Special Edition

Challenges to Faith

There can be no conviction of right and wrong apartfrom a standard by which such conviction may bejudged. "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor.5:7). Our "walk" describes our course of life. "By faith" means that our course is determined by the convictions we have formed. In the context of this passage Paul contrasts our present bodily existencewith the life that is to come. What one believes about a life to come has much to do with his "walk." Since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word ofGod" (Rom. 10:17) then failure to "hear" the word ofGod results in immoral behaviour. Bound up in thissimple principle is the answer to the moral chaos of ourtimes. Society has become more immoral because it has lost faith. To the extent that it recovers genuineconviction based upon undeniable evidence will it recover moral uprightness.

The New Testament writers appealed to early Christians to purge themselves from all impurity, "perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1).There can be no perfecting of holiness nor purging from impurity without "the fear of God." In the FirstCorinthian letter Paul unleashed a heavy attack uponcarnality as it was reflected in a divisive spirit, in anunrepentant fornicator, in brethren going to law before unbelievers to settle their grievances with each other,and in their misuse of the Lord's Supper. But beforehe addressed any of these problems, he establishedthe certainty of the gospel as distinguished fromhuman wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18-31). He then argued thatthe words delivered by the apostles were chosen ofGod (1 Cor. 2:9-16). Upon the basis of verbal inspiration Paul built his case for right actionthroughout the remainder of this great epistle.

The same line of approach was made in Ephesians.In grand panorama we are swept from God's eternal purpose before the world began to the glory "worldwithout end" through Christ and the church. Uponsuch lofty premises, Paul then made his appeal for the"unity of the Spirit", for the growth in Christ of everysaint and for putting off "the old man which is corruptaccording to the deceitful lusts ..." so that they might"put on the new man, which after God is created inrighteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:20-24).

The Hebrew epistle proceeds in the same fashion. We are introduced to God's greatest spokesman in his Son,Jesus Christ, whose qualifications surpass all humanspokesmen and even angels (Heb. 1:1-2:4). Theargument is climaxed in the statement "See that yerefuse not him that speaketh" (Heb. 12:25). God hasspoken in his Son and the consequences of failure toheed what he said are frightful indeed. This is the common problem of our age. God has spoken, but who is willing to listen?

The Erosion of Faith

Satan has always challenged what God said. In the Garden he preached a lie when he said "ye shall notsurely die" when God had said the opposite. Eve wasdeceived. Her faith was challenged and misplaced. Herwrong action proceeded upon her misplaced faith.Through the centuries there have been many who flatly denied what God said. In spite of the evidence ofGod's art, might and wisdom reflected in the universe,still "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" (Psa. 14:1). Men whoworship at the shrine of their own intellect have scorned the statement that "In the beginning Godcreated the heavens and the earth" in favor of the absurdity that in the beginning nothing created theheavens and the earth. With great swelling wordsthey have filled the hearts of generations with thenotion that something came from nothing; thatlife came from non-life; that rationality and conscience developed from absolutely nothing. Deity was dethroned by this process and humanism enthroned.

With humanism as a working philosophy there hasbeen a gradual chipping away of the foundations of faith with an accompanying moral deterioration. If wewere not made by God, in his image, then we are notsubject to any spiritual law or rule based on suchconviction. The moral implications of this pervadingphilosophy are horrendous and are being witnessed onevery hand.

The erosion of faith has been aided and abetted byreligious leaders and movements. The religious intelligentsia joined hands with the forces of infidelity and cloaked their action for years in highsounding platitudes and social reforms. Outwardlythey appeared pious and reverential while inwardlythey were ravening wolves undermining the faith ofthose who trusted them. Movements which once were considered citadels against the incursions of rationalism turned out to be Trojan horses full of enemy troops. Witness today the debates in the general assemblies, councils, and conferences oversex education, homosexuality and you name it. Trialmarriages, live-in arrangements, wife swapping,abortion on demand and the most bizarre doctrinal and practical aberrations go on right under the tolerant eyes of the "clergy" and sometimes with their open endorsement and/or participation. The underlying cause of all of this is the erosion of faith.Let religionists temporize on the first verse in the Bible, or the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth ofJesus, the miracles of Jesus, the inerrancy and authority of the scriptures and you have swept awaythe foundation upon which doctrinal conviction andmoral turpitude rest.

Ready to Give Answer

Peter wrote "But sanctify the Lord God in yourhearts: and be ready always to give an answer to everyman that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in youwith meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15). Before one can"give an answer" he must first set God apart as the Lord and ruler of his life. He must know the ground of his faith and hope. The religion of our Lord is based onincontrovertible evidence. The Christian is not expected to gullible accept what he is told withoutevidence to support the claims of the gospel. The miracles of Jesus were reported by eye-witnesses (2Pet. 1:16). John, one of the witnesses, said "these things are written that ye might believe" (Jno. 20:3031). Paul preached a certified gospel (Gal. 1:11). WithGod set apart as the Lord (ruler) of our lives, we arethen challenged to "be ready to give an answer" concerning our hope. The word "answer" means a defense,an apology. The challenge to our faith and morals mustbe met. There is an answer. We must learn it and be prepared to give it. Where the skeptic or moral reprobate rattles his saber, there let the battle bejoined. Too many of our day are as cowardly as Sauland the Israelites were when Goliath bellowed his heathen challenge across the valley to timid men whohad lost their conviction that God was with them when they did right. Some would have given in to thetreacherous unity forum offered by the Samaritans toNehemiah when he was invited to meet in one of the villages "on the plains of Ono" to talk. After all, is itnot better to talk than fight? Apparently, some thinkso today. Others, like the Edomites, stand by on theother side and become as one of the enemies of truth when faith and morals are challenged.

No Reason for Fear

Christians have the truth. Truth has been tested in the crucible of persecution, has survived the betrayalkisses of its would-be advocates, and has emergedtriumphant to bless future generations. It does not matter whether the challenge is from the educational or scientific community, from social tampers bereft of faith in God, Christ or the Bible, from sensual deviates, from materialism, from the reprobates who control the entertainment world, or from false religiousleaders and movements, we must be prepared to meetit with the power and might of the word of God. "Forthe weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;Casting down imaginations, and every high thing thatexalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedienceof Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

An Urgent Matter

Unless we realize the power of truth and use thesword of the Spirit against those who challenge it, weshall continue to see a weakening of faith and a continuing moral decline. Unless we understand thecorrelation between faith and moral action, we shall continue to see more and more professing Christiansovercome by the world. What good will it do to lecturethem on attendance, giving, dancing, drugs, drinking, fornication and you name it, unless they have a clearunderstanding of the essential pillars upon which faithrests and out of which spring moral decisions? It is oursettled conviction that many of the present attitudesand worldly actions of those who claim allegiance tothe Lord have come about because of either a failure on the part of those who teach to instill the basictruths of the gospel, or an unwillingness to accept such teaching when it is given.

What is at stake here? The identity of the Lord's people is at stake. When the unbelief of the world about us is absorbed, then moral decline is sure tofollow. The evangelization of the world is at stake.People who have lost their faith and compromised the morals based upon it will have no interest in sharing with the world principles which mean nothing to them anymore. That is one reason the more liberal denominations are losing members at an amazing rate.They have lost their interest in evangelism becausethey have lost faith in the gospel and have centeredtheir interest in the social needs of the present age.And they are powerless to exert moral influence with no faith to undergird it. The preservation of our nation is at stake. It is still true that "Righteousnessexalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people"(Prov. 14:34). For the sake of ten righteous souls God would have spared Sodom. They could not be found.The greatest enemies of our nation are its own citizens who have lost faith in God, Christ and theBible and who are therefore adrift on a sea of moral chaos without a compass. The greatestpatriot of all is the humble servant of God whoknows who he is, what he is, where he came from, why he is here and where he is going after thislife is over. He is a light in a world of darkness. Heis salt to preserve all that is good and decent. Whenall the lights are hidden under a basket and all thesalt has lost its savor, then we have no basis upon which to hope for a continuation of our nation. Our souls and those of our children are at stake. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb.11:6). Without living "soberly, righteously and godlyin this present world", we shall be lost eternally.

Fundamental to our faith and hope as obedientbelievers are certain foundation principles. Reflectionupon these basic truths will punctuate them as essential to any right and proper approach to therelationship of deity and humanity and will bring the constant shoring and strengthening that only continuing study and meditation can produce. As abasis for this entire series of study we urge prayerfulconsideration of the following principles.

God Is!

Is there a supreme being known as Jehovah God?This is the most profound of all questions to be raisedby human minds. This question is at the foundation ofall of man's religious beliefs, involving duty and responsibility, sin and salvation, immortality and eternal blessedness. The reply given to the questiondetermines not only the temporal and eternal happiness of the individual but the welfare and progress of the whole human race. Thus, the ideathat man forms of his God will have everything to dowith the moulding of his own spiritual character aswell as the knitting of his moral fiber.

Man does not have to accept God, this is but one of the two options open to him. The other, God is not, isthe choice of the professed atheist. We believe there isabundant proof of the proposition, "God Is!," from every rational point of consideration. The demonstrations through natural order blend with theproof of Scripture to establish an overpowering body of evidence which has never been successfully refuted.

In the introduction to the Book of Romans, theapostle Paul establishes the universal need for thegospel, "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16).The depravity which had developed within the wholehuman family, particularly the segment other than theJew, is first established in these words: "For the wrathof God is revealed from heaven against all ungodlinessand unrighteousness of men, who hold not the truth inunrighteousness; Because that which may be known ofGod is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it untothem. For the invisible things of him from the creationof the world are clearly seen, being understood by thethings that are made, even his eternal power andGodhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:1820). Among other things, these verses establish a correspondence between the invisible things of God and the clearly seen, thus arguing that creation necessitates a Creator.

The Psalmist declares the unmistakable evidence of God in the universe in Psalms 19:1; "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth

Page 4

his handiwork." It is said, the natural eye can normallysee six or seven thousand stars on a clear night, butmillions with the aid of a high powered telescope. Theclosest fixed star is Alpha which is twenty-five trillionmiles, or five light years away from earth. (Lighttravels 186,000 miles per second, and at that speed itwould take light five years to travel from Alpha toearth). Pollux is thirty-two light years, or 160 trillion miles from earth, and Castor, the "twin,"is some twenty-eight light years farther away. Atthe present method of calculation, astronomers areable to measure a distance of 15,000 light yearsor 100 quadrillion miles out into space. And the precision and harmony with which the universe moves is so perfect that predictions of eclipse can bemade to the second, hundreds of years in advance.This is unmistakable evidence of a Superior Beingto whom such order must be ascribed.

Design clearly implies designer. This is so whether it is a watch, automobile, house, or whatever. It is saidthat Benjamin Franklin once made a model planetarysystem, showing the earth and the planets nearest it.An atheist friend, upon seeing it, asked who made it.Mr. Franklin replied, "No one, it just happened intoexistence, like the universe!" It is said that the atheist saw the point. "For every house is builded by someman; but he that built all things is God" (Heb. 3:4).

Without God the material universe is and remains a perplexing enigma. It is axiomatic truth that everyeffect must have sufficient cause; when one beholdscreation, nature, and providence the only conclusionopen is that Jehovah God is the grand Cause, Creator of all. Indeed, "In the beginning God created theheaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

The works of nature declare that there is a God who created by word and ordered by law all things. TheBible, in addition to setting forth this truth, tells who God is and gives such information as he wants men toknow. The God who has thus revealed himself is fact,and that fact is a principle, fundamental to our faith.

The Bible Is God's Revelation

This proposition needs no defense in the mind andheart of those who accept the fact, "God Is". This,along with the other fundamental considerations hereoffered, is to promote greater faith and growing, and unshakable certainty in the midst of a skeptical generation. The Hebrew writer begins, "God, who atsundry times and in divers manners spake in timespast unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in theselast days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). Theprinciple clause here is, "God hath spoken."

