The idea of a new year always brings with it an optimistic outlook. Why is that? Many of us make New Year’s resolutions that we intend to keep once for all. We will be a different person. No matter how many times we have failed to reach a goal in the past, we might just make it this time. Perhaps our stamina will be greater, and we will have more encouragement and support from others. At any rate, the future lies before us like freshly fallen snow—just waiting for someone to make marks upon it. The atmosphere is crisp, purity lies all around, and the idea of future prospects never looked brighter.
Maybe the world will be a better place as well. Will this be the year that love and peace will prevail—when hu-man beings will see the futility of fighting and waging constant warfare? Maybe the inhabitants of this planet will finally learn from history that in battles some of the best men from every nation die. Have we not learned that aggressors are always resisted, and that a free people will always fight to defend their liberty; so of what value is it to launch a campaign to try to subjugate people? How much better is it to be in the business of building up rather than that of useless destruction?
However, all of the optimism that we brought into 2015 did not change the world. With Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram around, moral atrocities occurred regularly. Unfortunately, the number of adherents is rather large that hold to a religion that does not tolerate any other religion or any other ideas than their own. While others may be willing to coexist, they are not, and if 2015 was any indication, the violence will not end any time soon. Optimism must exist within the confines of reality.
The world may not—probably will not—change for the better, but the kingdom of Heaven (the church) still provides a solid reason for hope. We have been blessed by the example of faithful brethren—some of whom have already departed this world for the next. We continue to look at those who have stood for the truth regardless of the cost be-cause it was the right thing to do. We continually enjoy watching men and women leave the world of sin and put on Jesus Christ. And we know that God is still working all things together for good to those who love Him—to those who are called according to His purpose. We may not be able to change the entire world, but the gospel will change some. For that reason we remain optimistic.
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever”—Thomas Jefferson (Barton 112).
Does anything more need to be said than appears in the title and in the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson? David Barton has written a book, The Jefferson Lies (published in 2012), which supremely documents the way that liberals have tried to both: 1) destroy Jefferson personally; and 2) misrepresent him as it pertains to religion. One anecdote included in the book involves President John F. Kennedy, who was hosting a group of Nobel Prize winners for dinner. He told the illustrious group of men gathered together:
I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet (xii-xii).
And he possessed more wisdom and piety than the five justices combined who decided that homosexual marriage should be the law of the land. Apparently, we were not “slouching toward Gomorrah” fast enough; the Court decided to hasten the journey. And, no, it was not based on anything in the Constitution; it was the result of bias.
How dare anyone say such a thing? Simple! It’s the truth. Between them, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had already performed at least five homosexual wedding ceremonies. For some reason, one of Fox News’ legal experts did not think this fact should cause them to recuse themselves. Well, sure—and foxes should not be disqualified from guarding henhouses, either. Any citizen of average intelligence, who has not been smoking pot, would notice the conflict of interest. Were these two women forced to perform homosexual weddings? No, they did so because they approve of the practice, which means that they could not render a fair and impartial hearing on the matter, which is proven by the way they voted.
Many people have been interviewed in order to sit on a jury. They are usually asked questions, such as, “Do you know any of the people involved in this case?” In a jury trial involving a drunk driver, one question might be, “Have any family members ever been maimed or killed by a drunk driver?” They ask such questions because they do not think that a person can be impartial if they have such a close personal attachment to a victim. So when two justices of the Supreme Court have performed homosexual wedding ceremonies, why are they not considered biased?
It should be obvious to most Americans that the fix was in; few (except, perhaps, for low information voters) are surprised by the court’s decision. Is this the way “justice” ought to work? The very concept of justice comes from God, who shall “bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:14). There is no justice in atheism. How does unfeeling matter from a “big bang” develop the concept of justice when it is not found in the natural realm? Justice flows from the very nature of God, which was the reason for Jefferson’s concern.
Marriage was designed by God. A man and a woman constitute God’s Divine plan for marriage, and it was in the world even before sin! That claim cannot be said about many things. Every culture from the beginning of time has marriage as part of its society. The customs and rituals surrounding it may vary, but the concept of marriage was present. Some have perverted it by introducing polygamy and divorce, but it remains as a bedrock of society—until now. Because of the court’s ruling, the heart of what makes a marriage has disintegrated. The court began its decision with these words:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity….
This is gobbledegook that results from pop psychology—not the United States Constitution. Justice Scalia said that if he agreed with such flummery, he would hide his head in a bag. He added:
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
He is exactly right. Logic (another concept that flows only from God) has been replaced by a penchant for the touchy-feely. What does it mean “to define and express their identity”? Can they define their identity as a transgendered person? Are we to believe that this will only relate to homosexuals and not polygamists and adulterers who simply cannot help themselves? And how does one define “a lawful realm”? The very item under discussion, the practice of homosexuality, was unlawful for centuries. Justice Kennedy led the fight to decriminalize the practice. (But don’t think that he should recuse himself, either.) Polygamy may be in “an unlawful realm” today, but the court can just as easily change the definition of marriage to include a man and two women who are just expressing their identity. Not only will such a move open the door so that Mormons can have another new “revelation”; it will also be attractive to Muslim men, who are allowed four wives. Hey, and while we’re at it, let’s just let them live under Sharia law—if that’s their identity.
Other comments of Scalia (whom, by the way, those in Washington are mocking) concerning the majority include:
The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.
The first statement is on the mark; people expect logical analysis of our Constitution from the Supreme Court—but in case after case we are failing to find any semblance of logic; the court seems to be ruling on the basis of emotion and popular liberal opinion.
The second statement is accurate but frightening. Just as with Roe v. Wade, the court has usurped the role of Congress and is legislating from the bench. Between the President writing legislation via executive orders and the Court rendering decisions based on the liberal agenda rather than law, Congress has just about become superfluous. Apparently, they don’t get to express their identity.
