Hands Off Higher Ed
Larry P. Arnn, from The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2007

From the first days of federal aid to higher education, instinct told us such aid would carry with it obligations that, in the words of Bill Buckley, "a free university ought not to undertake." Over the past 50 years a few private colleges and universities across America, including Hillsdale College, where I am president, have paid the price to keep their independence.

No part of the billions from federal taxpayers that go annually to our competitors comes to us. In the past, our families were even prevented from taking the limited tax deductions available for college tuition. We face the annual challenge of keeping up with the rapid growth of subsidies to higher education.

Today we watch with trepidation an attempt to establish federal control over all colleges and universities, including our campus. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings wants to extend the testing and standards requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act to colleges. The specific details of what these testing and standards would entail are unclear, but are likely to be determined by education department regulators over the next several months.

President Bush and Ms. Spellings have brought a new approach to education reform at the federal level. They have good motives and a fair appraisal of the situation, at least in K-12 education. But national standards and testing in higher education will only strengthen a bureaucracy that already plagues an otherwise highly competitive system.

Mr. Bush and Ms. Spellings will not be around long enough to write the rules of this new program. They will leave behind them a much larger department, now armed with the tools to influence education to a much greater extent. Ms. Spellings often uses the language of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in her speeches. Since Sept. 11, 2001, spending on higher education has grown at rates greater than, say, the Defense Department.

National standards are unnecessary in higher education. There are already plenty of accountability tools available to students and their parents—starting with the ability to pick up and go elsewhere. There are more than 2,000 accredited four-year colleges in the country. At Hillsdale we have long survived by attracting private capital and good students to our campus, so we are well aware that universities compete for students, donations and top-notch professors every year. We also know that those institutions that allow their standards to slip will soon find their best students and faculty members migrating elsewhere.

These facts notwithstanding, Ms. Spelling's efforts to impose nationalized college testing began in earnest last fall when her National Commission on the Future of Higher Education issued its final report and recommended the new testing mandate. Republicans—had they maintained control of Congress—might have gone along. Instead Ms. Spellings is now attempting to impose the mandate through the backdoor by forcing college accreditation agencies to start demanding that the tests be imposed.

The accrediting agencies are now almost 100 years old, and colleges use them to learn about themselves and to demonstrate competence by third-party testimony. The accrediting agencies have for the most part respected the mission and purpose of the institutions they review. But since the federal government became a major funder of colleges, the accrediting agencies are the gateway to that money. This makes them, as much as the recipient colleges, creatures of federal policy.

Several weeks of tense "negotiated rule-making" between the department and the accrediting agencies have just ended without agreement. The department has invited a representative of the largest accrediting agency to step down from the consulting panel because of her recalcitrance. Meanwhile the department threatens to impose common standards in accrediting without agreement from the accreditors. This is the opposite of competition and diversity.

Reform is certainly needed in higher education. But we should be discussing tax credits, not uniform standards. We should be thinking about tax-free saving accounts for college rather than rules and subsidies.

Here in south central Michigan, we are used to being recalcitrant. Living by private resources for more than a century and a half, we have supported the principles of "civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety" that have been the core of our public mission since the founding day. We succeed today by the requirement of a tough core curriculum, recruitment of a talented student body committed to an honor code, and by remembering the relationship between liberal education and a free society.

(Mr. Arnn is the president of Hillsdale College.)

Other Testimonies Regarding Government Money, Accreditation, and Christian Colleges
Kerry Duke

The above article by the President of Hillsdale College sounds a timely warning. That college, which receives no government money, had an experience with the federal government years ago that left its administration with a strong conviction about government subsidy to schools. While Hillsdale had never received federal money, some students at the college in the late 1960s and early 1970s accepted federal loans and others went there on the G. I. Bill. When the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began imposing federal regulations on Hillsdale, the college administration responded that the federal government had no right to make these demands since Hillsdale was not receiving government money. But the government argued that Hillsdale did receive government money in the form of federal loans and grants. The case went to the U. S. Supreme Court, and the Court ruled in 1984 against Hillsdale. They lost the case, but they kept their freedom.

For some reason up to this year, Hillsdale took a different position on state money. But the board decided to end the subsidy they received annually from the state of Michigan — $650,000. Overall, their advice is clear: if you don't want government interference, stay away from government subsidy.