The language of the Old Testament prophet, Hosea,in rebuke of Ephraim may be applied with equal forceto us as he says, "I have written to him the greatthings of my law, but they were counted as strangethings" (8:12). Without violence to the context thispassage may be applied to the Bible and its divineauthorship. The prophet, "mouth of God," speaks forHim, saying, "I have written." This is claim for divineauthorship, and that the Bible is the word of God.What "God hath spoken" (Heb. 1:1), is written and thesum total is confined to the pale of the Bible. "All scripture is given by inspiration" (2 Tim. 3:16) — "Theopnustia," God breathed words. Paul said, "Godhath revealed unto us by his Spirit. . .which things wespeak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, butwhich the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual thingswith spiritual words" (1 Cor. 2:10-13). Emphasis ishere on verbal inspiration of the Bible as Paul attestsspiritual thoughts are conveyed in spiritual words,both originating with God.

The Bible claims that God is its author. If that is not true the Bible is the greatest fraud perpetrated on thehuman family. Its claims are true or the Book isfalse. Believing the former is fundamental to ourfaith. The Bible is the Word of God not because all the words therein were spoken by God. Itrecords some words of evil men, words of some falseteachers, even some of the devil himself. It is theword of God because every syllable from Genesis toRevelation is exactly as God caused it to be written.

Paul wrote to Timothy admonishing that he continue in the "holy scriptures" which he had known from childhood because this knowledge of theOld Scriptures and prophecy led to faith in Christand would make him "wise unto salvation throughfaith which is in Christ Jesus." This comparison of theOld and New Scriptures, points up that both are bythe same inspiration, whether apostolic or prophetic,and this is the basis for belief in the Bible as the word of God.

While there are numerous internal and external proofs establishing that the Bible is God's word thereis one area we propose to explore in some detail at thisjuncture; prophecy and fulfillment. While a wide range of events and circumstances are framed inOld Testament prophecy, the principle object and purpose was preparation for the coming of Christ.Prophecy is an element of the Old Testament which noamount of criticism based on natural principles canexplain away. Prophecies of the Old Testament which fit into the most minute details of history hundreds of years later can be explained only by divineinsight and projection. If there were no other aspect ofproof for inspiration of the scriptures, that they areindeed the word of God, this would surely be sufficient evidence.

There are several hundred Old Testament propheciespointing directly to Jesus Christ. Looking out into theemptiness of the future the prophet's telescope saw theminute details of that which was to come and his indelible pen committed to the page his declarations.We offer a representative sampling of propheciesconcerning the Messiah, with little or no elaboration,as a foundation to a more exhaustive study of thisbody of evidence establishing that the Bible is God's revelation. The unity of the Old Testament asit deals with the purpose of God to redeem sin cursed man through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, as established in the New Testament, constitutes insurmountable and irrefutable evidence for our proposition.

The baseline of all prophecy is couched in Genesis3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and thewoman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shallbruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here asequence of revelation begins which culminates in the

Page 5

death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God. Specifically, God pronounced judgment on the serpent and upon Eve and her posterity. Sin hasalways produced suffering and hardships for the guilty. However, through the seed of woman victoryin that conflict is held forth. Paul joins this promise toChrist in Galatians 4:4 when he writes, "But when thefulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,made of woman, made under the law." Luke 1:34-35 records the reaction of Mary upon being informed ofGod's purpose for her in bearing Jesus, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angelanswered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shallcome upon thee, and the power of the Highest shallovershadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." The initial revelation of Genesis 3:15 spans the agesand cradles all other prophetic utterances as JesusChrist is projected as the hope of all men who would overcome sin and Satan.

Isaiah declared Messiah was to be "born of a virginand called Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14). Matthew records,"when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child ofthe Holy Ghost" (1:18); "Behold a virgin shall be withchild, and shall bring forth a son and they shall call hisname Emmanuel, which being interpreted is Godwith us" (1:23).

The graphic description of the suffering of Messiahunfolds in Isaiah 53 and we note the prediction of hissinless character as the guiltless is projected dying forthe guilty. The New Testament then records that he was "without sin" (1 Pet. 2:22). He would bear hisreproach and oppression in silence (Isa. 53:7); makeintercession for the transgressor (53:12); be rejectedby Jews (53:3); His death a sin offering for all (53:4-6);and on and on. Each of these and all others minutely fulfilled and verified by the New Testamentrecord; "Jesus held his peace" (Mt. 26:63; 27:12-14); heprayed for his enemies and the thief on the cross (Lk.23:34, 43); "His own received him not" (Jn. 1:11, 7:5); He gave "his life a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:28).

He was buried in the grave of a rich man (Isa. 53:9) who is identified as Joseph (Mt. 27:57). The Psalmistdeclared his flesh would not see corruption (Psa. 16:8100); his flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:31). Hewas to ascend on high (Psa. 68:18); and indeed he did(Lk. 24:51; Acts 1:9).

Space forbids taking note of scores of other prophecies which minutely identify and specificallynote all the pertinent features, characteristics and circumstances germane to the purpose and predictionof God's plan for redemption. How is such insight,foresight, and accuracy revealed hundreds of yearsbefore the actual fulfillment explained? Only as weaccept the Bible as God's revelation. Upon this thecase must rest.

Deity of Jesus

Jesus is the most universally admired character inhistory. To view his movements across the stage ofhuman history is to be filled with wonder and approbation. No one can long behold him withoutasking great questions about him. From whence is he? How

did he obtain such grace and beauty of character? How

shall we account for the potency of his personality?

There are really but two views concerning Jesus. Onemaintains that he was a great and good man but only a man; the other holds that he is the son of God, as noother being is. The first view cannot be true; for if he isnot what he claimed to be, then he is neither good norgreat. The second view is correct, and certainly no onetoday signifies more than Jesus does. Although it hasbeen more than 1900 years since he left the earth, he isnot a dead issue. He must still be reckoned with. He grips attention, challenges, and all must do somethingwith him. A consideration of his deity involves recognizing several things.

The focal point of the Bible, the purpose of God inhuman redemption from sin, the church and even advancing civilization requires acceptance of the deityof Jesus. There is a rationale in our world which recognizes cause and effect. Effect requires cause, andcause produces effect. Things happen in a rational way.Christianity is an effect, and it, therefore, must haveadequate cause. The cause is Jesus Christ.

None but deity could make and sustain the claimswhich Jesus made and sustained. The most amazing thing about these claims is that they are claims onlyGod could make. He claimed to be above the Scripture,"teaching as one having authority" superior to all others (Mt. 7:28-29); to exist before creation, speakingof a glory shared with the Father "before the worldwas" (Jn. 17:5); sinlessness, "which of you convinceth me of sin?" (Jn. 8:46). If Jesus is not divine then theseclaims are the claims of an impostor. But he was no impostor and every claim was sustained.

The crowning proof of the deity of Jesus is in theresurrection. The importance of the resurrection ofJesus from the dead is suggested by the fact that it ismentioned one hundred four or more times in the New Testament. Not only so, but, it is treated as the climaxin Paul's comprehensive summarization of the gospelto the Corinthians in that memorable chapter 15.Herein the apostle makes a five-fold negativeargument designed to show the futility of all thingscentered in Christ if indeed he is not risen.

The argument (1 Cor. 15:12 19) begins with thedeclaration, "Now if Christ be preached that he rosefrom the dead, how say some among you that there isno resurrection of the dead." Upon the cardinal fact ofChrist's resurrection, the resurrection of all is thenpredicated and the integrity of the gospel is hinged. "IfChrist be not risen:" (1) "Then is our preaching vain;"

(2) "We are found false witnesses of God;" (3) "Yourfaith is vain;" (4) "Ye are yet in your sins;" (5) "Thenthey also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished." The whole superstructure of the Christian'ssalvation and hope rests on the resurrection of Jesusfrom the dead. Evidence proves the fact and faith in itis vindicated. God be praised.

Here then is what this writer sees as the foundation principles of our faith, lightly treated for lack of space,but established nonetheless. Indeed, God is; The Bibleis His revelation; and Jesus is the only begotten Son ofGod. Upon these things, living faith and lasting hopemust be established.

We live in a society which seemingly rushesheadlong toward degradation and sinfulness, andthusly to ultimate ruination. Our generation is permeated with inordinate pride, unrestrained passion, and rank selfishness. The blame for a largepart of this lack of morality can be placed squarely onman's propensity to devise his own means for controlling himself. This problem has ever been present (Jer. 10:23; I Cor. 2:9; Prov. 14:12, etc.). Manhas never been too impressed with the fact that only ashe functions as God intended when He created him does he function at his proper level of efficiency. Theproblem stems from man's desire for complete freedomto do as he chooses, the desire for pure self-determination. Such thinking seeks to glorify man, notGod.

Humanism defines as "any view in which interest inhuman welfare is central."1 It crystallized into dogmareligiously when a group of Unitarian theologians andseveral professors of like persuasion met in convention in 1933. The communiqué derived from this gathering is called THE HUMANIST MANIFESTO.In this godless document religion is viewed as "'a snared quest for the good life,' and social justice andsocial reform are stressed as important in religiousendeavor."2 In other words, religion was reduced toseeking after merely secular ends in the promotion ofhuman welfare. And while interest in the soul is avowed, the works performed by the movement denyit.

In 1973 THE HUMANIST MANIFESTO II was published. Among other things, it contained, 1) thedenial of creation, 2) the promotion of organicevolution, 3) outright spoofs at the idea of redemptionand salvation from sin, even stating that such notionsare harmful to the constitution of man, and, 4) thatmoral values are purely situational and that anylifestyle is acceptable which imposes no harm or restrictions on others.3

When reduced to its practical elements, humanism isthe advancement that man's intellect is the unit with which to answer all of man's problems; it is thepromotion that religion is no more than mere intellectual evolution. Such thinking reduces Christianity to no more than a slightly higher form ofthinking than was Judaism, which was only a highersystem than the Hellenistic philosophies, which wereonly an evolution of whatever preceded them. Christianity, according to this sequence, will eventually evolve into some even higherintellectual system. The modern humanist aversthat situationalism is a bridge to that system.

I have sought in vain to find a clear, concise and unambiguous concept of humanism, one which properly depicts its true aims, intentions, and goals. The term itself is so general and has been stretched insuch diverse directions of use that it defies adequatedefinition as regards connotation. However, the ideasbeing promoted by humanism are found in almostevery school of religious thought and proceed to affectalmost every area of life. Humanism cannot be restricted to education, for it pervades more than justthe intellectual community. When viewed practically,it is not merely justifiable immorality and situationalism, although it allows and recommendsboth for a happy and productive life. It is certainlyactive at every level of education. Strictly stated, itseems to me that humanism is man's answer to his own existence and purpose according to human wisdom. In it he determines where he came from by hisown senses and decides his course of activity by hisown methods, ultimately to his own glorification.

The gospel message of salvation has forever been inconflict with the secular mind (Cf. Rom. 8:l-ff, etc.).Man, in his nature, was created to be instructed; he isformed for service and such natural qualities cry outfor information and education. In his efforts to explain himself by himself, he has not "retained God in his knowledge." I am aware that the humanist would probably deny that statement, but it is nonetheless so. Let me illustrate. The humanist denies God in that he does not believe what God has given as explanation forhis existence (Gen. 1, 2, 3). He denies God when he doesnot subscribe to God's identification of and condemnation for sin (Rom. 3:10, 23; Isa. 59:1-2; Ezk. 18:20). He denies God when he places his confidence inhis own abilities and methods of control instead of subjecting himself to the control of the divine directive(II Cor. 10:12). In all these instances, the humanistprefers his own explanations to those of God.

