There Must Be A Standard
Kerry Duke

Gay marriages and partial-birth abortions have shocked some people back to their senses. Media liberals have been trying to shove their agenda down the throats of the American public, and they are getting a much deserved backlash.  People are tired of having senseless perversion in their face. Even people straddling a moral fence are saying, “They have gone too far this time. They crossed the line as far as I’m concerned.” It is good that people are opening their eyes. The men and women of this country have been asleep far too long. Why does the condition of society have to get so bad before people wake up to the problem? But most generations are like this. They don’t learn from previous generations because they are too busy pursuing their dreams. They let one thing go, then another, until there is no turning back. Everything goes and then everything is gone. Why did things have to go this far? It is because people won’t listen to anything less. The writing was on the wall, but they wouldn’t believe there was danger until the wall came crashing down. For many, the condition had to get this bad before they became alarmed. Simple signs of moral decay were not enough. The land had to be running over with mindless, savage, animalistic behavior before they would have the conviction to fight.

While it is good that some are recognizing that things have gone too far, it is sad that they are not asking what “too far” is or how we are to decide what this means. They are looking in all the wrong directions for an answer. For instance, many oppose gay marriages because they go against the “traditional” definition of marriage as being the union of a male and a female. They argue that this tradition has been in place for thousands of years, so why change it? It is true that the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman has been around for thousands of years. But that is not the basis of its being morally right. Just because something is a tradition, even an old tradition, does not mean it is right. Others point to English dictionaries which define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. But dictionaries tell us how words are used, not how they ought to be used. “Conservative” talk show hosts dance all around the real issue by making these arguments or by saying that common sense tells us what is right and wrong.

Gay marriages and abortions are wrong because they violate the moral law of God. That law is the same regardless of what civil law, tradition, or popular vote decides. Homosexuality is against the natural order God made (Rom. 1:26-27). God “at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife” (Matt. 19:4-5). Abortion is wrong because it is murder, the shedding of innocent blood (Luke 1:36, 41, 44; Exod. 20:13). In spite of public opinion, these things cross the line – a line set by God’s immutable decree.

This line was crossed in many ways long before things got this bad. In fact, this is why the condition is so bad now. What many do not accept is that the standard that deems gay marriages and partial-birth abortions wrong is the same standard that pronounces many other things wrong, and these things have been tolerated for years by some of the same people who oppose gay marriages and partial-birth abortions. The moral line of God is crossed not only by gay marriages, but it is also violated by adultery. This line is crossed by fornication as well as by pedophilia and rape. If these people had been as concerned about these sins as they are about gay marriages, the issue of gay marriages would have never become an issue at all.

This same inconsistency is surfacing in issues of obscenity and public exposure of the body. Some have just now decided that public television has gone too far. But how did they reach that conclusion, and by what standard do they judge that the line has been crossed? Who decides what is obscene and what is not? Is it congress, the majority, or tradition? Who draws the line as to what is decent in regard to public states of dress? Should the line be drawn at total nudity, topless female attire, or some other display? And what about bad language? Did things go too far when the vilest words were spoken on television or when God’s name was taken in vain? No man has the wisdom to devise his own reliable standard for questions of right and wrong. The truth is, the moral law that condemns total nudity is the same law that condemns wearing short skirts, bathing suits, and other stages of undress. The law that forbids taking God’s name in vain is the same law that forbids using filthy speech (Exod. 20:7; Col. 3:8). But if people are not going to recognize this law in regard to these things, they cannot consistently appeal to it in regard to the others. Things went too far and the line was crossed long before these people became vocal.

The drug problem is another example. Parents are terrified at the spread of methamphetamines – dangerous drugs which alter the mind and damage the body. But the absolute moral law that judges the abuse of these drugs to be wrong also judges the drinking of alcohol to be wrong. The problem may have become more pronounced with the use of powerful new street drugs, but the evil has been here all along. If people would honestly ask why the use of methamphetamines is objectively wrong, they would have to conclude the same about alcohol. But because they are unwilling to do so, they vainly imagine some other standard – a standard that condemns others, but not themselves.