The experience of religious educators confirms that there are definite strings attached to federal money and to the accreditation process required to receive it:

Norman L. Geisler, Evangelical Theologian:

"One of the top leaders of a large Protestant denomination was once asked how his denomination drifted to the left. His analysis of the situation was brief but penetrating. He noted that they wanted accreditation for their schools. In order to attain this they needed academic respectability for their teachers. Thus, they sent them to some of the best graduate schools in the world. When they returned from these unorthodox institutions they brought with them academic respectability. Sadly, he added: 'We achieved scholarly recognition. But we sacrificed our orthodoxy for academic responsibility.'" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March, 1999).

Patrick Henry College:

This school applied for accreditation and was turned down in 2002 because it teaches that the earth was created in six literal days. The accrediting agency said the school's biology course limited "liberty of thought and freedom of speech" because it criticized the theory of evolution. (Christianity Today, July 8, 2002).

A number of preachers in churches of Christ sounded the warning decades ago:

Joe Malone:

"For many years certain lobbyists in Washington have been trying to saddle 'federal aid to education' on the American people. . .Those in charge of such schools need to answer this question: Are you willing to trade control of your schools for money? The prospect of a vast extension of the present bureaucratic control is ominous and real!" (Voice of Freedom, 1965).

G. K. Wallace:

"Most Christian colleges are struggling under guidelines imposed, not by the Board of Directors, nor the President of the school, but by Accrediting Associations that exist in the circles of higher education. . .

The qualifications of Bible teachers in our Bible departments are being set up by a group of men who know little about the Bible and care less. Their standards are determined largely by philosophy which is equated with divinity and/or theology. All of the higher Divinity Schools (if there is an exception I am not aware of it) are dominated by theologians who either openly deny the inspiration of the Bible or secretly seek to destroy the faith. Most of our administrators and members of the Board of Directors are aware of this problem but they are so afraid of the rulings and regulations of Accrediting Association that they are paralyzed. It does not take a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, nor a dresser of sycamore trees to see where this leads. . ." (Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1971).

Don Morris, President of Abilene Christian College from 1940-1969:

"Abilene Christian College does not have a written statement of policy concerning federal aid programs. We have always opposed the national government's increasing its participation in support of education. I have personally gone on record with the National Education Association and other educational groups, as well as with our congressmen and senators, as being opposed to the enlargement of federal government support of education." (Morris, by Owen Cosgrove, p. 59).

Ironically, Morris did approve of federal loans to both the school and to students. He argued that loans were different from grants and would not lead to government intervention. As the Hillsdale example would later prove, he was wrong.

It is not in itself sinful for a Christian college to be accredited and accept government money. But these secular advantages come with a hefty price tag. The influence accrediting agencies have on colleges is subtle and gradual, but in the end it is often devastating. The pressure they exert on schools is sometimes by explicit demand but often more by sentiment and by "suggestion" which are interpreted by college officials as mandates. With the federal government now applying more pressure to accrediting associations to comply with federal standards, these agencies are sure to step up the pressure on schools. Colleges have now become so dependent on government money that to lose it would be disastrous. But the basic facts are undeniable. The trend of colleges, beginning with Harvard which was established in 1620 and extending to schools today, has been to drift to a more liberal posture. The other fact is that government money is involved in virtually every college that has departed from its original purpose.

Gold and silver sound good to a school that is struggling to survive. But is government money worth losing biblical faithfulness? Our Christian colleges and many congregations have changed for the worse in part because our culture has deteriorated morally and spiritually. But the often unnoticed cancer that has been eating away at our educational institutions is government control through the accrediting agencies. Brethren have somehow bought into the idea that accreditation (by a group of non-Christians!) makes a school prestigious and more academically effective. But my experience is that brethren for the most part have no conception of what accreditation is, much less the possible threats it poses to the Bible teaching program at a Christian college. In 15 years as Dean of TBC, I have been asked almost every week about accreditation by someone interested in the school. I always ask the person what they think accreditation is. Not one person has ever answered the question correctly. They are all worked up about a school being accredited and they don't even know what accreditation is! One fellow was really concerned about accreditation even though all he wanted to do was audit a course!