The Onslaught of Humanism

The result of the propagation of humanist philosophy can be seen in almost every area of education. Beginning in the tender and impressionableyears, our youngsters are fed a steady diet of organicevolution as if there was no question at all about itstruthfulness. In secondary schools, colleges,universities, answers must be given by students asthey appear in the evolutionist textbooks, whether ornot they are a matter of conviction with the student.The person who would dare suggest that there mightbe an alternate view is open to ridicule and coarsetreatment for even considering what is held by mostscientists to be a superstitious and senseless absurdity. Education is the growing bed for theseeds of humanistic philosophies. It furnishes fertileground because the younger mind is groping foranswers, asking to be noticed, and in its newfoundindependence, is anxious to show off its intellectualstrength and potency.

The concept of humanistic thinking can easily workitself into our personal meditations and contemplations. It has an appeal to our tendency toward intellectualism, mental calisthenics,phrenic speculation, sense gymnastics. For instance,if we concede to being mere biochemical machines,how is there any such thing as sin? Then, if there isno such thing as sin, why should we feel the pangsof con

science when we do wrong? Furthermore, anything done "in love," love being the highest motive to theintellectual, is neither inherently right or wrong. It depends on the situation in which it is done. And ifsuch is so, I can easily justify almost any course ofaction I deem to be necessary to the situation, according to my own reasoning. And finally, thehumanist reasons that unless subjectivism replacesthe ancient, droll, and antiquated morality, then puritanical religion is retained and progressive intellectual evolution is retarded. Friedrich Schleiermacher, one of the fathers of classical liberalism, set the stage for such thinking when he taught that "sin is an unavoidable inequality of development and transformed it, as presupposing the need of redemption, into a stage of evolution toward goodness."4

Humanism has always had a penchant for theesthetic, the intellectual, that which elevates man asman, rather than the spiritual. E. G. Sihler says, "Theovervaluation of formal and literary and estheticalthings, and a profound indifference toward spiritualthings has been, and still is, a serious failing of muchclassicism . . ."5 It is obvious that there is a definite connection between the pompous intellectual and thepious humanist. They ascend from the same source—inordinate self esteem. Their creed is the same—human thinking for human need. So impressedare they with their own education and their own acquisition of knowledge that they have made such anend in itself rather than a means toward practicalservice. And while they cry loud and long about theirsocial reforms, benevolent activities, and social welfare programs, most of what they do is intended to elevatethemselves and its motive contains no glorification of God. They can credit themselves for accomplishment,and act as if they alone were responsible not only fortheir capacity for knowledge, but the talent to make ituseful as well. In such endeavors knowledge becomestheir god; theory becomes their instructor; and humanwisdom becomes their saviour.

Humanist theories have gained a strong foothold inreligious education, too. Many large church-relatedschools are no more than hotbeds for liberalism. Many religious professors today assign a poor definition totruth, if they admit that it can be ascertained, andwould look upon seeking command, precept, or example for authority in religion as archaic and badlydated. Their intense desire to promote subjectivism asthe final authority for each individual precludes theiracceptance of the fact of a controlling and requiringlaw. They are so busily engaged in social reform andeconomic revolution that no time is left with which to refresh the soul. In fact, little attention is given to thesoul in their instruction, since these so-called "religionist" decry the efforts of fundamentalists whocall for authority in religion as divisive and disruptiveof peace, arguing that all such actions serve to retardtheir efforts at ecumenism and unlimited toleration of one another's personal preferences. The existence inmany churches today of benevolent societies and entertainment facilities is further testimony that humanism is not limited to the school or the home, buthas gained a foothold in the church as well.

Our efforts to give our children the moral educationand spiritual conviction they need are meeting with great resistance today, partly because of the very subtle means being employed by humanist forces. Theistic evolution is a good example of these ploys.Theistic evolution is but a compromise, a bargain struck so as to allow religious people to tolerate organic evolution along with their religion. But thischallenge to our faith, when carefully examined, is neither theistic nor religious, but humanistic. It is nonetheless being sold in great batches to our people in acamouflaged and cleverly counterfeited package. If such a theory, which has staggering implications, is accepted then man becomes no more than a highly sophisticated biological arrangement and you can readily see what that does to such ideas as sin ("I wasmade that way"), accountability ("It's just human nature to do that"), and judgment ("How can He condemn me for doing what I was made to do?"). And so our children face great challenges because of humanistic thinking.

What Can We Do?

What is to be done? How can today's Christian combat the onslaught of humanistic thinking? May Isuggest some things?

1. Let every man have his own faith. Too long we have tried to function with someone else's conviction. We are too often what we are only as a result of thehappenstance of birth—we are Christians because Mom and Dad were; the same with Methodists andBaptists. We have too many who have merely aninherited religion. Let every man begin to think forhimself, to be convinced in his own mind from his own study and deliberation. The problem of humanism iscondemned by Paul as he cites its practical functions inRom. l:18-ff. Notice that all the moral decadence sprang from a failure of the people to "retain God in their knowledge." Any time a man seeks to operate without the benefit of his own faith he operates without a true compass and runs a course of destruction. Let us teach our children the value of being right, not merely religious. Let us teach them to beindependent and convinced only after consideration ofproper evidence and support from God's Word. Let usshow them how to develop their own confidence and trustin the Word of God and then instill in them the courage to follow those convictions, even in the face of adversity.Let us show them a good example, illustrating in our lives our complete trust in God's Word to accomplish what is good for us.
2. Let us learn to examine. Oftentimes we accept things just because "that seems logical." The man of God must not be so gullible. He must try things, prove theories, investigate assertions. Many people todaywill not even admit to the possibility of false teachers inreligion. And yet, beginning at the Sermon on the Mount and from thenceforth throughout the New Testament there are repeated warnings about falseteachers (Matt. 7:15, Gal. 1:6-9; I Tim. 4:1-4; II Pet.2:1-3; I Jno. 4:l-ff, etc.). Only as we learn to investigatecan we know what is being taught to our children; only in our investigation, our own comparison with the divine standard, can we be certain that our course ofpursuit has the approval of God. We do not listen tomen, but to God! We need to search the Scriptures to seeif what we are being told is true (Acts 17:11).

Page 8

1. Let us begin an educational program of our own. We need to stop depending on others to do ourwork for us. We need to stop counting on the church toprovide the spiritual education we all need. We needto stop waiting on the preacher to teach our friends and neighbors. If we had the excitement, thesheer joy of our salvation possessed by the first century Christians, we would all be instructors (Acts 8:4). Christians do not necessarily need more formal training in how to dopersonal work, they just need the motive which comesfrom the joy of salvation (Psa. 51:2; Isa. 25:9), thezeal that comes from loving the souls of men. In OldTestament times, personal family education was a wayof life (Deut. 6:3-9; 11:18-20). It should be no less sotoday. We must learn the value of constant contact withthe message of God. How can we conclude that we ourselves or those who are our responsibility can properly ward off the wily stratagem of humanistic thinking without the knowledge necessary to identify it and deal accordingly?
2. We need to speak up for right. The forces of humanism have no timidity; they promote their product with care and precision. It is "a time to speak"(Eccl. 3:7). Too long we have been mute as we watchedthe proponents of human philosophy march byunabated and unopposed. It is time that we learned tospeak up for right, contend for decency, show ourabhorrence for immorality and gross misconduct, even ifit is shrouded in the clothing of respectability andreligion. If we do not seek to stem the tide of immorality we may soon find ourselves inundated with a flood of decadence from which escape is mighty nighimpossible. Is right right? Then let us stand for it! Issin wrong? Then let us cease to tolerate it withseeming indifference! And is Christ the Son of God? Ishe the Saviour of the world? Then let us say so! Let usunhesitatingly recommend him. Let us unashamedlyemulate his conduct in our lives. Let us untimidly speak of him wherever we go.

Conclusion

Our faith is being challenged on every hand. Doubt,speculation, presumption hang as ominous clouds overour faith. We must rise to the occasion. With a buckler of faith, a sword honed to a fine edge from constantuse, with bosoms filled with the joy of our Lord andhearts galvanized with the zeal of our profession, let usrise up and fight. Not merely protect and defend, butmarch out with an offensive thrust calculated to subdue the enemy and conquer the foe. With gladhearts, let us proceed. With love for men, let us commence. With fear of God and respect for His cause;with love for His Son and profound regard for His law,let us launch our noble conflict. "The earth shall tremble neath our tread and echo with our shout," for"faith is the victory."

Footnotes

1 Dictionary of Philosophy, D. D. Runes, Published by the Philadelphia Library, 1942. (pp.

342).

The Godly Family in a Sick Society, Florida College Annual Lectures, 1979. Edited by

Melvin D. Curry, Published by Florida College Bookstore, 1979. In his lecture "Humanistic

Thinking," Dave Bradford gives a concise and lucid view of the derivation and history of

Humanism, (pp. 172).

3Ibi d.

4 Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. X, Baker Publishing Company,

1956, pp. 243.

5 Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 402.

Organic Evolution is the theory that "non-livingmatter became alive, that this original living matterwas simple in its organization, and that the world ofliving things known today, including man, gradually developed from these original simple forms" (Dr. JohnKlotz).

Simply stated, the theory proposes that dead matter, acting upon itself, spawned a very simple formof life (one-cell organism), which by chance evolvedinto higher forms of life over a period of millions of years. The micro-organisms evolved into multicellular organisms (invertebrate), which in turn eventually became fishes (vertebrate), and the fishesevolved into amphibians, the amphibians into reptiles, the reptiles into mammals, the mammals into monkeys and apes and the apes into man. The plant life was also evolving, they say, at the same time.

When I was a boy I thought if you put a hair from ahorse's tail into water, it would become a snake. I discovered that it would not. Yet, many scientists arejust as juvenile in their concept as to how life began.

To read some of the high school and collegetextbooks, the scientific journals, to watch some of theTV documentaries and listen to some professors,you would think that organic evolution is a well-established fact with just the ignorant and stupid believing otherwise.

But what is the fact about evolution? The truth is that organic evolution is NOT a scientific fact, but ismerely a theory. It is philosophic rather than scientific.Science deals with that which can be observed and tested. Evolution has to do with origins and is notrepeatable. No man observed how things began, nor can it be repeated for observation and testing.Therefore, the evolutionary theory is not scientific.

Evolution, An Assumption

Dr. G. A. Kerkut, a British scientist, professor andevolutionist, wrote that "there is a theory that allliving forms in the world have arisen from a singlesource which itself came from an inorganic form. . . .the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strongto allow us to consider it as anything more than aworking hypothesis" (Implications of Evolution, p.157).

In the beginning of his book Dr. Kerkut states thatthere are seven basic assumptions that are often notmentioned during discussions of evolution. They are:

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. (2) The second assumption is that spontaneous

generation occurred only once.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria,plants and animals are all interrelated. (4) The fourth assumption is that Protozoa gave riseto the Metazoa. (5) The fifth assumption is that the various in vertebrate phyla are interrelated. (6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebratesgave rise to the vertebrates. (7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds andmammals (p. 6).

After listing these seven assumptions, Kerkut thenadds: "The first point that I should like to make is thatthese seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that acertain series of events has occurred in the past" (p. 7).

In a review of Kerkut's book, Dr. John T. Bonner wrote: "This is a book with a disturbing message; itpoints to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deepdown but were never willing to admit this to ourselves" (American Scientist, Vol 49, June, 1961, p. 240). It appears that evolutionists have been "whistlin' in the dark" when they told us that evolution was a well-established fact.

Ancestors Unknown

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, who received his Ph. D in Zoology from John Hopkins University, has authored anexcellent book refuting the evolutionary theory. It is titled, Evolution and Christian Faith. On pages 302-309 Davidheiser quotes from the writings of 81 differentscientists, who are evolutionists, and who state they donot know the origin or ancestry of the animal groups.He also states it would be just as easy, if not easier, todo the same for plant ancestry. His long list of quotations closes with this one from Dr. Earl L. Coreof W. Va. University: "We do not actually know thephylogenetic history of any group of plants and animalssince it lies in the undecipherable past."