Man tries to push limits, especially in art, science, and entertainment, until a cry sounds that he has pushed too far this time. Unless people learn what God’s limits are, they are bound to learn the hard way to respect them.

EDITORIAL

Preachers of the gospel should be the leading men when it comes to morals and ethics. They should be some of the wisest men on earth when it comes to vain philosophy and human reasoning. The world has always been complicated to some extent but more so now than ever before. We are faced with a number of complex situations in the present world. I fear gospel preachers have let the denominational world lead in matters of religious thought as well as philosophical thought and especially is this so with reference to the Catholic church. Roman Catholics have had a leading part when it comes to religious and philosophical matters. Maybe the church of Christ has not been able to do much about this but I think we all would agree that we could have done better.

The people of this present age are faced with some perplexing things. There are many difficult things facing humanity today and they must be answered if at all possible. Gospel preachers need to step up and speak out. This cannot be done without proper preparation and education. The church needs men that can reason properly in all things. The apostle Paul is a good example of what gospel preachers should be in the present evil world. He knew the holy Scriptures as well as human wisdom or the wisdom of this world. He could deal with the philosophers of his day in an excellent fashion and we need to be like him in today’s world.

Today’s society is faced with evolution and agnosticism. We are faced with open and unashamed homosexuality and lesbianism. We are faced with same sex marriages. Wehave before us legalized abortion and a breakup of the family unit. We have before us stem cell research. One very difficult issue we must take hold of is that of surrogating. These along with others are out there and gospel preachers should be taking the lead in giving answer and direction to the people of earth.

We are told by some that homosexuals are born homosexuals and they cannot help their sexual orientation. What proof is there that such is so? And would God demand the death penalty for those who are homosexuals if they could not help their sexual preference? Please read (Lev. 20:13-16). To argue that homosexuals are born homosexuals would be to argue that those who are given to bestiality were born that way. Can any person with any reasoning ability at all fail to see this? One might as well argue for his bestiality rights as to argue for his homosexual rights.

When little babies are aborted by the choice of parents this is nothing but cold blooded murder and that of the worst sort. The Bible plainly teaches that human life starts at conception and all men know this to be true. The reason they do not want to acknowledge this is because some are set on abortion and ridding themselves of a child that is not wanted. There are many Bible verses that teach that human life starts at conception but we do not have the space to mention them.

Now, what about surrogating? Can a man give his sperm away to others with the idea that they can use them to fertilize the eggs of women in order that someone may have a child? If so, where is such endorsed by the Bible? If so, then man is not held accountable for taking care of his offspring. And yet the Bible teaches he is to take care of his children (I Tim. 5:8). Mothers and dads are commanded to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). Men who give their sperm away and women who give their eggs away are without natural affection (Rom. 1:31) and this is mentioned among the very worst sins in all the world. Please read Romans 1:18-32.

There are many other things I would like to write about but they must wait for another time because of space. Let me say to every gospel preacher and Christian, we have our work cut out for us. May God help all of us to prepare for the task and difficult things ahead and may He give us the courage to stand up and speak out.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Why The Righteous Suffer
Mac Deaver