Americans are becoming more and more dependent on government money and as a result less and less free. Schools — even Christian schools — are chained to these funds through grants, student loans, and even school vouchers. Our health care system is largely funded by the government. Even orphan homes often receive government subsidies. And now the government holds out the offer of money in the form of faith-based initiatives. Are we headed toward the practice of some European countries of the government paying the preacher? Adam Clarke recommended this arrangement, which was practiced in Virginia before the revolution, but some of us still disagree. We believe we should obey the laws of the land, but we believe, as George Washington said, that government is like fire — good if it stays in the fireplace, but if it gets out, it will destroy everything in the house.

A more appropriate ending could hardly be found than the words of Martin Luther cited in the March, 1842 issue of the Millennial Harbinger:

"I fear that the universities will be found great gates leading down to hell, unless they take diligent care to explain the Holy Scriptures, and to engrave them in the hearts of our youth. I would not advise anyone to place his child where the Holy Scriptures are not regarded as the rule of life. Every institution where God's word is not diligently studied, must become corrupt."

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hil

We have before us a copy of The Christian Standard which is perhaps the leading journal for the Christian churches. The issue is August 19, 2007. On page 523 there is an article entitled "From Conversation to Cooperation." The article deals with the history of the so-called Restoration Forums which started August 7-9, 1984. We are told there were and have been 24 forums since they began.

Let us say in the very outset that we have no use for such forums. We are for unity based on the Bible and we are for meetings to bring about unity based on the Bible, but these so-called Restoration Forums were in actuality compromise forums. The Christian Church had no intentions and still has no intentions of giving up the use of the instrument of music in worship and a host of other unscriptural practices they have accepted. The brethren who have been a part of these forums in most cases do not represent the true church of Christ. They are of the weaklings, the half-converted, the pastors, the wrecked-faith gang. The Restoration Forums did not pull them away from the gospel truth because they were already away from the Bible before such forums ever began. These modern-day pastors met with the Christian Church folks and no doubt at times squeezed out a crocodile tear and displayed false piety and fake humility. We venture to say they did all they could to have a pity face (Matt. 6:16) and a sorrowful look and when they talked they talked with "a humble voice." Did they ever get right down to the issues of difference as did our beloved brother H. Leo Boles in a unity meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1939? Nay verily they did not! If you want to see how these Restoration Forum folks view men like H. Leo Boles, let someone tell you what they did at one of their forum meetings with his tract on Christian unity. They said it was not fit nor suitable to be passed out nor on display at their Restoration Forums. We venture to say they never did get down to the nitty-gritty and talk solidly about the issues which separate the Christian Church and the church of Christ. They were full of hints, nudges, sweet, sweet talk and other such things according to what we have read, heard, and seen.

They tell us after 25 years of restoration gatherings they are now ready to move from conversation to cooperation. In other words they are ready to extend the right hand of fellowship to each other and walk gently down the pathway of compromise and error and meet God head-on in a lost and undone way (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46).

The Christian Church has done the church of Christ a favor in one sense. They have helped weed out some of the unconverted folks in the church of Christ. It may be that God sees that His church refused to function on the disorderly (II Thess. 3:14) and therefore He in His providence does the separating. God had to separate the people at the tower of Babel and He had to scatter the early church to get the gospel preached to the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:4). So it may be that God has had to weed out the half-hearted and weak of the church today which indeed weakens her.

In this article they tell us that brother Leroy Garrett is very happy after 50 years. We believe this to be a mis-statement. He was in extreme anti-ism for the first part of his life. He was opposed to Bible classes, located preachers, etc., but somewhere along the line he saw a rainbow in the cloud and went to the other extreme of accepting just about all.

They mention Mark Moore, Royce Money, Doug Foster, Marvin Phillips, Rubel Shelley, and Jeff Walling. None of these men represent the true church of Christ. They have been in left field for years. One thing that can be sensed in this article is the misleading spirit behind it. They would like to have us believe that all the church of Christ is joining them. This is a far cry from the truth and we pray it will ever be so. We believe and have stated so that some are going to be surprised when the rubber meets the road with reference to uniting with the Christian Church denomination.

From the Past: William Hayden on Preacher Glorying

And there was a strife also among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest—Luke xxii: 24.