It is obvious, therefore, that the evolutionists do not know what they are talking about when they say thatfish evolved into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles,etc. The evolutionary tree that appears in many of thescience books would be nothing more than an arbitrarydrawing of someone's imagination.

Evidence Examined

After examining the evidence that evolutionists offer,it is amazing how weak and feeble their case is. Manyof them would have us believe that the evidence is overwhelming in their favor and for one to doubt theirconclusions is to close his eyes to an abundance of scientific data. Let us weigh the evidence that commonly appears in the textbooks.

(1) Comparative anatomy. This involves the comparison of different kinds of animals as tothe similarities of their skeletons, muscles, blood vessels and organs of the digestive tract. The greater the similarity, the closer the relationship, they say, thereby showing a common ancestor from which the similar animals evolved.

But instead of similarity showing a common ancestor, why could it not be showing a common Creator, namely, Jehovah? Furthermore, it is but natural that animals which occupy the same environment should have similar characteristics. Too, why should God have to follow a different pattern for every creature?

(2) Vestigial organs. This is the argument that certain structures and organs of the higher forms oflife, such as man, are remains which were once requiredby our ancestral parents but are now no longer essential. The appendix and tonsils are given as examples, although we have now learned they help fight infection. Several years ago the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, listed 180 vestigial organs that were useless to man. Among those was the pituitary gland, now known as the master gland of the body. Today, the listhas dwindled to a half-dozen or so. Because we do not know the function of a certain organ or structure doesnot mean it does not have one. Scientists can be just asignorant about the six as Wiedersheim was about theone-hundred and eighty. (3) Embryonic recapitulation. This is the idea that during embryonic development (while in early stages of the uterus) all animals and humans passthrough stages resembling their evolutionary history. But this view has been so discredited that it is hardly ever presented as serious evidence by the scientific world. As early as 1932 Dr. Waldo Shumway of the University of Illinois said that this theory "seems to demand that the hypothesis be abandoned." Space does not allow the amplearguments showing the weakness of this theory. (4) Genetics. Evolutionists tell us that through mutations of the genes, which they say develop morefavorable characteristics for the specie and enable it toultimately evolve into some other kind, the evolutionary process took place. Those animals and plants best suited to the environment survived andreproduced their kind at the expense of those whichwere not so well suited to the environment. This is called "natural selection." As time progressed,creatures became better and better adapted, changingthrough the years by mutation to something else.

No doubt that mutation takes place within species,and, consequently, some changes. The fruit fly is agood example. But after all the changes have takenplace, the specie remains the same—the fruit-fly isstill a fruit-fly. If the fruit-fly became a horsefly, thenyou have evolution. The evolutionist needs to showtransmutation, not mutation. Evolution requirestransmutation—the changing of one kind into anotherkind.

Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky, an evolutionist,and a leading geneticist, said: "Most mutants whicharise in any organism are more or less disadvantageousto their possessors . . . " (American Scientist, Dec, 1957, p. 385). Ernest A. Hooton, Harvard anthropologist, was honest enough to say they were"leaning upon a broken reed when we depend on mutations" (Apes, Men, and Morons, p. 118). Why, then, do evolutionists try to explain evolution bymutations? Because they have nothing better.

(5) Fossils. Fossils are evidence of ancient life. Evolutionists maintain that the fossil record is the direct evidence of evolution and provides the only

Page 10

historical, documentary evidence that he has evolved.

If evolutionists are correct about fossils, there should be a continuous series of fossils from the simpleto the complex organisms. But such is not the case.There are millions of fossils but no intermediate or transitional fossils. If evolution took place there wouldbe just as many transitional fossils (the gradualchange, for example, of reptiles into birds) as there are the differentiated. The fossils say that evolution did not happen. George Gaylord Simpson, well known paleontologist, said concerning the fossils of the thirty-two orders of mammals: "In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the originof the order is speculative and much disputed" (Tempo and Mode of Evolution, p. 105).

The Bible teaches that God made everything afterits kind (Gen. 1:21-25). These are the fossils that are inabundance and not some freakish, intermediate organism that is part one kind and part another kind ofanimal life. Dr. Duane T. Gish thoroughly refuted theevolutionist's argument from fossils in his excellentbook, "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!

A Young Earth

The evolutionary theory demands a lot of time, likehundreds of millions of years. This is why they developed the geological time scale. It is just as arbitrary as their phylogenetic tree. Scientists do not know the age of fossils or the rock in which they arefound. The time clocks we hear so much about are actually not very reliable. Dr. Melvin Cook, who gothis Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale, wrote: "... There really are no reliable time clocks despite an almost overwhelming contrary opinion" (Prehistory and Earth Models, Preface, p. xi). As Dr. Robert Rastall said: "The succession of organisms has beendetermined by a study of their remains embedded inthe rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain" (Encyl. Britannica, Vol. 10, 1957, p.168). This is what you call "going around in circles."

Instead of the earth, and life on it, being veryancient, the evidence tends to show that the earth is relatively young, not allowing evolution the time itneeds for development. Let us notice:

(1) If man has been on earth for a million years withan annual growth rate of 0.01 percentage (very low),the population would be 10t# people, enough to fill3,500 solar systems solidly with bodies. (2) The accumulation of the delta of the Mississippi shows it could not be older than about 5000 years. (3) Petroleum and natural gas are held at highpressures in underground reservoirs of porous rockand sand. Calculations show that the oil and gas could not be maintained for much longer than from 10,000 to100,000 years. (4) If the earth was once in a molten state, asevolutionists claim, the time of cooling to present temperature could not be more than 45 million years. Theysay the earth is about four and one-half billion yearsold. (5) The concentrations of various elements and saltscontained in sea water, when compared with the an

nual estimated amounts being added by rivers, rains,springs, and other sources, uniformly point to a youngearth.

(6) The average depth of sediments on the oceanfloors is only a little more than one-half mile. Butbillions of years should have loaded sixty-miles ofsediments on the ocean floor. (7) Helium gas resulting from radioactive decay iscontinually being released into the atmosphere fromthe earth's crust. The estimated rate of this release compared with the total helium now in the atmospheresuggests that the atmosphere may be only about12,000 to 60,000 years old. (8) Meteors of all sizes crash into the earth's atmosphere and settle to the surface mostly in form ofdust. It is estimated 14 million to as much as 50 million tons fall annually on the earth's surface. If thishas been going on for four and one-half billion years,the layer of dust would be at least 150 feet thick(Taken from Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter byRobert E. Kofahl, Ph.D).

After all the evidence has been weighed, reason andcommon sense would lead us to say: "In the beginningGod created the heavens and the earth." It is impossible for me to conceive that dead matter couldproduce life, conscience, intelligence, instinct, etc. I can only attribute this to an Intelligent Being.

Life is, therefore, life has always been. The law ofbiogenesis says that all life comes from life. This is ascientific fact! On this fact the creationist stands.

Page 11

It is appalling to behold the measure of infidelity inour society today. It is in evidence in the radio and TVtalk programs, community public hearings, syndicatedcolumns of the news papers, magazines, and the pressin general. Seldom, if ever, is an appeal made to anystandard by which an issue may be settled definitively.Rather, human rationalism shows itself to the highest degree. The wisdom of one human is pitted against thewisdom of another. While the issue is never completelysettled, public thought and conduct in general isordered according to whichever rationalist is able toinfluence the greater number of people. Rationalism,Pragmatism, and Situation Ethics join hands to revolutionize our social world and to challenge thefaith of all Christians.

Such standards, however, are ever uncertain. Rationalism of today yields to that of tomorrow andoften reverses itself from generation to generation.Our world needs a definitive standard. Our world needs faith in the only definitive standard—the wordof God. Here is infinite wisdom! Christians must remember that issues are to be settled by infinite wisdom (the word of God) and not by human rationalism. This is the issue involved in the WOMEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT and the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).

The ERA reads as follows: SECTION 1. Equality ofrights under the law shall not be denied or abridged bythe United States or by any State on account of sex. SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power toenforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The expression "Equality of rights" is ambiguousand involves more than meets the eye from just acursory reading. In fact, its involvements are rathershocking. Read the following from a former ardent supporter of the ERA:

"As a member of the Arizona State Senate, I spokein favor of the amendment the day after it passed theCongress. Within a few days, I read the CongressionalRecord, with all the debate and testimony during thehearing, regarding the effect of the amendment. I wasshocked. Never in all of my years of support did Irealize that the amendment would have to apply in theabsolute—that before the LAW we would be neither men nor women, boys nor girls.

"I was shocked also to find that the Senate overwhelmingly defeated all proposed amendments.They included exemption from military draft and service in combat on an equal basis as well as eliminating the requirement that a husband have alegal responsibility to support his family. There wereothers of great con

cern. The Courts would have to see those defeats as legislative intent in all future decisions" (Bess B. Stinson, Voice of Freedom, October 1978).

The Women's Rights Movement supports ERA. Perhaps a summation of the high points of what isinvolved in the amendment would help some to seemore clearly the challenge it presents to the faith ofa Christian. According to literature from PhyllisSchlafly, National Chairman of STOP ERA, Box 618,Alton, Ill. 62002, Yale Law Journal, April 1971;Professor Paul Freund of Harvard Law School, et al.,the amendment will:

1. Make every wife in the U.S. legally responsible to provide 50%of the financial support of her family.
2. Make women subject to the draft and for combat duty equallywith men.
3. Wipe out criminal laws which protect only women from rapeand sex crimes.
4. Wipe out much legislation which protects women from hazardous and unpleasant jobs.
5. Override the right to privacy and "require that there be nosegregation of the sexes in prison, reform schools, public rest-rooms, other public facilities" (Professor Paul Freund, Harvard Constitutional Authority).
6. Transform every provision of law differentiating between menand women into a constitutional issue to be resolved by the Federal Court system.
7. Take from wives the right to draw Social Security checksbased on her husband's earnings.
8. Approve homosexual marriages. 9. Approve of women in leadership roles in the church.
8. Nullify thousands of laws which give women special rights and privileges.

The above high points of what this amendment willdo foreshadow social changes of great magnitude. Obviously, the objective is a unisex society. Child rearing would likely be done communally, for somewomen would claim their right to be free of such. Homosexual marriages with the privilege of adopting children would be another social evil withfar reaching adverse effects upon the emotional stability of the children involved. Tax exempt statusfor churches that respect the divine order would mostlikely become a thing of the past—such being enjoyed only by churches with women in leadership roles. Infact, there would be no end to the social changes in ourworld.

It should be observed further that opposition toERA does not mean endorsement of discrimination against women. In fact, the amendment is not necessary to remove discriminations. Federal laws providing for equal pay for equal work, with equal jobopportunities, equal treatment in mortgage loans,credit opportunities, equal age limits in adulthood,voting, marriage, etc., already exist. When the lawsmaking the above provisions are carefully consideredin the light of the effects of ERA, one should see thatthe amendment is UNNECESSARY, full of infidelity,and little if anything short of just plain foolishness.

The Women's Rights Movement not only disregardsbut contravenes divine wisdom as revealed in the word of God. It is here that the faith of the Christian is challenged. This is evident from a clear understandingof what the Bible teaches concerning the relationshipbetween man and woman. Much of the following isfrom a former article which I wrote on this point(Searching the Scriptures, Vol. XVII, No. 7, p. 5).

God is the creator of both man and woman, and He

Page 12

created each with a view to the very ultimate in joy, happiness, and fulfillment both for time and eternity.He created both EQUAL, and with Him there is no such thing as the superiority of one over the other—sofar as their worth either to Him or to one another is concerned (Gen. 2:23, 24; Eph. 5:28-31; Gal. 3:28).However, He did create each with essential differences.

