“Christendom” Follows the World Into Insanity
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Okay, we know that the world is nuts, but do those who claim to be Christians need to follow in their footsteps? A local radio program (FM105.9) broadcasts a daily feature called, “News of the Weird.” A recent example included a woman facing a misdemeanor charge who did not want to show up in court that day; so she phoned in a bomb threat. Now she’s facing federal charges and risks doing serious jail time. Why would anyone act so irrationally? The same morning show hosts a call-in contest, in which three headlines are read, and the caller must figure out which one was genuine. All three are so bizarre that it is difficult to identify the legitimate story. Insanity is nothing knew: Paul Harvey for years broadcast news items which he introduced by saying, “This is a strange.” Some objected to his using an adjective as a noun, but it was an intentional description, despite grammatical rules.
Of course, the craziest things are likely to occur in cities controlled by political liberals. Just about everyone has heard of the now-failed effort of Mayor Bloomburg in New York to ban 16-ounce soft drinks. The following story was published in The Limbaugh Letter for December, 2013:
Liberals are the people of No. Now, San Jose, CA officials have banned car washes as school fundraising tools. According to The Mercury News, cheerleaders at Lincoln High School had planned to raise money for a squad trip—until they were notified by the San Jose Environmental Services Department that car washes are “in violation of water discharge laws.” As communications manager Jennie Loft explained, runoff water from a car wash would go directly from storm drains to creeks, and “anything that is not storm water or rain water is considered a pollutant.” The department helpfully suggested the cheerleaders use a waterless car wash contraption that costs $499 and requires a soap concentrate priced at $159 per gallon. Meanwhile, citizens are urged to turn in any perps violating the car wash regulations. Just another day in the People’s Republic of California (4).
Of course, one wonders how teens are able to have car washes in thousands of other cities across the country—so far. Also, did it ever cross the minds of those in the “department” that spending $658 would severely cut into the youths’ profits?
The Task of Christianity
Christianity was designed to be different from the world. Within its confines are truth (John 17:17), logic (1 Thess 5:21-22; cf. Isa. 1:18), and the proper moral values (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-23, et al.). Yet groups claiming to be “Christian” no longer stand for any of these.
Feelings have been substituted for truth. For many it is no longer a matter of, “Thus saith the Lord”; it has become, “God wants me to be happy.” That person’s happiness then takes precedence over the commands in the Scriptures, and truth fails to matter. Hollywood has convinced us that their message is true: “Follow your heart.” Immoral behavior becomes justified in this new system of priorities. Yet students of the Word have not lost sight of the verse that proclaims: “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but whoever walks wisely will be delivered” (Pr. 28:26).
Popular opinion has replaced logic. Since when has, “Everybody’s doing it,” been a safe guide (Ex. 23:2)? The world that perished in the Flood probably thought there was safety in numbers, but all of them drowned. Jesus said that only few will be saved while the majority end up being lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Popular opinion does not reason; it goes with what “seems” right (Pr. 14:12).
When feelings and popular opinion prevail, God’s moral values fall by the wayside. Absolutes are replaced by relativism and situation ethics. “Ordinarily, lying is wrong, but sometimes it might be the moral thing to do,” we are told. Every other moral tenet is similarly shoved aside in order to make way for more “enlightened” principles. Any doctrine, moral or spiritual, becomes ignored with such insipid bromides as, “Can’t we just all love one another?” (despite what the Bible teaches concerning the forsaking of sin).
“Church of England Proposes ‘Blessing’ Gay Marriages”
We expect the world to be—well, uh, worldly. We don’t expect individuals who do not profess to believe in God to adhere to Biblical standards. But those who call themselves “Christians” have an obligation to do so. Of course, the Church of England is not the church established by Jesus in the first century; it was established by King Henry VIII in 1534. The monarch did not want to subject himself to the Catholic Church with respect to whom he could divorce and marry. So he proclaimed himself head of the church in England.