In one sense we can look at sorrow as experienced in two categories. There is the godly sorrow which produces repentance, and there is the sorrow of the world that eventuates in death (II Cor. 7:10). There is the sorrow experienced by those with hope, and there is the sorrow felt by those who have no hope (I Thess. 4:13). When we try to figure out why it is that we, personally, are suffering, we still remain somewhat perplexed. In answer to the question, “Why am I suffering?” Let me suggest that if we were to imagine answering the question by putting the pieces of a picture puzzle together, when we get the whole picture almost completed (in the light of Bible teaching), there will inevitably be the center piece missing, the very piece that tells me why it is that I am the one suffering, and the piece that tells me why I am suffering now, and the one that explains for me why I am suffering to the extent that I presently am. But now, understanding that we will not find the center piece of the puzzle in the Bible, we can find the framework of the answer as to why it is that the righteous suffer.First, the righteous suffer along with the unrighteous because we all live in a world under the governance of natural law. Beginning in Genesis 1, we learn that natural law was provided by God for the regulation of the natural order of things. Men can only be held responsible for their actions within a world that consistently functions. Rational response is only possible where things are without variation what they, in fact, are. The chemical, the physical, the biological must be under law for any of it to make sense to mortal man. And just as the rain and sunshine fall on the evil and the good and the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45), because natural law is in place, pain and sorrow will be experienced by the righteous and unrighteous alike.

Second, the righteous suffer because of human free will (Gen. 2:9, 16, 17). Adam and Eve lost the Paradise of Eden because they freely chose to disobey God. Their posterity have followed suit (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). Men have been allowed by God to make not only mistakes in judgment but mistakes concerning morality and righteousness. Human sin was and still is only possible via the mind of a free moral agent. The privilege is profound and awesome to consider. There is still much mystery in how it is that the human spirit can actually produce its own thoughts and deeds, and for which God alone holds a man accountable. Much suffering attends sin, and sin comes only as the expression of human free will.

Third, the righteous suffer because of chance. In Ecclesiastes 9:11 Solomon long ago wrote, “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.” Years later, Jesus endorsed the concept of “time and chance” in the story of the “Good Samaritan” when he explained that “by chance” a certain priest came across the man beaten and robbed (Luke 10:31). Indeed, chance occurrences explain much suffering. The world is full of accidental events, those unplanned happenings, many of which entail much agony. Indeed, our word “accident” bespeaks that which was not intended. Fortunately, time and chance are not and could not be outside the purview of God’s marvelous providence, but the whole possibility of man’s circumstances has to include this category of operation.

Fourth, the righteous suffer because sorrow has its benefits. In the first place, sorrow makes the heart better (Ecc. 7:3). While a merry heart is a good medicine, it is not the merry heart that produces personal improvement. It is the sorrowful heart that reaches down into itself for deep resolve to do better. David counted his affliction as a blessing to his improvements (Ps. 119:67). Second, sorrow can make the suffering realize personal dependency on God. When men reflect on the fact that unpleasant things must be faced and that they cannot control everything so as to keep pain at a distance, they can see the great need to depend upon the love and care of God. Sorrow faced may cause us to evaluate sorrow and see that it varies in intensity, varies in frequency, varies in duration, varies in consequences, varies in kinds. Third, sorrow evokes compassion. At least it should. When we see people hurting, if we are what we ought to be, we are compassionate (cf. Luke 10:33; Matt. 23:37-39). What would our world be like without the possibility of and the distribution of human compassion? Sorrow helps to build Christian character. And if you are ever disposed to conclude that there is far more sorrow in this life than joy, at least reflect on the fact that sorrow can be productive of much good.

Fifth, the righteous suffer because sorrow tests the strength of their convictions, will, and faith. When all goes well it is easy for us perhaps even to fool ourselves into thinking we are something that we are not. But sorrow makes us reconsider whether or not what we claim as our utmost convictions will stand the test of human living. Whether or not we have the will and the faith in God to hold on, sorrow can show (cf. Rom. 5:3; I Pet. 4;1, 12, 13).