Contrary to the claim of the Women's Rights Movement, these differences are not produced by a difference in education, training, culture, or one's environment. These differences are basic. Man and woman differ anatomically, biochemically, and emotionally. God created them that way. This meansthat each has a different capacity for service. Furthermore, this difference enables each to serve withexcellence in the different roles designed for his or herfulfillment. While these different roles involve one over the other in some relationships, such does not mitigateagainst their equality in worth, honor, and fulfillmentin life. Each serves in his respective role with honorand distinction and is a complement to the other. The Women's Rights Movement makes competitors of the two.

For further reference on the basic differences mentioned above, I suggest Dr. James Dobson's book, What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. He is a licensed psychologist in theState of California, associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern CaliforniaSchool of Medicine, and Director of Behavioral Research in the Division of Child Development, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. Here is a quote from his book: "In truth, they are unique in every cell of their bodies, for men carry

a different chromosomal pattern than women. There is also considerable evidence to indicate that the hypothalamic region, located just above the pituitary gland in the mid-brain, is 'wired' very uniquely for each of the sexes. Thus the hypothalamus (known as the seat of emotions) provides women with a differentpsychological frame of reference than that of men. Further, femalesexual desire tends to be somewhat cyclical correlated with themenstrual calendar, whereas males are acyclical. These and otherfeatures account for the undeniable fact that masculine and feminine expressions of sexuality are far from identical. Failure tounderstand this uniqueness can produce a continual source ofmarital frustration and guilt... Dr. Katherina Dalton, in The Premenstrual Syndrome (Springfield, Ill., 1964) summarizes manystudies of behavior change that show a large portion of women's crimes (63% in an English study, 84% in a French) are notdistributed evenly over time, but clustered in the premenstrualperiod along with suicides, accidents, a decline in the quality of school work, decline in intelligence test scores, visual acuity, andresponse speed. In the United States, she calculated that absenteeism related to menstruation cost about five billion dollars a year, but accidents, absenteeism, and domestic quarrels are only part of the social repercussions of symptoms that affect everyone.A book might be filled with discussion of other biological differences between the sexes, that are of great importance in one way or another, in everyday life," ... (pp. 114,131,132).

These biological and other differences account forGod's assigning them different roles in life. Hence,women are not to serve as elders and evangelists—theyare not to be teachers of God's word so as to exercise authority over man (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11; 2:15; 1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34, 35). Man has been ordained tothe position of headship in the home (Eph. 5:22-33; Col.3:18-21). While they are not equal in all of life's relationships, they are equal in God's sight so far as their worth to God and to each other is concerned. Furthermore, each finds his greatest possible fulfillmentin life as he serves in his respective role. It is not commensurate with woman's nature to serve best in fighting battles, commanding armies, controlling kingdoms, or in making laws. Her best is not to be found in braving the way and bearing the responsibilities of leadership. Man is best suited for thisrole. Woman's throne of glory is in the home.

Unfortunately, The Women's Rights Movement equates this position with serfdom and talks loudlyabout boredom and how unfulfilling such a role is. True, such involves doing the laundry, washing dishes, cleaning house, nursing babies, tending children,planning menus, shopping wisely, etc. Properly viewed, however, these are important responsibilities and arevery rewarding. She shares equally with her husband(though doing different things) in providing a home atmosphere that is a haven of rest. Likewise, she sharesequally in the growth and development of the children.Furthermore, she thereby becomes the object of the deepest respect among men, the recipient of the tenderest love known from all other members of the family. The deep satisfaction and gratifying results of such a role is clearly pictured in Prov. 31:10-31.

Man's role, too, may be viewed as routine, boring, and frustrating. He faces competition from nearly every viewpoint—among fellow workers, sales, contracts, and merchandise. He must pay "thebutcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker"—bills,bills, and more bills. He must deal with and try tosolve the problems of his company, listen to complaintsof employees, supervisors, et al. But, again, whenproperly viewed, such a role is rewarding. When self isforgotten in service to others satisfaction fills the soul.Honor, esteem, and distinction become his crown. Heis the recipient of appreciation from among hisassociates, and of the greatest possible measure of lovefrom those who know him best. When both man and woman fill their God-ordained roles, they find bliss andfulfillment for both time and eternity.

This does not mean that there is no place, time, orcircumstances that would justify a woman serving inpublic life. The pressure of circumstances, eventragedies, sometimes necessitate it. Furthermore, inour modern society there are some positions in publiclife that can best be filled by woman. This, however, is a far cry from opening the doors of every relationship inpublic life to men and women alike—even to leadershiproles in the church. Such is subversive of divine wisdom.

"The role of a woman, when properly assumed and played, is honorable, glorious, and rewarding. In fillingher role, she does her husband good, blesses her household—even reaching forth her hand beyond tothe needy. She may also buy a field and plant a vineyard—even make and deliver goods to the merchants. But in all this she continually 'looketh well to the ways of her household' and 'her husband is known in the gates.' Such a woman is not only praisedby her husband, children, and all others, but by theLord (Prov. 31)" (H. E. Patton, Bread of Life Teacher, Vol. 3, No. 5, Montgomery, Ala.).

When women forsake their God ordained role for that of the man, the consequent evils are manifold. Themarital relationship is frustrated, children suffer psychologically, juvenile delinquents increase,immorality spreads, and social evils multiply. God's way is the only way for true happiness now and forever.

A great deal of publicity has been given the women's liberation movement. Those who keep up with currentevents are somewhat familiar with the major arguments, pro and con, on that particular controversy. The children's liberation concept, though similar in its philosophy and objectives,has not yet been the object of as much coverage in themedia.

Christians should be aware of the insidious designsof certain liberals in our society to redefine the familyand destroy the basic unit of civilized existence, the home as God designed it.

For over two decades the children's lib movement has been underway. It has made frightening strideswithin the past few years. The United Nations passeda resolution in 1959 called Declaration of the Rights ofthe Child. 1979 was named "International Year of the Child" by the UN. Such was established in our nationby President Carter's Executive Order of April 4,1978. All such has been promoted by the advocates ofchildren's liberation and has served its purposes.

What Is Children's Lib?

One of the leading proponents of the cause is RichardFarson. He is a psychologist and faculty member ofthe Humanistic Psychology Institute in San Franciscoand authored "Birthrights: A Bill of Rights for Children."

In a special feature of the Los Angeles Times, republished in The Louisville Courier-Journal, Oct. 26, 1975, Farson lays his goals out for all to see. He opposes discriminating against children on the basisof age: "... we patronize them as adults-in- trainingand use this as an excuse to dominate, segregate, program, compel, ignore, incarcerate and abuse them to the point that being a child is like being disabled."

Child abuse, something all Christians and goodpeople abhor, is being used by child's rightsadvocates as proof of the need for sweeping changes.But concerns of these promoters go far beyond theelimination of child abuse. Farson even states: "Ending corporal punishment is a relatively acceptable idea compared to other changes wewould face if we put an end to age-ism . . . Full citizenship for children would mean the elimination ofcompulsory

education . . . what we have today is forced schooling, anexample of incarcerating children against their will ...Children should have the same legal protection thatadults have, including the rights to counsel, bail and ajury trial... another way that we keep children in their place is by refusing to allow them to vote... if children would vote they would become a political constituencyand at last politicians would be truly interestedin acting in their behalf . . . There are much broader implications, of course. They'd also be allowed to drive automobiles, enjoy sexual freedom, handle their own finances and choose all sorts of options for themselves. So be it."

Other rights that children's lib advocates have in mind are government funded abortion and contraception services without parental knowledgeand consent, and elimination of age restrictions onbuying liquor and marrying.

Sweden, in 1979, passed a law by a vote in Parliament of 259-6 that parents may not strike their children or treat them in any humiliating way.Spanking is against the law there. AP writer Hugh A.Mulligan notes: "So, too, is sending little Birgit to bedwithout supper, dusting the rompers of darling Dage,cutting off Olaf's TV rights, confining Pia to her bedroom and similar humiliations against impending posterity.

"Mom and Dad could wind up in family court byway of the police station for opening little Gustav'smail and getting an advance peak at his porno publications..."

Liberated From What?

Sober thinking people will want to know from whatchildren are to be liberated. Many leaders in thismovement would have us believe that the goal of"children's liberation" is only to help poor, neglected,and/or abused children. A closer examination,however, reveals that they want children liberatedfrom:

1. TRADITIONAL AND SCRIPTURAL MORALS AND VALUES. In the White House Conference on Children, Report to the President, 1970, p. 65, 66, the statement is made: "The real solution requires a fundamental change in the value commitment, and the actions of the persons who control the public andprivate sector of our common life—parents, and those whose decisions determine the life-styles of other human beings."

Further, "Day Care is a powerful institution ... A day care program that ministers to a child from sixmonths to six years has over 8,000 hours to teach himvalues, fears, beliefs, and behaviors" (p. 278).

The institution of government Day Care Centers isperhaps the prime immediate priority of this group. Agrave danger is here evident. The Child Care Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971 avers: "Any agency that workswith children should have as its goal the rehabilitationof its residents, rather than simply their custody . . .the child care worker is seen as the behavior changeagent..."

We are concerned, of course, with the question:whose values, fears, beliefs, and behaviors will these children be taught? One does not have to read the

Page 14

writings of the social planners for long to learn that thetraditional and scriptural morals and values of ourJudeo-Christian heritage are not what they have inmind.

2. PARENTAL AUTHORITY. Quotations from Richard Farson have already established this point.The White House Conference Report quoted above states: "We recommend that laws dealing with rightsof parents be re-examined and changed where theyinfringe on the rights of children ... amendments shouldreinforce the primacy of the rights of the child."

3. RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. The right of parentsto indoctrinate their children religiously is opposed bychildren's rights advocates. The 1959 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child states: "The child shall beprotected from practices which may foster racial, RELIGIOUS, or any other form of DISCRIMINATION." Teaching that there is one church and one way of salvation is discriminatory, is itnot? As a matter of fact, teaching that Christianity ispreferable to Islam or Hinduism is discriminatory.

A Biblical Perspective

The philosophy and objectives of the children's rights movement is completely contrary to the teaching of God's word. "Bring up a child in the way he should go ..." we are admonished in Prov. 22:6. "Fathers, provokenot your children to wrath, but bring them up inthe nurture and admonition (discipline and instruction, NASB) of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4). "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correctionwill drive it far from him" (Prov. 22:15).

Advocates of children's lib are among thosedescribed in 2 Peter 2:19. They promise liberty, butthey themselves are servants of corruption.

The right kind of adult leadership and parental authority does not interfere with, but rather is essential to healthy growth and development. Onlywhere a careful balance of love and control exists can children grow with self confidence and develop intoproductive citizens able to face the responsibilities ofadulthood.

Concern must be manifested over angry, unloving,destructive discipline. Let's be careful though lest wethrow the baby out with the bathwater. Valid concernover child abuse and authoritarian extremes must not be permitted to lead us to the elimination of neededauthority and discipline. One extreme is as damagingas the other. Children are not little adults. They needleadership. Someone must be in charge. Someone will be in charge. In God's order of things this prerogative belongs to loving, concerned parents.

Hopefully Americans will not sell out to this crowdof self-appointed authorities who would liberate usfrom the values and mores which have anchored our society throughout its history.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 452 RESTORATIONS 151 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)

We live in a perplexing time. This is perhaps theunderstatement of the decade. This nation of ours has been in the midst of social upheaval since the endof World War II. This turmoil has created an unhealthy environment and society in which to live.That its effect if being felt in increasing proportions inthe church of the Lord is too self-evident for successful refutation. It is to this particular area of thought thatwe shall mainly address ourselves in this article.