Of course, it was not just the Catholic Church he refused to obey; it was what the Bible taught, also, on the subject of divorce and marriage. King Henry had no more right to anoint himself as the head of the church in England than the pope did in Rome. Jesus is the only head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) and has all authority both in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Anyone who seriously wants to be considered as a Christian must realize that he owes allegiance to the Jesus presented in the Scriptures—along with His doctrines and commandments.
According to the Orlando Sentinel (11-29-13), the Church of England might soon be able to “bless” homosexual relationships. A proposal has been set forth that would allow homosexual “couples” to celebrate same-sex marriages and civil partnerships in one of their church buildings (but not be married there) (A21). Enactment might yet be as long as two years away while discussions are held on the topic.
Group chairman Joseph Pilling said that “the church needs to reflect rapid changes in society and deal with falling attendance and the failure to attract young people.” How brilliant is that? Was that the line used in Noah’s day? What’s popular is replacing what’s Scriptural. Since when have the customs of the world served as the basis for what so-called Christian groups teach? The world accepts gambling, drinking alcoholic beverages, and is increasingly friendly toward marijuana. Should churches host “pot” parties in order to be relevant? Many couples are living together outside of marriage, as well as divorcing and remarrying indiscriminately. Should that kind of behavior be approved as well? Does anyone remember Paul saying, “And do not be conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2)? Does holiness have any meaning to anyone anymore (1 Peter 1:15-16)?
The genius Pilling also commented: “You can make a church a cold place for gay and lesbian people…or you can make it a warm and accepting place.” How about making worship a place where people can hear sin defined and be encouraged to repent of it?
Popular opinion has obliterated truth in the Church of England (in more ways than one). They are repudiating the moral values taught in the Scriptures. First, homosexuality is a grievous sin (Gen. 18:20)—one that Paul calls vile and against nature (Rom. 1:26). Like any sin, however, it can be repented of, which means giving it up. Repentance does not mean being temporarily sorry for engaging in wrongful behavior and then continuing in it. It means giving up the sinful practice in which one was engaged. In other words, a homosexual must not engage in lascivious, licentious, or lewd behavior with a person of the same sex.
Not only is homosexual behavior wrong, to even suggest “marriage” is ludicrous. God gave us a definition of marriage when He created Adam and Eve. We do not read about Adam and his harem or Eve and her coterie of males. We do not read about the “Swingers” Club that God placed in the Garden of Eden, in which any member of the group might have a liaison with any other member or members. Neither did God create a pair of men or a pair of women. Marriage was between one man and one woman, and it was not intended that they should separate (Gen. 2:18-24).
Jesus cited Adam and Eve as God’s plan for marriage from the beginning of the creation of the world (Matt. 19:3-9). No other arrangement is authorized—no matter how society feels about it. Popular opinion does not alter truth; it simply ignores it, which has never been a safe course to pursue. The Church of England has (like its Episcopal counterpart in the United States), for the most part, given up retaining any semblance of what the Bible teaches.
“German Bishops Embrace Divorced” [Sic]
The Church of England is not the only religious institution that is crumbling; the Roman Catholic institution is also facing problems. The opening paragraph of the above-titled article, which appeared in the Orlando Sentinel (11-30-13) sets the tone for the remainder of the article:
Germany’s Roman Catholic bishops plan to push ahead with proposed reforms to reinstate divorced and remarried parishioners despite a warning from the Vatican’s top doctrinal official, according to a senior cleric (A12).
Once again, the influence of culture appears to be greater than that of the Scriptures. As it stands at the moment, Catholics who have divorced and remarried in a civil ceremony cannot receive “Holy Communion” under the current rules of the Catholic religion. These are their rules—not those of the Bible. At times the two may coincide.
The Catholic religion, however, considers marriage a “church” ordinance, but the New Testament does not teach that the church has the power to arbitrarily decide who may or may not marry. The Scriptures declare what Jesus taught—that anyone is eligible for marriage unless he or she is divorced for a cause other than the mate having committed adultery. The church does not have the right to create a policy; she must recognize the teaching Jesus gave.