The third criticism cited above is also correct—five justices cannot only tell the country what they will do, like it or not, they have basically said that all who came before them were idiots for not realizing how versatile the 14th amendment is. Every citizen should read the 14th amendment and try to figure out how the Supreme Court got homosexual marriage out of it.
The law of the land has been decided by five lawyers. State after state voted on homosexual marriage, and the citizens said, “No.” “Well, how is it now legal? I thought that 36 states already had it,” someone might say. Yes. Eventually, two states voted for it; the other 34 states got it through the courts or legislatures. This is the new means of effecting law—let the courts legislate it. No, it’s not their function, but as long as they do what the entertainment and the news media want them to, it’s all right. Who is going to listen to any objectors?
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the next frontier will be the use of drugs. For years, some have desired the legalization of marijuana. Why should potheads and drug addicts be denied expressing their identities? “This is who I am, man. As long as I’m not harming anyone else, man.” Hippies haven’t altogether disappeared.
The Upshot?
Okay, so homosexual marriage is legal—with polygamy probably not far behind. Adultery is no longer criminal, either. Will there be a push for prostitution; why not if it’s between consenting adults? Divorces are easily obtained through our brilliant no-fault system. Really? No one was to blame? Multiple forms of gambling are legal. Alcohol is legal, and how long will it take for marijuana to make it to the Supreme Court—five years? Theft has been minimalized. Has anyone received back a stolen car or stolen property in the past five years? Lying is routine for most citizens—especially politicians. With abortion, we have legalized murder. Are there any of God’s commandments, given to the Israelites, that society (or the court) will uphold anymore?
The point is, “How much worse can we get before God destroys us?” When Sodom and Gomorrah were given over to homosexuality, fire and brimstone made a swift and sudden appearance upon those cities. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Boston might think about getting nervous. Right now, it would not be surprising if some cities were attacked by a highly organized, junior varsity team. In fact, considering the blasé attitude of our “leader,” who acknowledged recently that after more than two years, he didn’t have a strategy yet for how to deal with ISIS, we might be more surprised if there were no attack on American soil. Jack Bauer won’t be there to save us this time, and chances are that ISIS does have a strategy.
Jefferson is right that God’s justice will not sleep forever. If He could use Babylon to destroy Israel, would He hesitate to use Muslim terrorists to bring down the United States? But suppose terrorism does not bring us to our knees in the next two years. We cannot long stand while thumbing our noses at our Creator. We do not know how long He will give this nation to repent. We can only hope that all of these forays into immorality might be reversed. How can that happen?
It’s a huge problem. The President and the Supreme Court are against Christianity, as are universities, the entertainment media, and most of the news media. Bible believers have mountains to overcome. But as unlikely as it is, it is not impossible. With a dedicated band like Gideon’s—only with 300 saints, God can accomplish victories. What ought we to be doing?
The Bible must be exalted as God’s revelation to man. The Word must be defended in every possible venue. God created us in His image. Love, justice, and logic are not found in ocean waves or the Black Hills of Dakota. These come from God, and people must believe the truth. God exists, and morality comes from Him—not liberal college professors or their cohorts on the Supreme Court. It is time for believers to be evangelistic—as never before. And that means staying focused on the goal. Each soul that is converted becomes part of God’s army. We do not have time to flirt with worldliness; let us endeavor to be holy ourselves—an example for all. Truly may it be the case: “In God we trust.”
Two different philosophies exist about umpiring in baseball. One man says, “I do my best to determine whether the pitcher has thrown a ball or a strike, and I call it accordingly.” The second confides, “I don’t care what it is; it will be whatever I call it.” This second philosophy has now been adopted by the Supreme Court. It once was the case that the Supreme Court made their decisions based on what the Constitution said; now they no longer care about accuracy; whatever they decide is the law—no matter how absurd the ruling is. It happened twice on June 25 and 26, 2015.
Whether or not anyone thinks Obamacare is a good idea is beside the point. In order to uphold the law passed by Congress, the Court had to change obvious meanings into their opposites. Justice Scalia called attention to this practice when he said:
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ … The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so (emphasis GWS).
The person who designed the law admitted that it was designed to make states comply with the national law, but Chief Justice Roberts, despite that fact, said that the law surely meant to say state exchange OR the federal government. Clear and indisputable language can now mean its exact opposite, according to the Court. Even Aristotle, 2,400 years ago, knew that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
The ruling on homosexual marriage took a term that people have used since the Year One and in Orwellian fashion decided that, according to the 14th Amendment (which does not mention the subject), marriage can now be broader than to involve one man and one woman, as God designed it. The same Chief Justice Roberts who did verbal flip-flops in the first decision decried the abuse of definition in the second case. Go figure. The Supreme Court has adopted the philosophy of the NIV translators. Their dynamic equivalence philosophy allows them to know what framers of the Constitution meant to say—even if they never hinted at it and would be appalled by such unprecedented antics.
Periodically, new churches in the area begin, and they mail professionally-printed advertisements out to residents in an effort to invite them to their new group. The one many received in this area is printed on glossy card stock. One side has a red background with a gray picture of people assembling together, and the lettering is in white. The other side is mostly dark gray with red, white, and light purple lettering. The red side asks four questions, set up in the following style:
What if…
Church was about…
The text that follows offers four contrasts:
LOVING NOT judging
COMMUNITY NOT control
RELATIONSHIP NOT religion
GIVING NOT taking
In their format the NOT is stair-stepped sideways between each pair of words. The other side touts:
A church where you find:
Acceptance.
Relevant messages.
Dynamic message.
Kids can’t wait to go.
At the bottom of that column are three brief imperatives.
LOVE GOD.
LOVE PEOPLE.
AFFECT THE WORLD.
Data concerning the time and place are given.
Probably this will appeal to some people, but what is the advertisement really claiming? Each of these contrasts deserves to be examined in light of the Scriptures.