Generally speaking, we have a generation on ourhands that seems to want to change everything. Mostof the sought-after changes are seated in the philosophy of the times and is an outgrowth of thedespicable expression: Do your own thing. This sloganmeans little more than social anarchy. They reallymean to let everyone do as he pleases. Whether a thingis right or wrong does not seem to be under consideration. This view has been devilishly followedby, what is feared to be, a vast majority in our nation.Are we really so surprised to find this outlook alsomaking its appearance in the church? Certainly wewould not expect marriage and the home to remainunscathed in all this satanic change. In fact, if these advocates of error have their way, marriage will become a thing of the past since the view of somealready is that marriage is out-dated, not in step withthe times—OB-SOLETE.

Contemporary Examples

I well remember in my boyhood in Virginia how thatevery now and then it would become known in thecommunity that certain ones were living together in anunmarried state. They were regarded as scum—lowdown and common. Those people were avoided by theother people of the community as being unworthy of social fellowship. Today "living in" is the expressionfor the same ungodly arrangement. Only the termshave changed. The sin is exactly the same. But mypoint is that back then honorable marriage was theonly thing acceptable in the eyes of society. That general outlook is no longer predominant.

In the days of World War II there were many casesof conception outside of wedlock. Young couples, overcome with passion and the idea of being separated perhaps never to see each other again,yielded themselves on the bed of fornication. Even so, boys in those days, in most cases, did the honorablething and married the girl with or without the shotgun. Though wrong had been done, the consensusof thought was that "marriage is honorable in all, andthe bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterersGod will

judge" (Heb. 13:4). Again, the society of the timesrecognized marriage as the honorable estate that it is.

As we moved into the fifties, turbulence and unrestbegan to gather on the horizon. The music began tochange from the sweet, nostalgic, tender kind to an animal beat that matched the disorder of contemporary thought. It is very likely that this kind ofmusic played as prominent a role in the changing scene asanything did. The beat went on and on until it rose into a mad, frenzied, sensual, crescendo resulting in thedecade of rebellion—the 60's. It was every one for himself. This gave rise to the idea of each "doing hisown thing". Law and order were regarded as the "establishment". "Kick the establishment" not onlywas the social order of the day but the repercussionswere felt in every religious group in the country as theidea spilled over into the religious groups. They weresaying that we must have a new order, a new society without restraint. Fulfill yourself. Think and say whatyou will. Liberty is license. Do as you please. Downwith the establishment!

In this hotbed of rebellion, selfishness, sensuality, and hostility first one thing and then another was attacked as being outmoded, outdated, irrelevant to thetimes—OBSOLETE.

And the beat still goes on and it appears that it plans tocontinue and wax worse and worse. We were all shocked a few years ago to hear ideas going aroundabout "trial marriages". We were even more amazed when Judith Viorst advocated "open marriage" in Redbook in 1973 setting forth the doctrine of "swinging" husbands and wives as a way to enhance marriage.

Add to this the even more corruptive book "CreativeDivorce", a best-seller, which says divorce is not theend but the beginning of a new life and a freer, moreself-assured you.

Then came the outspoken philosophy of "no marriage" at all. America was gullible. The songs toldthe story and the people lapped it up with a frenzy.Marriage licenses were scorned as $2 pieces of worthless paper.

Glen Campbell's song—"Gentle On My Mind" graphically describes the "no marriage, no ties, noresponsibility, no commitment" theory. The lyricsmock the idea of a marriage license. The song declaresthat he has no hooks in his hide and he can pick up hisbedroll and leave any time and with this thought in theback-roads of his memory it serves to keep her gentle on his mind. Did someone tell me Campbell was a memberof the church?

But how can members of the church frown on the song when many of them went down and bought therecord? They bade him godspeed and helped him win his gold record by selling over a million copies.However, this is only one song. Songs of the same typeare now legion and have gone from bad to worse.

We can see from all this how in the last 35 years the discussions have moved from premarital sex (fornication) to no marriage at all. Now they speak ofso-called "meaningful relationships" with no view to marriage at all which are in reality without meaning.

The very existence of society itself has always beenpredicated upon the basic unit of society known as the home and marriage. God set this in order when heperformed the ceremony for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Since then no society or culture in thehistory of civilization has survived which reached apoint in its history where moral corruption and sexualpermissiveness have been tolerated and allowed tobecome the order of the day.

In an extensive study of eighty-eight civilizations,

J.D. Unwin, an anthropologist, showed that in eachculture they began with codes of strict sexual behaviorpatterns and ended with a society crying out for complete freedom to express their passions. Each society which yielded to this moral corruptionperished without exception. History is indeed a strongwitness.

The Christian is found moving within this corruptsociety from day to day. The influence of the world isrelentless. The radio sends forth its jungle rhythmswhich are little more than heathen fertility rites. Thebookstands blatantly advertise sex all over the coversof the filth books and some that purport not to be filth.They sell millions of dollars worth each year. In ourhomes we are bombarded with the "free love" and "no marriage" idea without letup as program after program portrays one torrid bedroom scene after theother involving unmarried couples.

The talk shows are playing their part. It is noteworthy in their bold discussions, which go on dayafter day about anything and everything, that thosewho dare to speak up in favor of marriage, maritalfidelity, and who lift up their voices against ungodlyconcepts are talked down, laughed at, and booed to scorn.

At school our children are subjected to teaching and,sometimes teachers, who advocate free love and nomarriage. The young people are just urged to learn how to take care of themselves duringsexual experiences so as not to get pregnant orcontact disease. Then when girls do get pregnantthe whole area sets up a howl about teen-agepregnancy and this gives them the needed thrustto introduce sex education into the classrooms. When one is so naive as to cry out "flee fornication" they look at you and act toward youas if you were a fool. "Save yourself for marriage"you advise and some, reared in the classroom of thetimes, say "so who wants marriage." Even Christian teenagers have been known to raise thequestion "What's wrong with living in?"

Is Marriage Obsolete?

Society is moving toward the position that marriageis obsolete. The equal rights amendment, if ratified,not only opens up the way for the legal role of men andwomen to be equal but has the potential of alternatingthe roles of husbands and wives. This alternation of roles in itself will contribute its part to the breakdownof marriage and the home. When the headship of manis destroyed and the subjective relationship of womanto the man is disregarded, God's order in marriage hasbeen destroyed. This alternation of roles and utterdisregard of the husband-wife relationship has already taken place in some quarters without ERA. With somemarriage is only a legal contract to overcome loneliness and to provide some measure of financialsecurity through community property. The permanence of the home, as God would have it, hasbeen

Page 16

disregarded for many years as indicated by the climbing divorce rate. God's arrangement of one man and one woman for life, except for thecause of fornication, has been junked. The loose attitude toward divorce has contributed greatlyto the "no marriage at all" concept. The practice was already with us in fact and in recent years has "come out of the closet" so to speak. We are no longer dealing in abuses of marriage such as bigamy, communal marriage, homosexual and lesbian marriage, adultery in marriage. We are talking about whether or not marriage in any form will be around. If some have theirway, it will not.

What Does God Say?

Well, God ordained marriage as good and honorablefor all and nowhere in His Word has he repealed oraltered His arrangement. "From the beginning it hathnot been so" and Christ indicated that under the New Covenant marriage would be restored as God originally instituted it. The New Testament will continue in force until Christ returns therefore marriage will continue until then according to God'sWill.

The New Testament reveals only one alternate lifestyle with the exception of marriage and that isa single life of celibacy as in the case of the apostlePaul. Paul chose this alternate to marriage. This lifestyle waives the right to any sexual indulgencewhatsoever. The only arrangement for the fulfillmentof sexual desires is found in God-ordained marriage.Paul said he had the right to marry if he should choose. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, awife..." (I Cor. 9:5).

In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said, "... Have ye not read, that he that made them at the beginning made themmale and female, And said, For this cause shall a manleave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they areno more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hathjoined together, let not man put asunder."

We, as Christians, must demonstrate by word andexample God's plan in marriage. We need to teach it to our children at home within the framework of marriage. Elders and preachers must feed the churchon a diet of God's Word which emphasizes and reemphasizes marriage, its significance, and its permanence. We cannot allow the devil to take overand destroy the oldest institution in the world, thehome. We can and must resist him. The devil wants marriage to fail and even to disappear from the scenealtogether. God intended it to endure and continueuntil time shall be no more.

And so we say "Thy will be done." Amen, and amen.

Solomon observed that "there is nothing new underthe sun" (Eccl. 1:9). He was referring to the analogouscycle of events between nature and humanity. The hearts of men with their desires, pursuits, and complaints do not change from generation to generation. Human nature is such that the main features of life and character remain fairly constantin every age and clime. The only force that can set a man apart from the lusts of the world is the word ofGod operating in him "both to will and to work for hisgood pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). But even among the servants of God, the evil influence of the world isconstantly present, trying to motivate rebellion againstdivine law.

There is nothing new in the church mirroring thesocial ills of the world. This has been true from the beginning. No congregation has ever been completelyfree of the world's contamination. But the immediate environment of some churches is obviously worse thanthat of others. The city of Corinth was so depravedthat even the pagan world took note of it, whereasJerusalem, though steeped in sin, had a relativelysuperior moral climate. Even so, a church does notnecessarily mirror the evils of its environment in proportion to its depth. This is evident from the sevenchurches of Asia, each of which had a somewhatsimilar environment but reacted differently to it. It isthe character of a church and not the nature of its surroundings that determines the degree to which itmirrors the social evils of the world.

The extent to which the world's social ills are present among the people of God varies from one generation toanother, and from congregation to congregation withina given generation. But social ills may become soinfectious in one era that moral degeneracy spreads soas to endanger the whole church. Paul indicates thisin foretelling a general departure from the faith (1Tim. 4:1-3) and in enumerating the moral evils that, atleast in part, would characterize it (2 Tim. 3:1-5).

Morally speaking, our nation is passing through oneof the worst periods in its history; and the churchseems to be reflecting more of the nation's social ills than at any time since the beginning of the Restorationmovement. There is no doubt some connection between the two, but this is not an inevitable result; nor is thechurch justified in bending its moral principles toaccommodate the increased evil in its environment. Paul made not the slightest concession to the depravity of Corinth; so far from it was he that heprohibited the brethren there to associate with one oftheir number who mirrored the social ills of Corinthian society (1 Cor. 5:11).

-__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17

The reflection of the world's social ills that is apparent in the attitude and actions of brethren todayis by no means confined to institutional-social gospeloriented churches. It also includes those that traditionally have been more conservative in respect toBible authority. And it isn't just the worldly fringe inthose churches that are affected; loose morals are evident among influential leaders as well. There appears to be a calculated effort on the part of some torationalize immoral behavior, or to overlook it as of noparticular importance, or to pass if off as a personalmatter between an individual and God, not subject tochurch discipline. But by whatever means it is done,the end result is the same: an increasing acceptance ofthe world's social ills as "normal" among members ofthe church.

The evidence for this is more observational than documental. Much of it at present is somewhat covertin nature. Very few advocates of slacker morals are willing, at this point, to argue their case openly, eitherin the press or pulpit. But personal knowledge of instances could fill many pages, as any observer knows. However, there are some exceptions to thereticence; some indications of the moral drift are openly demonstrated. And others, while still latent,are waiting in the wings to make their appearancewhen the time is right.

One of the most obvious concessions to the social ills of the world is seen in the growing number of adulterous marriages among members of the church, and the increasing acceptance of these as divinely approved. Perhaps no moral error has risenso fast, nor found such rapid favor with brethren. There have always been a few brethren with "funnyideas" about divorce and remarriage, but now their ranks are increasing. Well-known and highly-respected men are openly advocating theories that forall practical purposes make just about all remarriagesacceptable. Regardless of the motives or sincerity ofthese men, the result is that many Christians are adopting the world's view of divorce and remarriage.The most oft-wedded star in Hollywood must be acknowledged as scripturally joined to his seventh wife by the standard some are defending. If there isany morally uplifting thought or hope for the future insuch a concept, I'm too dense to see it.