Sixth, the righteous suffer because if only the unrighteous suffered, the unrighteous would feign conversion. When the world looks at the church it needs to see certain things, one of which is that God’s people also suffer. If the church were only composed of persons who never suffered and who never died, then who would not try to enter the kingdom, but on insufficient grounds? What the world needs to see is people who know how to look at suffering and how to take it and who rejoice in it as others outside cannot. Isn’t it interesting how the Bible points out for us certain faithful saints in the first century who had to face their own sorrows? (cf. Phil. 2:25-27; Acts 9:36-39). The world needs to see that God’s people are balanced, have right perspective, live with a realistic sort of optimism, and are completely resigned to the will of God. Even when the righteous do not get their “first way” in praying for the recovery of someone who later dies, they get their “second way” which is the complete resignation to whatever was God’s will in the matter when it became clear what that providential will was.

Seventh, the righteous suffer for being righteous. This is the category of persecution that Jesus mentioned (Matt. 5:10-12). Only the righteous can personally suffer for the sake of righteousness. Cain killed Abel because Abel’s works were righteous and his own works were evil (I John 3:12). There are plenty of people, it seems, who still resent the church and try to hurt her for no other reason than they see Christians living right while they are living wrong, and they will not bring themselves to repentance. They despise those who do right because presently they have no intention of living right themselves, though down deep, they know that they ought to do so.

Eighth, the righteous suffer because such intensifies their desire for a better life beyond this. In I Corinthians 15:19 Paul taught us that if we have only hoped in Christ in this life (that is, if our hope does us no more good than to carry us to death but not beyond it), then of all men on the earth, Christians ought to be the most pitied. The Christian’s hope is for something beyond this life for which he waits (Rom. 8:24, 25). Paul arrived at a time in his own tortured experience when he longed for something very far better (Phil. 1:22, 23). Suffering can do that to us. There is enough joy in life to keep us going on and yet enough sorrow to make us long for a better life beyond this world.

Ninth, the righteous suffer because it is one way that God has to affect the course of human history and to change the individual history as well. By one’s own normal aversion to sorrow and pain in his own life, by man’s production of sorrow and pain in the lives of others, and by God’s providential control of all sorrow and all pain in all the world, history marches on. And the course of human history entails the willingness of the righteous to suffer as duty demands. The cross stands as the pivotal point in sacred history where a righteous man suffered for unrighteous ones (I Pet. 3:18). All history before led up to it, and all history since is because of it and shaped by it. God still controls sorrow and suffering and can make it all redound to his glory and to the progress of the gospel (Phil. 1:12-14). And he can even take an individual Christian who needs redirecting, and cause him to change his ways because his heavenly father loves him and wants him to be a better son (Heb. 12:1-13)

First Degree Murder
Glenn B. Ramsey

“Murder” is defined by Webster’s dictionary as ‘the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.’ When the Law of Moses commanded, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) this kind of murder (murder in the first degree) was under consideration.

From the first murder recorded in the Bible (where Cain killed his brother, Abel) to the murder, by crucifixion, of Jesus Christ, God’s Word is clear in condemning this criminal act.

There is a distinction made in the Scriptures between an accidental or unintentional killing of an innocent one, and an intentional killing with malice aforethought. Even the laws of our land allow for such. Involuntary manslaughter may result in the death of an innocent, but unless there are other circumstances to be considered, such is not penalized with the same severity as would be first degree murder. In Deuteronomy 4:42 the law of God made provision for an accidental killing (murder). The Bible says there: “That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live.”

First degree murder is the planned and intentional taking of a life. Regardless of the motive behind the taking of such a life – hatred, malice, greed, even convenience as in the case of abortion of an unborn baby, the consequences are the same, as far as God in concerned.

Civilized people have always stood against first degree murder. Also, civilizations have allowed for the killing of criminals as due punishment for certain crimes. The Scriptures say in Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” This is the “justice” of an eye for an eye, etc., that has been a basis for much of the law of God and man.

The penalty for murder was a penalty laid upon the individual who murdered – not upon others of his family who were not guilty. In II Kings 14:6 this law is laid down: “But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Clearly, the New Testament speaks of those who murdered the Just One, Jesus Christ (Acts 7:51). The law of God always protected the righteous man and brought judgment in I Timothy 1:9: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers.” Those guilty of murder will have their part in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).