"False ambition has, perhaps, been productive of more evil to the human race, than any other cause. It is nothing else than supreme selfishness. It sometimes assumes very specious names and appearances. When it strives for the mastery in the political world, it styles itself patriotism. Then you hear the demagogue eloquently pleading the interests of the 'dear people,' the honor of his country, while denouncing his competitors as enemies to both. When it seeks for pre-eminence in the church, it shows itself in zeal for orthodoxy, for long established usages. Or, perchance, it grows dissatisfied with all these, and would throw society into a ferment and proclaim 'reform,' 'progress with the spirit of the age,' placing itself at the head of parties, armies, and nations, or if disappointed in this, turning misanthrope, finds fault with every thing and complains of the ingratitude of mankind. In the church, the individual no longer able to endure, or fellowship the corruption and hypocrisy of brethren, leaves the church and concludes he can best serve his God (i.e.), his own pride and envy alone. Such persons are very zealous Christians so long as they can be put forward and have things in their own way. If an individual is suspected of possessing more of the confidence and esteem of the brethren than himself, he can never hear without pain, such brother commended; but to ease his mind with as good a grace as may be, he will admit there are some good qualities in the brother, 'but' he has certain faults, which ought to be known in order to form a just estimate of his character.

"Doubtless many deceive themselves into a notion that their motives are pure, that it is the glory of God, and the interest of his cause they have at heart, when pride, envy, and jealousy lie at the bottom of all they say and do. Even the pure in heart will have enough to do to keep themselves pure..." (p. 206).

"Have we not seen envy and strife, insubordination, jealousy, rivalry, and recklessness? 'Which of us shall be accounted the greatest.' I am not sure that this demon has not pursued at times persons of all stations, the most obscure and private disciples, deacons, overseers, preachers, exhorters, editors. 'My sacred honor' is too often mistaken for the honor of Christ and his cause."

—by William Hayden (1799-1863), from The Life of Elder Walter Scott, by William Baxter.

Measuring Greatness by False Standards
Ronald D. Gilbert

The disciples of Jesus on more than one occasion discussed who among them was the greatest. Jesus told men how to be great in God's sight, "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 23:11). Those who are the greatest today in the kingdom probably have no such ambitions. On the other hand, those who are seeking to be the greatest today in the kingdom have the wrong attitude and probably have little real value in the kingdom.

Some today measure greatness by name recognition. I met a preacher a few years ago and after we shook hands and gave each other our names, he said, "I guess you have heard of me. I write for _______ paper and I speak on _______ ________ lectures." I believe he was very disappointed but I did not recall hearing of him. In one preacher's bio information it was listed that his father was ___________ who was a musician who regularly played on the Grand Ole Opry. Greatness in the kingdom is not measured by name recognition. Consider these well-known names: Judas, Demas, Baalam, Ahab, and Jezebel—certainly well known, but not great in the service of God.

Next, the number of speaking appointments one has per year does not make him the greatest in the kingdom. In introducing some speakers, this seems to be the main qualification for their being there. Some preachers seem to feel that if they could appear on certain lectureships they would achieve the status of "having arrived." Few faithful preachers of the gospel could compete with the schedules of some of our liberal brethren and denominational false teachers.

Thirdly, greatness in the kingdom is not determined by the number of books one has written. Some of our preachers sell books and do a little preaching on the side! Good books are valuable contributions but many great workers in the kingdom will never write a book.

Fourth, greatness in the kingdom is not determined by which colleges or preacher-training schools one has taught at or directed. Some of the greatest Christians I have ever known never taught at our schools.

Fifth, greatness in the kingdom is not determined by the size of the congregation for which one preaches. Sometimes I hear men being introduced and it is said that brother ____ "preaches for one of the largest churches of Christ in the brotherhood so give him your undivided attention." Does that mean that if we are introducing brother _______ who preaches for a congregation of 25 members, we should pay little attention to what he is about to say? Does the size of the church for which one preaches determine his value in the kingdom? To some it appears to have much weight in their minds.