It is being claimed in some places that there is noprohibition to the remarriage of either party after adivorce for whatever reason. There are even those who will acknowledge that a remarriage is unscriptural andthen affirm that those who enter such a union "maycontinue in the marriage without further sin." If suchteaching continues to gain "grass roots" acceptanceamong us, the church not only will mirror the world's perverted view of marriage, it will blend so harmoniously with it that the reflection cannot bedistinguished from the original article.

The world's favorable view of sexual permissiveness is also reflected in the church. Our young people are under constant pressure from theworldly philosophy that says premarital sex is fine, so long as it is an expression of love and nobody"gets hurt." "If a couple is really in love, and intendto marry, then sexual relations are all right," they aretold. And a good many

older members of the church have fallen for it, along

with some of the young. But there is no Biblical

principle that permits any form of premarital sex

under any circumstances at any time. It is only

natural that sexual permissiveness would also include

dancing, petting, indecent and provocative clothing,

prurient literature and entertainment, and immoral

speech. Even the world's loose attitude toward

homosexuality is finding soft spots among our

brethren. There are published reports of at least one

organized effort to get "church of Christ homosexuals"

recognized as faithful servants of Christ.

The proper role of the sexes in the home and thechurch likewise shows signs of attrition. The widelydisseminated propaganda of the Women's Rights movement and kindred philosophy are having an impact on the church. This is helped along by theeconomic pressures and social changes that are takingmore women out of the home and thrusting them intothe world of commerce and industry. Ellen Goodman,the syndicated columnist, is probably correct in sayingrecently that women cannot have it both ways. Referring to Anita Bryant's broken marriage, she wrote: "The lady tried to be a leader in the world andan obedient follower in the marriage. But these are twoways that you can't have it any more." And nevercould, she might have added. Any person who dealsmuch with troubled marriages can testify to the increasing number of Christian homes where a disregard for the divinely appointed place of the manand the woman in the relationship is a root cause ofthe problem. There also appears to be a growingagitation for women to have more "voice" in the affairsof the church, as in the business meeting for example.Some would even open the assembly of the churchequally to the public participation of men and women.

There is also a growing permissiveness in the church toward social drinking. The first time I heard a gospelpreacher profess to see "no harm" in a Christian doing a little social drinking, I was shocked. That was manyyears ago and my shock-absorber is stronger now, butI am distressed and saddened nonetheless by what Ithink I see happening with reference to social drinkingtoday, especially when "men of God" go along with it,or simply look the other way, when brethren drink alittle for relaxation, excitement, or conviviality. Manybrethren seem to be finding what the editor of thisjournal calls "moral loopholes" to justify the social useof alcohol. There have always been a few "sippingsaints" around, but most of their sipping was doneon the sly. Now the practice is coming "out of thecloset" and is openly defended in some quarters.

Very few congregations are not troubled with a drug problem among its young people. The pressure of their peers for them to "try it" is tremendous. This,together with the belief that the use of some drugs isharmless and the conspiracy of protective silence among the users, makes it easy for young people to getcaught up in the practice before their parents or thebrethren are aware of it. What is especiallydisheartening is that in many cases the church and thehome have contributed to the problem by failing toproperly teach the danger and sin involved in the useof drugs. However, an even more disturbing aspect of this is the

attitude many older Christians have toward the use ofthe milder drugs. Some pretend the problem doesn't exist, or regard it as a little harmless "wild oats" sowing; and they oppose any corrective measures taken by the elders in dealing with the problem. Consequently, churches become riddled with drug-using youths that make a mockery of the church's stand against the world and its evils.

The disintegration of family relations is another social ill reflected in the church. This is seen in marital unhappiness and bickering, parental neglect and abuseof children, disobedience of children to their parents,and neglect of aged parents. Perhaps contributing tothis (but an array of social ills within themselves) is thereflection of the world's love of self, money, and entertainment. "Do your own thing." "Get all you canas quickly as you can in whatever way you can." "Eat,drink, and be merry." All too often, these are the philosophies that motivate members of the church.

Why is it that the church is mirroring so many of the social ills of the world to such a great extent? There aretwo basic causes, as I see it. First, the church, both inpulpit and pew, is drifting away from the strong stand itformerly took on moral issues. And second, the church is losing its missionary zeal. Whenever Christians get slack in their personal interest in savingthe lost, they get careless in their efforts to save themselves.

But regardless of what causes may be identified, thelack of self-control and dedication to moral purity arethe tap root of the problem. Alexander Campbell put itwell when he said: "When I see a 'Christian' toilingfrom year to year to keep cast with the world ... I am compelled to fear that he has not found in Christ thepearl of great price—that he has drawn a blank ratherthan a prize in assuming the Christian name," Too many of us today have "drawn a blank" when it comesto striving to be like Christ. We are often more interested in the outward marks of Christianity than inliving a life of personal righteousness.

Instead of trying to "keep cast with the world,"should we not rather be striving diligently for purity ofheart and life? In contrasting the pure with the impure,Benjamin Franklin wrote: "How transcendently are those whose hearts are pure above (the impure)! Theirintentions are pure; their desires are pure. Their aimsare holy. They have an abiding consciousness of thepurest, holiest and highest designs. They are not perfect and do not think they are, but they know theydesire to be. They are trying for perfection. These are pure in heart; and happy now."

The world does not find reflective material in one who sets his mind on things above and who purifieshimself after the example of Christ. The world will notbe mirrored in the church when the lives of its members are immovably fixed on reflecting only theimage of God's Son. It will be too busy mirroringChrist to find the time to be a mirror of the world.

While the word "hedonism" is not found in the English text of Scripture, we need to be impressed that itis a Biblical subject. It is a Greek word that has been made a part of our language. Being a Greek word, and since the New Testament was written in Greek, it can be found in the Greek text. It is translated "pleasure" in our English text.

Passages

Please observe some New Testament passages and how the word "hedonism" is used in those verses.

(1) Luke 8:14 — "And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures(hedonon) of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." (2) 2 Tim. 3:4 — "traitors, heady, high-minded, loversof pleasure (philedoni) more than lovers of God." (3) Titus 3:3 — "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures (hedonais), living in maliceand envy, hateful, and hating one another." (4) James 4:1 — "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts (hedonon) that war in your members?" (5) James 4:3 — "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts (hedonais)." (6) 2 Peter 2:13 — "And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure (hedonen) to riot in the day time."

What Is Hedonism?

Elton Trueblood said, in his "foreword" to It's A Playboy's World by William Banowsky, "Hedonism is the philosophy which holds that the pursuit of pleasure islife's highest purpose" (page 9). Banowsky said "hedonism is not a specific set of acts, but a philosophy of life — an attitude toward pleasure" (page37). W. E. Vine says "pleasure, is used of the gratification of the natural desire or sinful desires" (page 871). Thayer says "pleasure" (page 276). Webster says "1. The doctrine that pleasure is the sole or chiefgood in life and that moral duty is fulfilled in the gratification of pleasure—seeking instincts and dispositions. 2. The manner of life of a hedonist; a living for pleasure" (page 382). Thus, hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is the sole or chief good forman in this life and the pursuit of pleasure is the idealaim of all conduct.

All hedonist do not contend for pleasure from the

Please Renew Promptly! sensual. They acknowledge pleasure can be derived from such things as fame, art, knowledge, friendship,sympathy and reputation.

Page 19

Kinds of Hedonism

Hedonism might be divided into (1) lower and (2)higher hedonism. The lower concerns itself with physical states and activities, while the higher concerns itself with intellectual interest.

It can be further divided into (1) egoistic and (2) Universalists hedonism. The egoistic kind regardswhat is good for each person as his own pleasure, whilethe universalistic regards good as the pleasure of all concerned and moral conduct to be what promotes thewelfare of the greatest number of people.

One of the challenges to faith is hedonism, a sensualchallenge. Since the ancients did not necessarily regardhedonism as sensual, how did it come to be so regarded?

As is often the case, the pupil takes a matter farbeyond what the teacher ever thought of doing. The followers of Aristippus came out of his CyrenaicSchool of Philosophy and reduced his teachings to oneof self-indulgence. Albert Barnes makes the followingobservation: "By pleasure, however, Epicurus did notmean sensual and groveling appetites, and degradedvices, but rational pleasure, properly regulated and governed . . . . But whatever his views were, it is certain that his followers had embraced the doctrine that voluptuousness and the pleasures of sense were to be practiced without restraint. Both in principle and practice, therefore, they devoted themselves to a lifeof gaiety and sensuality, and sought happiness only inindolence, effeminacy and voluptuousness. Confident in the belief that the world was not under the administration of a God of justice, they gavethemselves up to the indulgence of every passion . . . .(Notes On The New Testament, page 483).

We need to be reminded that one can be a hedonist,given to pleasure, without being sensual. Manyactivities that brethren engage in are not sensual andwithin themselves may be right. Fishing, golfing, boatriding, camping, taking trips, etc. within themselves are right. Yet brethren can become so given to thepleasure of these things that they have no time for God or the brethren. Often the services of a local church are hurt by brethren being hedonists. When they havesome time, they hardly ever think in terms of whatthey can do for the Lord, but rather think of wherethey can go and what they can do to fulfill their pleasure.

Sensual Hedonism

While the above is so and hurts the cause of Christ, the challenge to the faith, of this article, is the sensualchallenge of hedonism. When the sensual is followed, the flesh rather than the Spirit controls one's life. Observe some ways this is done.

(1) Drinking. Many live to drink. Such is a work ofthe flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). In modern society drinking ofvarious alcoholic beverages is the way of life, at home,at the office, at parties, and some churches even encourage such. He or she who does not so drink is considered odd and not having pleasure. Drinking is oftenthe forerunner to other hedonistic practices. (2) Reading. Much of what is read is not only forpleasure but is sensual pleasure. Many read books thatare not designed to help them improve themselves.

Look at the pornography business that profits off thesensual desires of mankind. This not only includessuch well known magazines as Playboy and Play girl,but also includes many of the paper back books on thenews stands that are printed by the thousands and contain one sensual story after another. Many have notime to read the New Testament or a good religiouspaper like this one, but will spend time and many dollars a year for cheap, sensual books that will not improve oneself.

(3) Dress. People have to wear something and it isnot wrong to wear what is in style as long as it does notviolate New Testament principles of righteousness. Itis certainly right for both men and women to dress soas to look well and socially accepted within principlesof righteousness. However, to see that much of the clothing of today is designed with the sensual in mind,just pick up some of the well known national mail ordercatalogues and look at the way some of the clothing isdescribed. Such terms as sexy, provocative, enticing,sensual, alluring are used to describe the clothing. Thevery nature of the clothes is not to cover the body, butto attract the look and interest of the opposite sex andappeal to the sensual side of man. There was a time when such clothing was limited to the home, backyardand streets, but for shame such is making its appearance within some of the worship services of saints.Much clothing is designed with sensual pleasure inmind. (4) Dancing. The dance is one way for sure to arousethe sensual hedonistic side of mankind. Such is condemned in the Bible under the heading of lasciviousness, if no where else. People who have normal physical bodies can not dance for long periods oftime with the opposite sex without their passionsbeing aroused. This is not to say that everyone who has ever danced is immoral. But how long can onedance, even with their own husband or wife, withoutwanting to do more than just dance? How long with someone else's husband or wife? (5) Drugs. In addition to alcohol as a drug, there aremany other drugs that are being used by people today.Most of these drugs come from outside the drug store.The use of them produces much the same effect uponpeople that alcohol does. Many of those under the influence of such satisfy every passion they have of asensual nature. Many of the things they do are so badthat the only way they can be persuaded to engage inthem is by being drugged. (6) Sexual Relations. God in His word has providedfor man to satisfy his sexual desires within the framework of marriage (I Cor. 7:1-5). All other is sin. There ismuch error being taught within the body of Christtoday on marriage, divorce and remarriage that wouldin one way or another encourage that which God does not. All one has to do to see the hedonistic attitude here is just look around at what is going on.