Loving Versus Judging
This contrast is not a valid one. Loving and judging are not opposites; it is not a matter of either/or. All one needs to do to see through this false dichotomy is to consider God and Jesus. Does God love? Yes, God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Does God judge? Yes, He is going to judge the world through Jesus:
“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
Furthermore, God expects judgment from His people; Jesus taught: “Do not judge according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Sometimes judgments are based on superficial criteria, perhaps even first impressions, but the facts are absent. Or maybe we might condemn another for something of which we ourselves are guilty.
However, forgoing judgment under those circumstances does not mean God never wants us to exercise any judgment at all. Without it, how would we ever recognize a false teacher who has the appearance of a ravening wolf (Matt. 7:15). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul chastised the church for not withdrawing fellowship from a brother living with his father’s wife: “And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you” (v. 2). Paul said he had judged the man (v. 3).
What Love Does
What many people fail to realize is that, when one person loves another, he calls upon him to repent, and the reason is the danger that the loved one is in. For example, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah called upon God’s people to repent of their idolatry and their immorality. Did he love them? They ignored all of his warnings, and then Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. Jeremiah wept over the destruction. Yes, he loved the people. He did not personally judge them; he was preaching God’s message so that they could avoid God’s judgment for their sins.
Now what about the false prophets who spoke to the people what they wanted to hear? These men proclaimed, “Peace, peace,” when there was no peace (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). Did they love the people? Did they weep over the city when it was destroyed? No, they were selfish. They liked tickling people’s ears and presenting a message that was popular and well-received. Yes, they could return home in the evening after a hard day of appeasement and say to themselves, “That poor Jeremiah never learns. He’s so unpopular because he’s so judgmental. All the people hold me in high regard.” As Jesus might observe, the praise of men (and a few shekels) is the only reward such imposters will ever receive. They loved themselves—not others.
In having the church withdraw fellowship from the man living with his father’s wife, Paul was exhibiting love—because acceptance of him would have meant his eternal destruction, which could in no way be construed as love for another. The man needed to repent, and when he did, God forgave him of his sin. To actually love someone is to show them when they are sinning or are in error. Remaining silent is a gutless option. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Pr. 27:6).
For this same reason, all Christians ought to be evangelizing those who are still in sin. We could say nothing and be well-thought-of…at least, by sinners. Or we can be accused of “judging” others and love them enough to invite them to hear the gospel and/or make positive changes in their lives. The point is, however, that the way we live is not a choice between loving and judgment.
Community Versus Control
Once again, the question should be asked, “Are these two concepts at odds with one another? Paul made it clear Christianity is a “community” concept.
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-13).
The body or church of Christ has many members. Paul goes on to mention eyes, ears, and smelling as functions of the body. We are all different, as members of the body of Christ, but we all are one. We all became part of the body of Christ in the same way—through baptism, and we all follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit, as revealed by God’s holy apostles and prophets. Every member is an important part of the body. We cannot think that we are unimportant—or that any other member is unimportant. We are all a necessary part of the body, which is our spiritual community. Paul clearly taught about closeness when he wrote “that the members should have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Christians in Jerusalem were often together at the beginning (Acts 2:44-47).
This closeness is the reason that the withdrawal of fellowship works. It is difficult to withdraw from someone that no one is close to or has no sense of community with. One of the reasons that the sexually immoral man in 1 Corinthians 5 repented is that the Christian community there with whom he was involved would no longer fellowship him. He missed the sense of community he had previously enjoyed. Also, he now understood that the reason for the church’s action was to get him to see the seriousness of his sins—that, if he did not repent, Christ could not allow him into heaven. Just as he was excluded from the church on earth, he would be denied access to an eternal home in heaven and the fellowship of the righteous forever.
Just as nothing unrighteous will be allowed into heaven (2 Peter 3:10-13), so sin should not be allowed in the body of Christ. “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven…” (1 Cor. 5:6b-7a). Again, however, the purpose for withdrawing fellowship was not out of cruelty or vindictiveness; the reason for it was to cause the wayward brother to repent, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5).
Is this control? Yes, but it is not the kind that cults use to dominate every facet of a person’s life. It is not control used so that no one will step out of line concerning a list of man-made dogmas. It is only exercised when one is committing sins that are obvious to all. Paul writes: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:11). He adds that it is the church’s responsibility to judge those who are inside—meaning members of the body of Christ (5:12).
Thus, loving and judging are not opposites but can walk side by side compatibly. Having a sense of community does not imply that no control can be exercised; in the first century the two were harmonious. The absence of judging and control leads to rampant and unchecked sin. Is that the kind of community people want—one in which sin and bad examples are allowed to flourish?
Relationship Versus Religion
The value of relationship between the members of the body of Christ has already been stressed. What is meant by the word religion? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of religion is:
The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.
Any particular integrated system of this expression: the Hindu religion.
Religion does involve belief in and worship of God. (Superhuman power is probably not the best description). Each one is systematic—that is, it has its own history, teachings, and acts of worship. The history of Christianity is traced through the Bible, covering the Old and New Testaments. Its doctrine is that which was taught by Jesus and His apostles (John 12:48; Acts 2:42). The way in which to worship God properly involves both attitude and truth (John 4:23-24). The acts of worship are specified in the New Testament; they involved praying, singing, teaching, the Lord’s Supper, and giving.
It would only be a matter of speculation to try to ascertain what is wrong with religion. Are the propagators of this new “church” trying to discount doctrine? Everyone has a certain amount of doctrine; if they did not, they would look foolish inviting people to join them. “What do you believe?” “Well, all you have to do to be a member here is to believe in God; after that, you can think anything you want.” Hmm! Such would be chaotic, to say the least. Still, it has become a popular trend for people to parrot the Satanic line, “Doctrine doesn’t matter.”
