need to be reminded of the command to love one another—as Christ has loved us (John 13:34-35; 15:12-13). But again, why?

The reason that conflicts may occur is that all Christians are at different stages of development. As soon as one is baptized, he does not come forth as a mature spiritual person, although he has that as his goal. He comes forth as a babe in Christ, having just been born again (John 3:5; Rom. 6:3-5). So in any congregation one will find brethren at different levels of Christian maturity. Some may be more easily offended, and some may not have yet learned to have a high regard for others. Some may not have moved very far from worldly practices. Some, like the Corinthians, may yet be guilty of thinking carnally.

Sin cannot be ignored, but in correcting some brethren, gentleness, patience, and kindness is needed. Jesus trained twelve men to be apostles. One of them eventually betrayed him. Whatever Judas’ motives were, everyone can agree that he was not thinking properly. Why had he not advanced beyond just thinking about this world’s goods? He used to take money out of the treasury (John 12:6). Had he not heard Jesus teach that no man can serve two masters—that he cannot serve God and Mammon (riches)? Had he not heard about the rich man and Lazarus? Or how about the rich farmer who wanted to build bigger barns? Did he not hear the Lord say that that night his soul would be required of him, and then whose would such material possessions be? Had Judas missed those, or was he simply not convinced? In either case, Jesus knew his struggles with covetousness, but he bore with him.

In fact, Jesus was patient with all of His disciples. Surely, there must have been times when they drove Him to the point of exasperation. The very night He was betrayed by Judas and taken to be crucified the next day, His disciples were showing a tremendous lack of spirituality. They argued about which one would be greatest in the kingdom (Luke 22:24-26). How many of us would conclude, “I see I’ve been wasting my time”? Even after Jesus returned to heaven, Peter’s actions in withdrawing from the Gentiles caused Paul to rebuke him because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2).

We too must exercise patience and not be guilty of making false assumptions. If someone misspeaks concerning a Scripture, he ought to be corrected, of course, but we should not assume he is on the road to apostasy. Love for brethren includes rebuking others when the occasion calls for it, but we should not assign the worst possible motives. Brethren should be considered having honest and sincere motives unless a sufficient reason exists to prove otherwise.

Some brethren need several opportunities to get their behavior to conform to their beliefs as a Christian. Anger, pride, and jealousy may be harder for some to conquer than others. As long as brethren are willing to keep trying to go on to perfection, more mature brethren ought to continue to encourage them.

One source of problems is that we do not all think the same way. A few may have developed habits of productivity and are focused on outcome. Others may be more concerned about an individual brother’s future potential than a specific task at hand. In other words, some are goal-oriented (get the job done), and some are more people-oriented (the job will eventually get done; the brother is more important). What happened between Paul and Barnabas could be an illustration of this point.

John Mark left the work on the first missionary journey. When they were ready to start out again, Mark desired to accompany them. Paul may have thought having him along would jeopardize the mission. He had left once, already, and Paul may have thought that he needed someone he could count on. Barnabas, on the other hand, always seems to be concerned about people. He had stood up for Paul when the church did not want to have anything to do with him. Now he was standing up for John Mark, that he might have a second opportunity. The different way each Christian was thinking about this matter determined their actions. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they split up the team—both going in different directions.

Who was right and who was wrong? Perhaps neither was. Paul completed the mission he had in mind. John Mark proved that he was the man Barnabas thought he was. Later Paul acknowledged his value. Yes, we must all stand for sound doctrine, but within the parameters of “the faith,” there is room for all who may not think precisely the same way about the way to handle certain people and situations. And that can be a good thing because if all thought the same way on all expedients, some things would never be accomplished that benefit the kingdom. Jesus saw the best in each of us and has treated us patiently though we all have faults and sins to overcome. We too must love the brotherhood.

“What Do You Think of Entertainment Today?”

One of the fears that many people have had since 9-11-2001 is another terrorist attack by Muslims here in the United States. To be sure, not all Muslims believe in violence; the problem is that those who pose a threat do not wear placards, saying, “I am a Muslim terrorist.” By the time we find out, the damage has already been inflicted. Many wonder, “Why do they hate us?” One reason is that they are anti-Christian. One need only look at the intolerance of predominantly Muslim countries toward Christianity for evidence of that claim.

What don’t they like about Christianity? If they knew the religion the way Jesus designed it, things might be different, but first of all, they see Catholicism masquerading as Christianity; second, they see division in the form of a multitude of religious denominations all claiming to represent Jesus. Third, in nations where Christianity prevails, they see moral degeneracy. They see a United States president pushing for homosexual marriage and lighting up the White House in rainbow colors as a victory celebration. And they see what was displayed on three pages of the Orlando Sentinel as despicable.

Last week we gave Carol Burnett’s answer to, “What Do You Think of Comedy Today?” This week we might ask the same question concerning “Naked Boys Singing.” Three large, mostly nude photographs of the “stars” appeared in the Calendar section of Friday’s (2-5-16) of the Orlando Sentinel. The accompanying article makes it clear that onstage they are totally bare, thus not having nearly the moral conscience of Adam and Eve when they learned what nakedness meant. They were actually ashamed, but these men, many of whom are from Orlando, are not. How is it that such things are permissible? What happened to community standards? The influence of Christianity is practically nil.

If these men left the theater dressed as they are on stage, they would be arrested. So why will citizens go to a theater and pay money to watch these perverts? There was a time when Christians would have protested such an event, but society has been overtaken by secular humanists, who have tried to trivialize sin as this “entertainment” article does. God neither winks at nor accepts such sin. How seared must a person’s conscience be to even write an article promoting this event? If Muslim hostility increases towards “Western values,” will we really need to wonder why? Our country is embracing what is ungodly and profane.