In a sense, though, the Catholic Church has the same problem as the Church of England and other religious groups—loss of membership. When Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion (as they call it and practice it), they view it “as a sign of rejection and drift away from the faith.” So, in other words, if the Roman Catholic Church won’t let them do as they wish, they are likely to grow discouraged and quit. (If the Church of England won’t accept homosexual marriage, young people may want to go somewhere else.) So, what will the Catholics do?
The German archdiocese recently released “a guidebook which says a priest could readmit remarried people who had been divorced to the sacraments if they proved to him their faith and commitment to the new union.” What? Forget if they were unscripturally divorced; apparently that will not enter into the decision. The only determining factor is if they are committed to the new union. Is this like finding a doctor in California who will be willing to sign off on a patient’s need of “medical” marijuana?
Many people enter into a first marriage casually, but fewer try the institution a second time with a blasé attitude. They have usually been through the emotional wringer, made court appearances, wasted a lot of money, and probably rejoiced they were free from that relationship. If they choose to marry a second time, they are likely much more cautious and more committed. So, does the archdiocese really expect Catholics who want to return to their fold to say, “Oh, I dunno. We’re not really all that committed to this marriage”? What this amounts to is an open door, green light policy. How is it in all these matters that when anyone brings up what the Bible says, it seems to be a consideration of secondary importance?
A complaint needs to be registered against the writer of the archdiocese article. He wrote that the German Bishops had drafted “reform guidelines” on this topic. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the verb reform means:
1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects. 2. To abolish abuse or malpractice in. 3. To cause (a person) to abandon irresponsible or immoral practices.
[noun]: 1. A change for the better; a correction of evils and abuses. 2. A movement that attempts to institute improved social and political conditions without revolutionary change. 3. Moral improvement (1094).
Therefore, it is inappropriate to refer to any group’s departure from the Scriptures as a reform. Accepting those whom Jesus did not authorize to be married is not a reform. Accepting practicing homosexuals as Christians cannot constitute a reform any more than it would be to accept drunkards, fornicators, thieves, or prostitutes. Jesus called sinners to come unto Him (Matt. 11:28-30), but He never insinuated they could keep practicing their sin and receive approval from God (Luke 13:3). In fact, He said, “Go, and sin no more,” which is decidedly not the message that most people want to hear.
But what about the church losing members? If members are allowed to sin in any way they desire, what kind of church do you have—one like that in Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29)? Jesus will not tolerate such thinking; it is not re-form when people try to change behavior in a negative direction. Lovers of God must say, “We will stand where the Bible stands and uphold the Scriptures as God gave them.” If no one in society or the media understands that position, people ought to hold to it anyway.
Changes
Does it matter if the Catholic Church accepts unscripturally divorced and remarried members or the Church of England gives a nod to homosexual marriage? Neither of them follow the Bible on a variety of doctrinal or moral issues already. True. But the voices against immorality are already few. Everyone that is lost will, sooner or later, become part of a swelling chorus for the other side. When only a few remain critical of a practice, it is not unlikely that persecution might begin. Laws could be enacted to make the Bible position illegal; some have already tried to include opposition to homosexuality as “hate speech.”
Not only is someone articulate needed on a national and international level to set forth the Biblical view of morality; members of the body of Christ need to be prepared to give an answer for their beliefs and be as persuasive as they can, which includes possessing a knowledge of the truth and being able to exercise critical thinking skills in analyzing the arguments being made.
Even more important is that preaching of the gospel must be expanded. It is not easy to find people who are interested in what the Bible says. Many do not want the facts; even more do not want morality. They believe they are fine the way they are and that there’s nothing wrong with a little (or in some cases, a lot) of worldliness. They cannot convince themselves that people are bad enough to be condemned eternally because they do not comprehend sin and its consequences. We have degenerated to a condition not unlike that which existed in the time of the judges where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Jesus must be set forth as the solution for sin, but it must be the Jesus of the Scriptures—not the modern version of one who always agrees with the popular outlook. People have seen Him on the cross but not as the One Who “treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. 19:15). Jesus is both of these.