It matters to God. It matters whether people believe Jesus is His Son or not; Jesus was crucified over that fact (Mark 14:61-62; cf. John 8:24). It matters whether or not people believe that He died on the cross, was buried, and rose again, which is the heart of the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Acts 17:30-31). It matters whether or not one repents of his sins and is baptized (Acts 2:36-41; cf. Mark 16:16). It matters to God on what day of the week we worship (Acts 20:7). It matters whether or not one is a member of the one body of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:4; 5:23).
Doctrine is so important that false teachers are to be rejected for teaching error (Titus 3:10). Nor are they to be fellowshipped in any way (2 John 9-11). If doctrine is the problem for some, then they have no love of the truth and shall therefore be lost (2 Thess. 2:10). Truth matters when a pharmacy fills a prescription, when solving a mathematical equation, when filing income tax. Why should it not matter to the One Who revealed truth to us? Truth is the difference between life and death, right and wrong, salvation and damnation; a blasé attitude would be a fatal mistake.
Giving Versus Taking
How this is intended is anyone’s guess; suffice it to say that the New Testament teaches that giving is a blessing (Acts 20:35). Taking is what the majority of people are interested in—including some who visit a place of worship. They want to know what’s in it for them. What programs do you have? What activities are available for the youth? What trips have been scheduled for the elderly? When was the last time someone said, “I’d like to be a member of this congregation, and here’s what I have to give you”?
Acceptance
Really? What if a person is living in adultery, practicing homosexuality, known to be a drunkard, or living with his father’s wife? Is he accepted? Some people might not want to be part of a congregation where such individuals are accepted without any intention of or sign of repentance. God does not accept such individuals. Those who continue to live in various sins, refusing to change, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Jesus taught that, “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
Relevant Messages
Is someone preaching irrelevant messages? Maybe. But sermons are not irrelevant if they are from the Word of God. Everything in the New Testament is relevant to our spiritual well-being. The Holy Spirit did not seek “filler” space to meet length requirements. The Old Testament, though describing spiritual life under a previous covenant, still conveys a number of invaluable principles besides showing us the basis for the New Testament, in which prophecies are fulfilled. Our current covenant is relevant to daily living, weekly worship, and knowing how to please God.
In fact, nowhere on this advertisement does one word appear about the Bible. Not one Scripture is cited, nor does any quote appear from the Word of God. Does anyone notice this lack of emphasis? What kind of church is this? What kind of messages are relevant—ones that use some other source than the Bible? Is this a man-made church filled with man-made wisdom? No one can tell from the advertisement, but it is strange that nowhere do they claim to study the Scriptures.
Miscellaneous
Dynamic music is promised, but Jesus’ apostles simply commanded Christians to sing. (Col. 3:16-17). “Kids can’t wait to go.” They usually cannot. Kids generally love Bible classes and are excited about going. Usually, adults are the problem. As far as loving God and people, that part is certainly Biblical. Affect the world? Yes, Christians ought to have an impact on the world as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16). Those who are not conformed to the world but to Christ should make a difference by their holy lives (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Peter 1:14-16), as well as by being evangelistic (Matt. 28:18-20).
People are always coming up with new ideas, but the church for which Christ died is sufficient. God knew what He was doing when He designed it. Modern society does not need a church that has changed from the original design. Neither God nor man has changed in character. He is still holy, and people are still committing sin and in need of salvation. The church, the body of those who have been saved, does not need to change; sinners do. Everyone needs to repent and obey the gospel, thus becoming part of the church, over which Christ is head (Eph. 1:22-23). No human being nor council can improve on God’s original design.
Various religious groups are known for certain features that seem to be prominent or noticeable. One, for example, is noted for its pomp, traditions, and rituals. Some are noted for going door to door or having a “new” covenant. Still others are marked by their enthusiasm or perhaps their piety. So what are churches of Christ known for? Unfortunately, all too often it is for not using a piano.
That would not be our choice as something by which to be characterized, but it is a fairly obvious observance by anyone who visits and worships with us. We can’t help that; it’s not exactly something you can keep secret. Oftentimes that is the first question people ask, and there is a Biblical answer, but there’s something more fundamental that we would prefer being known for, which will eventually result in that question being answered. But rather than begin with an application, we need to start with the Biblical principle that we would like to be known for.
Evangelism
First of all, it ought to be emphasized that Christians need to exhibit balance, by which is meant that whatever Jesus, the Lord and Savior of all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9), commands us to do we have an obligation to fulfill. In other words, does He command us to be evangelistic? Yes (Matt. 28:18-20). Therefore, we cannot say, “Oh, that requires a lot of work; let’s sit that one out and concentrate on something else.” So we are evangelistic. We help support 5 men in the United States (two in Tennessee, one in Virginia, one working primarily with the Haitian population in Miami, and one in Pierre, South Dakota). We help seven men around the world, including the Philippines, the Virgin Islands, Kiev, Ukraine, and four in the Pacific Islands. This is a large part of our budget each year, but most people will not learn that on their first visit here.
We also have an obligation to be evangelistic in our area as well. Therefore, we have sent publications into homes in this area, and we have knocked on doors to set up Bible studies. More than 20 members have completed the “Fishers of Men” course to enable us to better study with people and answer questions effectively. We have a desire to bring those who are lost to Jesus, Who can wash away their sins in His blood (Rev. 1:5).
Personal Piety
Very clearly the Bible teaches throughout that God expects His people to be holy. Under the covenant that God made with Israel through Moses, He commanded them: “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy’” (Lev. 19:2). They were to avoid sin in their lives.
Under the New Testament of Jesus we have the same commandment (1 Peter 1:15-16) and many more like it, such as 2 Corinthians 7:1: “Therefore, having those promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The things which Christians must abstain from are mentioned in several passages of Scriptures (Rom. 1:26-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Rev. 21:8). We take all of these verses seriously and strive to live a holy life; we live in the world but are not of the world (John 17:14-17). Of course, most visitors would not be immediately aware of the efforts of members along these lines.