Under the Law of Moses, those who were guilty of murder were to be killed. Deuteronomy 13:9 says, “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” Thus, there is a time, according to God’s Law to kill (Ecc. 3:3).

Jesus talked of the law that said, “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:21). Jesus’ apostle John stated, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding him (I John 3:15). While there is a fear of the civil law that can kill the body, there is something all should be more concerned about. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Civil Rights
Ronald D. Gilbert

Some have defined “civil rights” to mean that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship, and otherwise to participate fully in national life regardless of race, religion, sex or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil liberties has been defined by some as to guarantee freedom of speech, press, or religion; to due process of law; and to other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. The concept that human beings have certain rights has been believed for many years.

Very early in the Old Testament God revealed His laws for mankind. In Exodus 20 we have the ten commandments given. These commandments have been a part of societies throughout history. In Exodus 21 God gave laws and ordinances that touched on many different aspects of human life. That chapter revealed that there was a proper way to treat servants. God also gave civil rights to the unborn (Ex. 21:22-23). Something our society seems to be very confused about. Consider how inconsistent many in America are. On one hand abortion is sanctioned, upheld, promoted and even in many cases funded by our tax dollars. This is done under the idea of a woman’s civil rights, her body, her choice. Consider two women in two different towns. Both are carrying a baby that is 6 months old. One decides she does not want the baby so she goes to the doctor and has the baby aborted. To many, no harm done, this was in accordance with her civil rights. The other woman is involved in a car accident with a drunk driver hitting her car and her baby dies. The drunk driver is charged with manslaughter. It seems that many are saying some unborn children have civil rights and others do not! I wish more people in the world would take up the cause of the civil rights of the unborn. In our day and time the sex of an unborn child can be determined very early. Only God knows how many little boys and girls have been murdered by abortion because they were not the sex the mother wanted. Talk about sexual discrimination! The height of such is to murder a child by abortion because he or she was not what was wanted.

If a society is to have law there must be a standard of authority. The Bible is that standard. God is the ultimate law giver and judge. God will judge individuals and nations. Morality must be a part of society and without God morality is purely subjective. Subjective morals become simply a matter of personal likes and dislikes.

Civil rights are very much a part of American history. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly and religious exercise. It says, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... The Founding Fathers seemed to be concerned with the idea of a state religion and their aim seemed to be to keep the federal government out of religion and determining religious beliefs. I am thankful that I live in a country where I am free to believe and practice New Testament Christianity without the government trying to stop or regulate what is taught. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as many state and local laws, prohibits religious discrimination. The courts upheld the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse to salute the flag because of religious objections. While we disagree with the teachings of various religious groups we would not want to lose the religious freedoms we have in America.

Some today feel freedom or civil rights is a license for them to do anything they please. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to lie. What happens in court when one lies under oath? Freedom of speech does not give one the right to slander another individual. Nor does it give one the right to say any vile or obscene words he chooses. Having civil rights does not give one the right to walk down the street completely nude! Sometimes the state gives one rights that they have no right to confer.

With freedom comes responsibility. This is true in the physical and spiritual realms. Freedom of choice does not give one the right or excuse to make the wrong choice.

We should be thankful for our civil rights. We should also try to use our influence in the policy making of this nation to keep balance in civil rights and the law of God.

America’s Standard
David Hill

In short, one would have to say that it is hard to determine what standard if any is America’s standard in this new century. The standard of pleasure has been a guiding rule for many over the last several decades. This is somewhat like the epicureans of Acts 17:18: they looked for pleasure and primarily physical/sexual pleasure. To these individuals of the first century the standard of good was what makes one feel good, and history records that this philosophy lead to hedonism of every kind. Both illicit heterosexual activity and perversion and homosexuality along with sodomy were well known and practiced in the Roman empire. It reminds us somewhat of today with some people. Many religious people used family history as a standard. They said, “We are Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33), but that had no sway on the Master for he responded that those who commit sin are children of sin. The Lord told them that if they were Abraham’s seed they would receive His word (v. 37) and do the works of Abraham (v. 39). Many first century Christians left all to follow Jesus. So the standard of history and family is not acceptable to Christ. Some today are quick to talk of history and family and even church buildings (property) as reasons to stay in error. A family history alone will not get the job done: Remember there are good traditions (II Thess. 2:15), the traditions of God and his apostles.