These areas we have mentioned, and others that could be mentioned, reveal the sensual pleasures to which some turn in their hedonistic attitude. Such destroys one's faith, one's usefulness to God and one's usefulness to the local congregation where he is a member. His faith is challenged and by sensual hedonism he fails the test.

Page 20

I have no imagined crown of scholastic primacy withreference to a study of materialism. However, I would like to reveal what I believe to be the precariousposition of many in dealing with mammon. One of thegreatest challenges of humanity through the years hasbeen materialism. It has become the "god" of Americaand eats into the vitals of the soul. The Lord said, "Yecannot serve God and mammon" (Matt, 6:24). Theword mammon is from "mamonas" which is a common Aramaic word for riches. Henry Thayer says on page338 of his lexicon that it means "what is trusted in." Paul says, "for the love of money is the root of all evil;which, while some coveted after, they have erred fromthe faith and pierced themselves through with manysorrows" (1 Tim. 6:10). It should be observed that thelove of money causes two things. First, it causes one toerr from the faith, and second, it causes much sorrowin this world.

The first scandal in the church was over money.Ananias and Sapphira lied about the money they werepretending to give to the Lord (Acts 5). The Lordobviously struck them dead immediately after theylied about the money. Several years ago I read from amodernist who said these people died from a coronarythrombosis. Strange, indeed, they both died from heartfailure right after they had lied to both Peter and God!This modernist was trying to circumvent the miraclesof the Bible by giving a logical explanation for theirdeaths. Some of my brethren argue that God is notconcerned about money. I answer by saying if this beso why is there more in the Bible about money thanabout baptism? The truth of the matter is that God isconcerned, not only, about your giving on the first dayof the week but also your general attitude toward thedollar. There is both power and prestige in money. Thisis why we have so many scandals in our government.

People use the power of money to buy what theywant. A case in point is Simon in Acts 8. Simon whohad bewitched the people of Samaria with his sorcerywas converted by Phillip. He continued as a Christianfor a short time and was overcome by the devil. Afterhis fall, he offered Peter and John bribe money for thegift of the Holy Spirit, which only the apostles hadreceived. Peter refused the bribe by saying. "Thymoney perish with thee" (Acts 8:20). There can be nodoubt that Simon had bought his way many times withhis money. This would be one of the few times he had failed.

Since we have observed the negative side of mammon, let us notice the positive side. The Lord didhave a treasury, and Judas carried the bag (Jno. 13:29). It is

true he turned out to be a thief, but he did carry themoney bag. It is reported in John 4 that Jesus sent hisdisciples into town to buy meat. This was while he wastalking with the Samaritan woman. I suppose Jesuscould have performed a miracle every time he neededfood but he didn't. If he sent his disciples into town tobuy food they had to have money to buy. Paul tells usto be content with food and raiment (1 Tim. 6:8). Itisn't a sin to have money. As a matter of fact, it isn't asin to have big money. The Bible condemns an improper attitude toward money, whether large or small.

When Paul wanted to show the wonderful qualitiesof love, he personified it in 1 Cor. 13. When the Lordwanted to show the deceptive nature of money, he usedpersonification. He depicted mammon as a god whomwe may serve. More people in this world bow down tomammon than the true God of the universe. Some think of money as being only bad. This is not true. Ifbrethren are rich and use that money as God wills,much good may be accomplished. When rich men giveas they have been prospered, it enables elders to spendmuch money in the proclamation of the gospel. I knowof some rich Christian men who have done much for the cause of God. It is true that many have succumbedto the temptations of mammon, but not all.

Some feel that money will cure all their problems. Iheard two men talking in front of a Texas bank a fewyears ago. One said, "John, how are you today?" Johnreplied, "There ain't nothin' wrong with me that a million dollars won't cure." The attitude of John is the attitude of millions. However, most of these peoplehave never had a million so they really don't know. Permit me to introduce you to a man who had billions.His name is Solomon. It is said that Solomon was so rich that silver "was nothing accounted of in his days." Hundreds of devices and gimmicks have beenconcocted through the years to achieve wealth. Solomon probably tried more than anyone. He said,"Lo, I have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in Jerusalem." He tried everyconceivable pleasure. Cheering himself with wine, heexploited mirth to its fullest. If money and prosperityinsure happiness, then Solomon could not have missed. Obviously, the provisions of his table for oneday were, oxen, sheep, harts, gazelles and fatted fowl.He had men-singers, women-singers and musical instruments of all sorts were lavishly employed. Yet, atthe close of his life he had said it was "vanity" and vexation of spirit and a striving after the wind.

Many people in the church bow to mammon whenthey fail to put the Kingdom of God first. Many usetheir money to purchase everything in this worldbefore giving a dime to the Lord. The philosophy ofsome is, "Lord, if I have any money left, I will give youa little." People are so enamored with new houses, newcars, new furniture, new clothes until they find itdifficult to give to the Lord as He directs in his word. Materialism is like high blood pressure; one can have itand not know it. We must practice eternal vigilance inorder to meet the approbation of God with reference tothis world's goods.

Christian friend, we are all stewards of God. Thismeans we are held accountable for the way we use our

Page 21

time, money and talent. In Matt. 25 when the Lordcalled the one talent man in for his final council, wehave an interesting conversation. The one talent manfelt the Lord was a "hard man" gathering where hehad not strewed. The Lord thundered back this reply "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest thatI reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have notstrewed; thou oughtest therefore to have put mymoney to the exchangers, and then at my coming Ishould have received mine own with usury—cast ye theunprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall beweeping and gnashing of teeth." Christian friend, welearn from the above that it isn't wrong to draw areasonable amount of interest on your money. God expects us to work while it is day because the nightwill come when no man can work. The test and challenge of many is when God pours out his materialblessings upon them. This increases their stewardship and adds to their responsibility. May God help us tounderstand that we brought nothing into this worldand we certainly cannot take anything out. There areno pockets in a shroud.

I am obviously writing about a subject that is arealistic one indeed. A recent survey showed that bydefinition there are more than 1200 denominations in the United States. So, before we go any further in our study, let's find out what is meant by the word"denomination."

Denomination — "(1) The act of naming. (2) Aname; denomination. (3) The name of a class or group;classification. (5) An organized group of religious congregations." (American Heritage Dictionary, Page 353).

Denominationalism — "(1) The tendency to separate into religious sects or denominations. (2) Advocacy of such separation. (3) Strict adherence to a denomination; sectarianism." (Ibid. Page 353).

Under the heading of "names," one of the synonyms is "denomination." "A denomination is also a categorizing name and is applied to persons or things, often religious groups or monetary units, having closerelationship." (Ibid. Page 871).

Sectarian — "Pertaining to or characteristic of a sect or sects." "Sect-middle English secte, from Old French, from Latin secta, 'following,' from sectus, archaic past participle of segui, to follow. (1) Agroup of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements of distinctions of Belief or practice. (2) A schismaticreligious body. (3) Any small faction united by common interests orbeliefs." (Ibid. Page 1173).

Denominationalism is indeed a great challenge to thefaith of every Christian. Many radio and television programs are presented for the purpose of trying topromote some particular denomination (PTL Club, 700Club, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, etc.), and which, iflistened to on a regular basis, will cause us to "pick upon" their phraseology, thus finding ourselves usingunscriptural words and expressing unscriptural ideas,almost unconsciously.

Jesus warned about this very problem when He toldHis disciples, "Take heed and beware of the leaven ofthe Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:6).The disciples thought he was talking about bread andthe leaven in bread. However when He explained it tothem, "Then understood they how that he bade themnot beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine ofthe Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matthew 16:12).

There is, of course, recognition of the fact by many inthe denominational world today, that there were no denominations in the first century when the Lord's Church was established. For example, we read in Mr. Edward T. Hiscox's Standard Manual for BaptistChurches, "In the days of the apostles when there wasbut one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, and nodifferent denominations existed ..." As you can see,this admission by Mr. Hiscox is devastating to thedenomination of which he was a member, as well as allother denominations. And, if space permitted, thatstatement, or one similar, could be multiplied manytimes by those who are members of something thatthey admit did not exist in the days of the apostles. InMatthew 15:13 Jesus said, "Every plant, which myheavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."

Many things challenge our faith. But perhaps none isso subtle as denominationalism, because the majorityof the people who make up the denominational worldare morally upright, good neighbors, husbands, wives,parents, and perhaps even "pillars" in the community.In fact, many of them would die for "their faith" morereadily than many who are supposed to be true Christians. I would certainly not minimize the above mentioned things as being essential to one being aChristian. The problem is not in living right and doinggood, but the problem is in "following" and espousinga doctrine that is peculiar to their denomination ratherthan simply following the Word of God. Jesus said,"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is farfrom me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching fordoctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:89).

Denominationalism is a challenge to our faith because much of the doctrine that is taught by themappeals to the fleshly appetites. Many social activitiesare planned and paid for by many denominationalchurches. They pay their social and educational directors to plan such activities. Also, many of thethings people like to do (like the wearing of immodestapparel, smoking, dancing, social drinking, mixedswimming, etc.) is either encouraged, condoned, oroverlooked by much of the religious world. But Johnsaid, "Love not the world, neither the things that arein the world. If any man love the world, the love of theFather is not in him. For all that is in the world, thelust of the flesh,

Page 22

and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not ofthe Father, but is of the world. The world passethaway, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will ofGod abideth for ever" (I John 2:15-17).

Peer pressure is also a powerful thing, not only among young people, but among adults as well. All ofus want to be accepted and not be "made fun of" orridiculed because of what we believe, teach, or practice religiously. Denominationalism, for the most part,teaches that "one church is as good as another," and,"after all we are all striving for the same place. So, let's join hands and go along together." Obviously thiswould eliminate much of the "peer pressure" that is brought to bear on the Christian who believes in TheOne True Church of the New Testament. But remember that Jesus said, "And ye shall be hated ofall men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matthew 10:22). Also, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil againstyou falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingglad: for great is your reward in heaven..." (Matthew5:11-12).

Denominationalism is a challenge to our faith because of the truth that is taught by them.

Denominational error is kind of like rat poison which is98% corn meal, and 2% poison. So much of it is so goodthat we tend to minimize the bad. However, as the 2%poison will destroy the rat, so a little bit of error willcause us to be lost eternally. From the beginning of time, God has not allowed man to add to or take fromHis Word. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it,that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord yourGod which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2). In theRevelation letter He warns, "For I testify unto everyman that heareth the words of the prophecy of thisbook, If any man shall add unto these things, God shalladd unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of thebook of this prophecy, God shall take away his part outof the book of life, and out of the holy city, and fromthe things which are written in this book" (Revelation22:18-19).

Denominationalism is a challenge to our faith because of the knowledge that many in the religiousworld have of their doctrine. Many of those in thedenominational world study the Bible diligently, inorder to be able to substantiate their doctrine, while those who are Christians fail to read and study theirBibles so as to be able to "... earnestly contend for thefaith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).As a result, many "Christians" are "overwhelmed" bythe Bible knowledge of some of their denominationalfriends and are "afraid" to try to "cross spiritual swords" with them. However, we need to remember what Paul commanded in II Timothy

2:15. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, aworkman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

It has been said that nothing ruins a good friendshiplike the discussion of politics and religion. ManyC