People of the Book
We once had a reputation for being a people of the Book. Members often knew the Scriptures well and could either quote dozens of verses or at least know where to find them. Has this changed among churches of Christ? In some instances, yes. Some have chosen to follow the trend of many religious groups by substituting Scriptures with illustrations and humorous stories. While these are undoubtedly interesting, they cannot take the place of the Word of God. So, some of our brethren are much weaker today than they were in times past.
You will find the right emphasis here, because we make it a point that everyone study the entire Bible. We are currently on our second time through the 5½ year Chronological Bible Odyssey. Now this is something that a visitor would probably not know, just coming to worship. In our Bible classes we actually study the Bible instead of just a few portions of it or the wisdom of men. Sermons are Bible-based, also.
In fact, the emphasis on the Scriptures may actually unsettle some. Once, a young woman visited with us a few weeks and then left to attend another congregation. About three months later her boyfriend insisted on returning. Several months after that, she explained why she was at first reluctant to worship with us. In the church she had grown up with, they did not discuss the Scriptures that much, and (based on that experience) she thought there must be something wrong with us!
What irony! One would think that almost everyone would consider it valuable to know The Book, but some regard it as a liability. Imagine Israel at Mount Sinai with all the nation of Israel ready to hear Him speak. The Almighty says, “I have Ten Commandments to give you today, but I thought we’d begin with a few jokes.” Now, honestly, who could understand humor better than God and be able to deliver an effective punchline? While laughter has a great value (Pr. 17: 22), there is a time and a place for everything. Worship is designed to honor God and edify—not amuse— ourselves.
About 30 years ago, many members of the church appeared on the Donahue television program. One was representing us; several were in the audience. If many in the audience seemed hostile toward us, the reason was that someone came out before the program started and did an effective job of riling up those present before any members of the church had an opportunity to say anything. When the topic was introduced, several in the audience and, eventually, the representative on stage, explained our philosophy by appealing to the teachings of the Scriptures. Finally, a woman in the audience blurted out, “These people are blinded by the Bible!” Really?
Apparently, if we had quoted from a prominent psychologist or a recognized expert like Dr. Oz, we could have emerged unscathed, but to actually appeal to the Word of God was definitely not acceptable. No one is recorded as saying of Jesus, after listening to Him for three days, “He seems to be blinded by His own teachings.” On the other hand, Paul was accused of his great learning driving him mad (Acts 26:24). Paul was not crazy; he was simply explaining the fulfillment of the Scriptures. The woman in Donahue’s audience had it wrong. The Scriptures do not blind anyone; they clarify and reveal reality. Satan is the one who blinds people (2 Cor. 4:3-4)—especially those who do not know what the Bible teaches.
Truth
Related to the preceding topic is this one. Although it is not our only emphasis, it is one that we would like to be known for. The Bible teaches that we must all be seekers of truth. Even in the Old Testament era, the wise King Solomon wrote: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23). Jesus prayed for His disciples: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). The only way we can be made holy is through the truth as declared in the Word of God. We are not sanctified by our feelings or any other subjective means but by following the objective Word of God, which arises from God rather than human beings.
Jesus had emphasized this point earlier in His ministry when He taught these words: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
Notice that the truth is known by abiding in the Word. The teachings of Christ must be studied, examined, believed, and followed. Most people in today’s society are like Pontius Pilate who scoffed at the concept of truth. When Jesus told the governor that he came into the world to bear witness to the truth, he answered, “What is truth?” (John 18:37-38). Many people today express the same attitude. It is considered arrogant, first of all, for anyone to assert that he knows anything, and, second, to claim to know the truth. Some college professors ridicule students who would dare to affirm such a position.
To say that one knows the truth on a matter or a subject is not arrogant, however. It does not require advanced education or theological degrees. In order to know truth, a person does not even need above average ability. It is not due to his own cleverness that anyone comes to a knowledge of the truth; the reason for it is that God made it available. If we know His Word, we can know truth. Paul told all the brethren in Ephesus that, when they read what he wrote, they might “understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4).
Apparently, some people have not gotten past the philosophy of the Middle Ages that was kept alive by certain individuals with a vested interest. That ideology was that the average person could not understand the Bible for himself; it had to be explained by a “professional.” What those folks, who had a limited access to the Bible, probably did not know is that the epistles (letters) of the New Testament were written to the common, average person with no special training in religion. The Holy Spirit wrote in words that we all can understand.
Your Adversary, the Devil
The same one who helped bring sin into this world has contradicted God at every turn. He told Eve, “You shall not surely die” (Gen.3:4). As Jesus said, the devil is a liar and the father of it; there is no truth in him (John 8:44). He has contradicted and challenged every major teaching in the New Testament. Just about every book contains one or more warnings against error (Matt. 7:15-20; Acts 20:28-32; Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; et al.). For that reason we must search the Scriptures diligently to be certain that we know the truth.
It is especially important to know the truth about salvation; if there is one area that Satan will challenge, it is this one. We encourage everyone to study the book of conversions (Acts) and see what was required (2:36-41; 8:26-40; 16:31-34; 22:16). Next, it is important to know what constitutes acceptable worship. Jesus talked about true worshippers worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Most people today are sincere and fervent in their worship, but it must be according to what God commands—not according to what pleases us. This sin was first committed by Cain, who did not give God what He asked for, but what he wanted to give (Gen. 4:3-5; Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:4; 12:24).
Then we must continue in the right doctrine (Acts 2: 42). It is lamentable that for many truth is not a high priority. Many have bought into the devil’s lie when he says, “It really doesn’t matter what you believe, so long as you are sincere.” Notice that this sentiment contradicts not only the Scriptures already cited, but also 2 Thessalonians 2:10, where Paul mentions that some “did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” The only way to learn truth is through diligent Bible study and earnest discussion. Churches of Christ have never encouraged visitors or members to accept what we teach—just because we teach it. Instead we admonish people to evaluate what they hear us say, as the Bereans did (Acts 17:10-11). Truth is essential.
Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.