Sixth, greatness in the kingdom of God is not determined by one's opinion of himself. Many of our preachers today are like the boxer Muhammad Ali, who was often heard to say, "I am the greatest." Horn-tooting and self-promotion seem to be quite popular among many preachers today. One must listen hard many times to understand just really what some preachers are saying. For example, what is really being said when a preacher says, "I'm not bragging, but I have done more for the growth of this congregation than any man"? What does a preacher really mean when he says, "I don't have a jealous bone in my body but how could that eldership pick brother ______ over me to be their preacher"?

You may have noticed in this article that all the examples I have used have been preachers. Why, you might ask, would I consider only preachers as to who could possibly be the greatest in the kingdom? Ask any preacher and he will tell you that it is one of us who is the greatest! Also consider the different times Jesus discussed this point: Matthew 18:1-4; 23:11; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46; 22:24, 26. It was discussed with his apostles, who were preachers. Very few preachers are bold enough to step forward and say "I am the greatest in the kingdom today." However, I believe many have a large list of other preachers that they know are greater than other preachers! Just remember that God does not measure greatness in the same fashion as some men measure greatness.

Some Men are Disappointing
Paul M. Wilmoth

Men are often prone to weakness. Because of these weaknesses men are often disappointing; they disappoint us either by their actions or lack of actions; they sometimes disappoint by what they say; and other times they are disappointing because of their failure to say what needs to be said. This is not something that is new or unique to the 21st century; we see numerous examples of men acting in disappointing ways in the Scriptures. God was disappointed with Cain and his offering (Gen. 2:3-7). Aaron and the children of Israel disappointed both God and Moses while Moses was in the mount receiving the law (Exodus 32). God must have been greatly disappointed in David, "a man after mine own heart," when He sent Nathan, the prophet, to confront him with his many sins (II Samuel 12). Paul was disappointed with John Mark for turning back and did not want him to be included in the second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-41). Peter's actions at Antioch were disappointing and led to Paul confronting him "before all" for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14). And you can almost read the disappointment on the face of Jesus when he asked his disciples, "Will ye also go away?" (John 6:67). And who can doubt that He was disappointed in Peter, James, and John when He found them asleep in the garden and asked, "Could ye not watch with me one hour?" (Matt. 26:40).

As I have grown up in the kingdom, men have personally disappointed me on numerous occasions. I have been disappointed with some of our older, seasoned preachers who have been unwilling to confront the present-day apostasy that has swept so many away from the old paths. Some of these men were men that were highly respected and held many gospel meetings in the area when I was a child. I have been disappointed in men when I have watched them compromise their principles in order to keep their jobs. I have been disappointed with good friends who have refused to stand firm on the truth of God's word when members of their families were involved. Those of my family who do not support my work have disappointed me; but I have never allowed that to deter me from doing and teaching what I believe to be right.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment that has come my way is the disappointment that comes from observing the tremendous amount of "politics" in the Lord's kingdom. When men toss a "straw into the wind" before deciding on an "issue," when what one stands for and supports is determined by which "camp" he is in or which paper he supports or what college he attends more so than what is written in the Scriptures, this is indeed disappointing. When men refuse to support a good work because of personalities involved or because of "who" is behind it, even though they admit that nothing sinful or unscriptural is being done, this is disappointing

When men try to impose their opinions and judgments on others as marks of fellowship this is indeed disappointing. When men try to make laws where God has not, and divide the church, this is disappointing. When men misrepresent a brother and turn brother against brother but are not even willing to answer a letter or discuss their differences, this is also disappointing.

We could go on and on listing things and men who are disappointing to us and, I believe, to God also. But, what is the conclusion? What should we do? How can we help the situation? First, we need to remember that the Lord will never disappoint us. His promises are sure and steadfast; He will never leave us nor forsake us. Second, we need to remember that it will be God's word that judges us (John 12:48). None of us will be judged by the opinions of men. This means simply that we need to aim to please God and not men (Gal. 1:10). And third, if we are doing God's will and work, God knows, and we are not required to have the approval of men. May each of us try to live and work in such a way that God and His Son will never be disappointed in us; and let us pray that all in Christ will live up to their calling.

Approved Lying?
Kerry Duke

The question of lying and deception in the Bible is a particularly intriguing subject. The following are some questions we received on this topic followed by my response.

Question

We know that God is truth, and His Word is truth. He cannot lie. However, we can find in the Bible examples of minor lies that are either directed by God or committed by one of God's prophets with no reprimand from God. Consider these examples:

II Kings 8:10—Elisha, God's prophet, instructs Hazael to give Ben-hadad a false prophecy, which he does.