So, what is America’s standard? Some say rule of law, and we ask, “From where did the laws originate?” Though many politicians and revisionist historians have attempted to move us (U.S.) in a secular direction, the founding fathers spoke often of God and His divine providence. George Washington called for prayer as the continental congress struggled with a new constitution for this nation. Was that secular or asking for divine intervention? At this point many become critics and cite that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists. They were wrong in their deism but right to believe in God. Some remind us that our founding fathers were immoral, and in some cases I’m sure it’s true. But that does not erase the fact that they looked to the Bible for guidance in what is a right and wrong standard! The congress still opens every session with a prayer; the Senate the same, and the crier of the Supreme Court opens every session exalting God. The Lincoln Memorial displays some of the speeches of President Abraham Lincoln. They are full of biblical references and references to God. Seems to me like Lincoln had a standard. If he did not, then by what standard or rule did he determine that slavery was wrong? Let the secularist answer that question.

The fact is that our founding fathers looked to a standard of law, moral law, in the founding and setup of this great nation.

The church many times reflects the world around her. While some of this is understandable by the human makeup of the membership of the church, she is not to conform to the world (Rom. 12:1, 2). The church at Corinth in the New Testament times is well known for this problem. God’s standard is not conforming, but transforming. We are to transform ourselves by the renewing of our minds and thus transform the world through evangelism. When members of the Lord’s church start down the path of conforming, there is no standard. That’s where many congregations are today. They have conformed in doctrine. They ask “Can we really know the truth?” Jesus said clearly we can know truth (John 8:32). Open fellowship has been a tremendous problem with many of the larger congregations, and with many preachers who are desirous of keeping a prestigious schedule of lectureships and gospel meetings. It is not uncommon to hear about congregations of the church of Christ accepting denominational baptism. As we have written openly throughout recent years, youth programs have been using mechanical instruments of music in times of worship and praise. No longer is fellowship with denominationalism frowned upon. It is encouraged. Youth are encouraged to participate in interdenominational groups like Young Life, and Fellowship of Christian Athletes, to name a couple. What is the problem? Our brethren, in some cases, have given up the standard. And as I can see it, they give up the standard for increased numbers and community popularity (II Tim. 3:4). That is to say no standard, even in the church.

What is America’s standard? Well, it is my hope that what some of the talking heads on TV are saying is true. I hope it is true that a renewed search for an objective moral standard is taking place. Without a standard anything goes. Homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, theft, lying – you name it – without a standard there are no boundaries. Let’s commit for the New Year to be energized in our service to the Lord. A great day of renewal and obedience could be within our reach.

A Statement of Clarification

In an article I wrote about Deism I stated: “The brethren who believe the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only through the Bible or the Word of God have been responsible more or less in leading brethren to the worst kind of deism” (Living Oracles August - September, 2004 issue). This statement does not include every brother that believes in the Word Only idea and I did not say every brother. I realize there are some brethren who believe in the Word Only concept who believe that God still works in prayer and providence in some direct way to bring about His will and to aid and assist the Christian as he prays and asks God for help in one way or another. But there are those who totally reject God in prayer and providence today and they say (even though they contradict themselves) that God works in an indirect way by the laws of nature. When this kind is pressed you will find that they believe in the worst kind of Deism. They actually believe in fatalism. This latter group was the one to which I had reference. I suppose one can never be too plain and specific in writing.
—Malcolm L. Hill