On Thursday, January 8, 2015 two articles were published on page A14 of the Orlando Sentinel that dealt with homosexual marriage. The first letter was a protest that the newspaper had been consumed with this topic and had given it much more attention than it deserved. He expressed the point rather humorously.
After four days of front-page coverage, plus additional commentary in section one and Scott Maxwell’s column on gay marriage, I’ve had enough. I don’t think the moon landing got this kind of coverage.
The worst thing is that his comments probably are not an exaggeration, as the ten people who still read the newspaper would probably attest (now this statement is hyperbole).
The article adjoining this one was a letter written by two lesbians, lamenting their past problems getting married. They have lived in Florida 19 years, own a house, work, vote, and pay taxes. They have also raised a son. They went to Vermont to be “married” in 2013, but now they are rejoicing that they could do the same in their home state.
The two women recount how defiant of the government they were in 2004, when “as an act of civil protest,” they went through a marriage ceremony though the Courthouse did not grant them a license. They write that they
ere married by our church (First Unitarian Church of Orlando) in a lovely ceremony attended by hundreds of our friends, family, press, and one lone protester.
All of this hype in favor of ungodliness merited a reply; so on January 11, 2015, I emailed the following response as a letter to the editor.
Now that homosexual marriage has been approved by the civil government and some women are reporting lovely weddings, perhaps it is time to consider a different perspective. Surely no one will mind if one voice of dissension is raised.
In all the euphoria of getting permission for homosexual marriage, what have adherents really won? They already had the Orlando Sentinel in their camp, running stories two or more times a week, chronicling the state of the issue. They already had the approval of the news and entertainment media, as well as the support of the mayor and the city council. They even had joyous permission from their man-made church that rejects the teachings of God.
What they don’t have—and never will—is Divine sanction. The Apostle Paul’s words have not changed since the first century. He wrote: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchange the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…” (Romans 1:26-27).
These are words by which God shall judge mankind.
Knowing that newspapers are usually reluctant to print Scriptures, I added the following condition: “No permission is given to use part of this letter. Unless Romans 1:26-27 is cited, none of it should be published. We shall see what they do with it, if anything. But whether they publish it or not is irrelevant; the point is that Christians need to be speaking up publicly and privately since it is obvious that the general public (which claims to believe in God) has very little idea of what the teachings of Christianity actually are.
One further comment is needed on the “one lone protestor” observation. Would it have mattered if the protestors had been 200 in number instead of one? Would that have stopped the “wedding” or changed the minds of the homosexuals and their sympathizers? No, they staged the “marriage” ceremony to protest current laws; would it have mattered if the vast majority of society were against them? It would not because “gays” do not care what the law, the social customs, or God has to say on the subject. Of course, now that society and the law support homosexuality, they will not hesitate to appeal to them, but they cared about neither of them previously.
As for the “lonely” protestor, Jeremiah felt pretty lonely as he preached God’s Word to a hostile crowd. Noah and the seven family members with him might have felt pretty lonely as the remainder of the world perished outside of the ark. Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb probably felt lonely with the entire nation of Israel opposed to them and on the verge of stoning them. God interceded on their behalf. So what’s the point of all these examples? Numbers have nothing to do with being right. Jesus said the majority of people are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14).
So, homosexuals can rejoice in their victories and mock those who stand for righteousness—in this world. But on the Day of Judgment, their glibness shall give way to mourning. They and all those who propped them up and constantly gave their own personal assurances to them shall be held accountable for choosing corruption over Christianity. The only true friend the homosexual has is the Christian who will proclaim the truth of God and let him know where he actually stands with God. Only then will he have the opportunity to repent.
Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.
Article by Bryan Fischer
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared and was published by Marvin Weir last week (1-11-18) in The Reno Record (Reno, Texas). He also began with an editor’s note, which immediately follows this one.]
Editor’s note: The following article by Bryan Fischer in the 1/9/15 edition of OneNewsNow clearly demonstrates the left’s unrelenting attack upon our Constitution and New Testament Christianity. I realize he uses the word “Christian” erroneously to include denominations, but he has captured well the battle Bible believers are engaged in with the abominable homosexual deviants and their proud supporters. I adapted it slightly because of its length.
Kelvin Cochran was fired this week as the chief of the Atlanta fire department. He was fired for one reason: he is a sincere Christian. It has now become a fireable offense in Atlanta to believe the Bible. Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh couldn’t have done it any better. Businesses in Atlanta may as well hang a sign in their windows: “Christians need not apply.”
Cochran wrote a self-published 160-page book for the men in his Bible study at the church he attends. For the crime of devoting a whole half-page to the topic of a Biblical view of sexuality, he’s out of a job. He correctly described homosexuality as a “sexual perversion,” which it is. It twists, distorts and, yes, perverts God’s design for human sexuality. “Perversion” may seem like a strong term. But it’s an accurate one and requires absolutely no apology from the chief.
I have often said that in America we will have to choose between homosexuality and liberty because we can’t have both. Kelvin Cochran is living proof. He is simply the latest victim of what lesbian Tammy Bruce calls the Gay Gestapo and what Bill Maher calls the gay mafia.
Cochran was busted down by an openly gay member of the Atlanta city council, who happened upon a copy of his book.
(This, in my view, raises questions about whether Christian citizens can trust “out,” loud and proud homosexuals with public office. By their lifestyle choice, they have made it clear that they reject the authority of Scripture, which the Founders understood to be the only firm basis for public policy.)
Said the incensed mayor, filled with righteous indignation: “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Unless, of course, it is egregious discrimination against people of Christian faith. Then we are going to pursue discrimination with a vengeance.
In this process, Cochran has been stripped of every right that is cherished and protected under the First Amendment. His freedom of religion, gone. His freedom of speech, gone. His freedom of the press, gone. His freedom of association, gone. When I say that homosexuality is the enemy of freedom, the First Amendment, and virtually the entire Constitution, this is what I’m talking about.