I Kings 22:22—Granted that this takes place by a spirit speaking through a false own wickedness. But it is still God-ordained deception.

John 7:1-10—There seems to be some uncertainty about the word "yet" in verse 8. Whether this should be included or not, Jesus tricked his brothers into thinking he was not going to the feast—but once they were gone he went up "in cognito."

Jeremiah 38:24-27—King Zedekiah instructs Jeremiah to lie to the king's officials about the subject of Jeremiah's conversation with the king as a means of saving Jeremiah's life. We see no condemnation from God towards Jeremiah when he follows this advice. Does the end justify the means?

Exodus 1:15-21—The midwives blatantly lie to Pharoah about their disobedience to his obviously wicked command. Their motives were obviously good (v. 17), intending to save the Israelite babies out of fear for God. Not only does God not disapprove of their deception, but He compliments and rewards their methods (v. 20-21). Is it OK to do a "small" sin to avoid doing a "large" sin?

I Samuel 16:1-5—God instructs Samuel to mislead the elders of the city (and Saul, indirectly) about the true intentions of Samuel's visit. Samuel tells them he is simply there to sacrifice, but in reality he is anointing the next king of Israel.

I Samuel 21:1-3—David lies to Ahimelech the priest about his mission. David tells the priest that he is on a secret mission for Saul, when he is really running from Saul. Again we do not see any condemnation from God or remorse from David. Keeping in mind that David was so sensitive that he was distraught over cutting Saul's robe a short time later, it seems odd that lying to the priest does not bother him a bit.

I Samuel 27:8-12—David lies to the Philistine king Achish, telling him that he was attacking Jewish towns, when he was actually raiding other Philistine settlements. Again, no condemnation from God and no remorse from David.

These are just a few examples that I noticed as I read through the Bible, there may be more. How would you reconcile these instances with the knowledge that God does not favor lying and does not tolerate sin? These passages almost suggest that God is endorsing "white lies" if they are well-intentioned. Please support your answer.

Answer

In general, I would offer the following observations:

1. Historical accounts in the Bible usually do not take time to pronounce judgment on the acts recorded. These records are descriptive. The prescriptive part usually comes from other passages and is presupposed, forming a backdrop to the story. When a Bible writer does not stop to tell us that a murder he has just described is wrong, does the absence of condemnation in the account mean there is a question about murder being wrong? The same is true when the writer records a lie.
2. There is a difference between withholding information and lying, and there is even a difference between some types of deception and lying. A quarterback is not lying when he feigns a handoff, but he is misleading his opponents deliberately. Also, when a person has more than one reason for doing something, why would he be obligated to state every reason to people who will abuse that information?
3. Rather than weakening our faith in the Scriptures, these passages actually should strengthen our convictions in the Bible. If mere men wrote the Bible, they would not depict its heroes as fallible men who are prone to selfish mistakes. The impartiality of the Bible is an intriguing pointer to a superhuman Author.

In regard to the passages you cited, I would offer the following comments:

II Kings 8:7-15—Benhadad may have recovered from his sickness before Hazael murdered him. Another possibility is that Elisha is "answering a fool according to his folly" by using irony in the statement "Thou mayest certainly recover" (cf. I Kings 22:15).

I Kings 22:22—This is a symbolic representation of the condition of Ahab's heart and his actions. God "put" a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets in the same sense that He sends a strong delusion or working of error (II Thess. 2:11) or that He hardens hearts (Exod. 10:1; John 12:40). He did so by providing the circumstance or opportunity and also by sending His Word which "makes" a hardened, impenitent man worse.

John 7:1-10—There is no question about the word "yet" (Gk. oupo, not yet). He did not "trick" His brothers into thinking He was not going to the feast. He did not say He was not going but that He was not going yet. Verse nine clarifies that.

Jeremiah 38:24-27—Jeremiah had earlier asked the king not to send him back to the house of Jonathan (Jer. 37:20). Jeremiah may have reiterated this request or affirmed that this was still his wish in Jeremiah 38 when Zedekiah brought it up.