Now Cochran, by the way, is black. His unalienable civil rights have been run over here by a steamroller. He has been sent to the back of the bus. The mayor of Atlanta is standing in front of the fire department door with a water cannon in his hand. Where are the howls of outrage from the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons, and the Eric Holders? Their silence is deafening.
The mayor tried to justify this trampling of the Constitution by saying he had to cashier Cochran in order to make Atlanta a more “welcoming” place. Wrote Reed last November:
“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the Administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens—regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs.”
The mayor has apparently appointed himself theologian-in-chief for the city of Atlanta and will happily inform you which of your religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not. The openly gay council member who engineered Cochran’s termination exulted. Said he, it “sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.”
In other words, we value diversity, unless that means we have to make room for Christians. In that case, we have no room for diversity or tolerance of any kind. In that case, we’re gonna be Attila the Hun. Note that no one is accusing Cochran of any actual malice or mistreatment. The worst that even LGBT activists could say is that his values “could” create a hostile work environment. But in his long and distinguished career in fire service, nary a single complaint of that nature has even been lodged against him.
Cochran is considering legal action, as well he should. Either the First Amendment means what it says, in which case Cochran has an unassailable legal argument, or the Constitution doesn’t mean anything at all. It’s about time we found out the answer to that question.
June 24, 1947. Kenneth Arnold, an experienced pilot, spotted nine high-speed objects skipping through the air as a saucer would across a pond. He saw them with Mt. Ranier, Washington as a backdrop. Thus, at least the terminology of flying saucers was born, although many insist that such phenomena existed far earlier. Since that time, many stories have filtered down into the populace, including one about dead aliens being kept secret.
Hollywood eventually got into the genre of science fiction with Buck Rogers in 1939 and Flash Gordon in the 1940s. The radio version of War of the Worlds convinced many that earth was under attack. Dozens of movies were made throughout the 40s and 50s—a few of them were well done: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), When Worlds Collide (1951), Forbidden Planet (1954), World Without End (1956). Star Trek was on television in the 1960s, and the original Star Wars became very popular in 1977 with a whole galaxy of space movies to follow, including E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Some have been reporting that they were abducted by aliens for decades now. Scores of books have been written on the subject that rate from looney to plausible. Many folks believe in UFOs and beings from outer space. Scientifically, however, what is the evidence? Is it possible to fly faster than the speed of light? Some scientists are debating it, but no demonstration has been made as yet. Without warp speed, it will be difficult to reach all of those other stars with planets just the right distance away that would theoretically support life (and should, according to evolutionists).
So far, mankind is long on imagination but short on a mechanism to travel through space. But amidst all of the speculation, there is one bit of scientific evidence that cannot be ignored—the results of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 26, 2014), SETI was “launched in the 1960s” with the hope of receiving radio signals from various parts of the universe (A11). Thus far, in years of researching, no intelligent messages have been received. We would settle for any reasonable communication; the newspaper article stated the results:
But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing (A11).
But there’s even worse news. As scientists search for possible life-supporting planets and what it would take to sustain that life, the vast number of such planets thought to exist has dwindled considerably. In fact, the precise conditions needed are causing the possibility to approach zero. Just one necessary factor will serve as an example.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would have hit the earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing (A11).
It’s beginning to look as though WE ARE ALONE in this universe. But we are not really all by ourselves; our Creator is still around—and will be even after the elements of the universe have melted with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10-13). He created this world to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18). And He has created a better, more wondrous place for those who obey Him to dwell in later. We will all be extraterrestrials then.
On November 19, 2014, the magazine, Rolling Stone, published an article with an alarming title: “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The female victim in the story claimed to have been assaulted by seven men at a fraternity party, which, of course, would be outrageous and worthy of the severest punishment allowed under the law—if it were true. However, the details provided by the victim have not managed to check out. In fact, Rolling Stone, who published her story, had to admit that they had no reason to doubt the woman’s credibility when they published the story, but now they do. Now they say they are not sure what happened but will continue to investigate. In the meantime, they “apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.” One wonders if the University of Virginia feels better now.
If the story proves to be false, it will not be the first time false charges of this nature have been brought to bear. In November of 1987, Tawana Brawley accused three men—one of whom was a police officer—of the same crime. The only problem was that no indication of sexual assault was in evidence. The grand jury noticed discrepancies between the facts and details given by the alleged victim and after 6,000 pages of testimony, declined to indict anyone. According to Wikipedia, “the New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.”
Then, on April 11, 2007, came the charges against certain members of the Duke Lacrosse team, who were accused and found guilty by the media before the facts were even known. Those charges proved to be bogus, also. Probably, no one knows why such serious charges are leveled against certain men when nothing has occurred, but it tends to undermine the credibility of real victims, which ought not to happen. Sexual assault is a serious crime that should result in a severe penalty.
Reaction to False Testimony
These are some of the more high profile cases that have occurred over the past twenty years; less publicized cases have also taken place in which charges were invariably dropped, or the evidence was not compelling. And in some instances, people just do not know because the evidence is insufficient to determine which party is telling the truth—especially if some level of consensuality is admitted.
It ought to be remembered that the alleged victim’s story might yet be true; it is still under investigation. But what is disturbing is the reaction of some to Rolling Stone’s acknowledgement that they reported this story too hastily—that is, before sufficient evidence was established that would warrant the conclusion that this particular crime happened as reported.
On December 6, 2014, Julia Horowitz wrote an article titled, “Why We Believed Jackie’s Rape Story”; it was published in Politico. Julia is an assistant managing editor at The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper. She wrote some disturbing things:
1. “Only eight to nine percent of sexual assault reports, at most, are later determined false.” Only? If this assessment is accurate, it is disastrous for both men and women: 1) that so many men would be falsely accused; and 2) that actual female victims of the crime may have their testimonies discounted.
2. Her main thesis was that Jackie’s story was believable because it squares with the facts that people on campus allegedly know.
3. “Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”
What? Don’t check the facts because the problem exists even if this instance is not true? Such an attitude is unacceptable. If, in fact, sexual assaults occur all the time on the University of Virginia or on any other campus, then why not present a real case with real evidence with a real trial and a real verdict that sends a real message that such behavior will not be tolerated?
This is not a female issue; men have wives and daughters they do not want attacked. They pay for their daughter’s educations on these campuses and would be the first to be outraged if such an event occurred. If such alleged occurrences are so commonplace, then put a stop to it, but don’t say that fact checking should not define the narrative; truth is what is desperately needed.
A male friend of “Jackie” made this comment: “But if anything, the takeaway from all this is that I still don’t really care if what’s presented in this article is true or not because I think it’s far more important that people focus on the issue of sexual assault as a whole.”
Uh, well, we focused on it with Tawana Brawley and with the Duke Lacrosse case—even though nothing was proven either time. We should focus on the offense whenever it legitimately occurs, but how can we say we don’t care if what is published is true or not?
A Prevailing Attitude?
Is this the attitude that people have with respect to Christianity? It seems obvious that many have given up fact-checking and caring whether something is true or not. Truth is critical, crucial, and essential. Without a love of the truth, no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). First and foremost, people must seek the truth with respect to salvation, to worship, and to Christian doctrine. But it also should be prized in every aspect of life.
Article by Roelf L. Ruffner
“Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” (Ex. 23:1-2).
Granted the above passage deals primarily with lying in legal proceedings, but the phrase, Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, is quite relevant to my concern in this article. That concern is the rise of the old nemesis of personal freedom—Communism.
For several months our country has been embroiled in a deepening turmoil concerning the shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, MO by a policeman and lately the death of an unarmed black man in New York City as he was being arrested by the police. Protests and looting have ensued all over the United States. But increasingly I see among the banners of these protestors the old red “hammer & sickle” of Communism. Being a student of the Bible and of history, I recoil at this banner. They might as well put up a swastika or the banner of the Islamic State. It is sickening and revolting to hear them chant, “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!” Many of these are professional agitators and anarchists giving the clenched fist salute of Communism. They don’t really want “justice”; they want mayhem and revolution.
At one time preachers of the gospel would preach sermons against Communism. The late brother Roy C. Deaver had a series of sermons on this topic. Brother George S. Benson, former President of Harding College and Chancellor of Oklahoma Christian University, spoke fervently against Communism. He had been a missionary in China for twelve years but was forced out by the Red Chinese in 1936. They and others saw the malevolent evil in this ideology as a threat to Christianity.
A concrete fact of history is that Communism has been responsible for the slaughter of multiplied millions of human beings through persecution, forced migration, starvation, and execution. We often think of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolph Hitler as the worst mass murderer in human history; and they were horrible. But Hitler’s crimes pale in comparison to the devilish deeds of the Communists dictators Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao Tse-tung (often referred to as Mao Zedong, gws). From the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the Castro brothers’ executions in Cuba, the history of communism is one of the shedding of blood. One of the happiest moments of my life was to see the tearing down of the old Berlin wall in 1989 which symbolized what many thought was the utter defeat of this decrepit ideology and the liberation of the oppressed peoples of Communist Eastern Europe.
Communism at its roots is atheistic and materialistic. It does not hold to God as the author of all things (Dan. 2:44) but rather avers that man evolved from slime and is still evolving. Their “god” is their ideology. There is no Judgment Day and no Heaven or Hell in their twisted mind. In fact, dialectic materialism (Communism or Marxism) sees human society as evolving into a perfect “workers’ state.” The Bible teaches that man is made in God’s image but is now a fallen creature because of his own sin.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psa.14:1-3).
Human society is only a means God has provided to know Him and maintain order (Acts 17:26-27); it will never be perfect. For the Communist this world is a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots” or the “proletariat” (working class) versus the capitalist system (owners of wealth). They envision a future “workers’ state” in which all of society’s ills will be corrected, and the world will be ruled by a “dictatorship of the proletariat” or mob tyranny. But the Bible teaches we should love one another, especially our enemies whether worker or owner (Mat. 5:44; 1 Cor. 13:1-7).
Because of their Godless, humanistic bent the Communist sees the Collective (The State) as everything and the individual as nothing. This is the reason why they can kill with impunity, whether it is one person or a million. For them we are all animals, some more “evolved” than others. To kill another human being is no different than swatting a fly. This is why the dedicated Communist will give his life for “the cause.” They will burn church buildings and execute Christians. Whatever stands in the way of societal “progress” must be eliminated. This is why dictators like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could oversee the slaughter of whole communities without losing a night’s sleep.
But the Son of Man came and offered Himself on the cross for me as an individual as well as the billions of other souls in this sin-sick world. Our goal should not be to make this world into a materialistic paradise but rather the restoration of one soul to God at a time. “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily” (Col. 1:28-29).
Communism is attractive not only to the unemployed and the hopeless but to the educated and affluent as well. The latter are often spoiled children who are angry at society. They have an emptiness in their lives that only God can fill. But rather than turning humbly to their Creator, they seek fulfillment/salvation in utopian ideas and “class struggle.” Yet Communism does not lead to personal satisfaction but only unrest and violent revolution. “Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy” (Prov. 6:14-15).
As a Christian I should teach others that true fulfillment and salvation comes only by the gospel of Jesus Christ. The way of Christ is an inner revolution or change of oneself by the grace of God. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Their guidance should not be found in following the Communist Manifesto but in obeying God’s word. “I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one” (1 John 2:14b).
Are we challenging our young people, especially those in college, to run from Communism? I have read that brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., once said, “There are no ‘isms’ in Christianity!” How true this is! We need to preach sermons and teach Bible classes against Communism and pointing souls to Christ (John 14:6). Our goal in life as Christians should not be to overthrow the government but to overthrow Satan. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom.13:1-2).