Exodus 1:15-21—God blessed the midwives because they saved lives, not because they lied. The record does not state anything about how the midwives felt after they lied or whether they repented and were forgiven by God. But neither does it deny these things or suggest that God approved of their lie. As with all biblical history, this account is condensed, and we should not assume that something did or did not occur just because it was not explicitly stated.

I Samuel 16:1-5—Samuel did go to Bethlehem to sacrifice to the Lord. The record does not say this was the only reason he went. Samuel was under no obligation to tell these people every reason he had for being there. They asked, "Do you come peaceably?" How does this question demand that Samuel reveal every purpose of his trip?

I Samuel 21:1-3; 27:8-12—God did not approve of David's lies any more than he approved of his adultery with Bathsheba or his killing of Uriah. To say that there was "no condemnation" from God or "no remorse from David" is an assumption. The Psalms, some of which were written during these trials, show David constantly penitent and remorseful for God.

If there is no God, then there is no real, absolute, objective standard of right and wrong. If there is no objective standard of right and wrong, then lying (or murder or child abuse) is not absolutely wrong. This should be remembered whenever anyone questions the moral teaching of the Bible.

Sinners and the Collection Plate
Kerry Duke

Some say there is no Bible authority for a church to give out of its treasury to help a non-Christian. This doctrine is wrong. Paul told the churches of Galatia to do good to all men, especially to Christians (Gal. 1:2; 6:10).

These brethren are not satisfied with the way God wrote the Bible. It is not strict enough for them, so they try to make it stricter. It is not specific enough to suit them, so they add their own details and make their own laws. If you cite Galatians 6:10 to show that a congregation can help needy non-Christians, they argue, "But that verse doesn't say the church is to help all men." They demand that a verse be this specific before they will accept it. Do they practice what they preach? Let us see.

Consider the worship service at a church where these brethren are members. Non-Christians attend these services. Non-Christians give into the church treasury when the collection plates are passed. These brethren allow them to give and then use their contributions as they see fit.

Where is Bible authority for a non-Christian to give into the church treasury? Where is Bible authority for a church to receive money from non-Christians? If the Bible must specify this authority to the degree that these brethren demand on the question of a church giving out of its treasury to a non-Christian, then what passage authorizes them to allow a non-Christian to give into the church treasury? What verse authorizes them to use money given by non-saints? If the church treasury can be used to help saints only, then are saints alone authorized to give to the church treasury?

This is one of many of the absurd implications of this thinking. Please don't think all of this is hypothetical. I just learned of a person in this camp that is questioning whether we should even allow non-Christians to come to our worship assemblies! And that is not the first time I have heard someone entertain this idea!

Given the reasoning of these brethren, it is easy to see how one could be led to the idea of banning non-Christians from congregational worship. After all, if we use the approach they employ on the church treasury, we could make an equally convincing case on worship. They argue that I Corinthians 16:1 specifically mentions the collection "for the saints" and that other verses are worded similarly ("relief unto the brethren" — Acts 11:29; "a certain contribution for the poor saints" — Rom. 15:26; "ministering to the saints" — II Cor. 8:4). Their conclusion: "saints" excludes sinners. Now use that same mode of interpretation in regard to the worship assembly. Who came together on the first day of the week? "The disciples" (Acts 20:7), not sinners.Who is told to give on the first day of the week? "Churches" (I Cor. 16:1), not sinners. What would be the conclusion if we follow their reasoning? "Disciples" excludes sinners. They may respond that a sinner is mentioned as coming into the worship assembly in I Corinthians 14:24-25, but where does this passage say they participated by singing or putting money into the collection plate? After all, that is the kind of specific proof they demand in other passages. They can get this kind of authority for a non-Christian being present in the assembly from this passage, but where do they get their kind of explicit authorization for the sinner partipating in the services? And where is this kind of authority for parents in these churches encouraging their unbaptized children to sing and put a quarter in the collection plate? According to their way of interpreting the Bible, only saints can worship in the assembly, and this leaves unbaptized children out!

Does the sign "A church of Christ meets here" mean only the congregation meets there, or can meet there?

Left—Extreme; Right—Extreme
Glenn B. Ramsey

It is naïve for anyone to argue that modern philosophic thought has nothing to do with morals, politics, and religion. It is further naïve to argue that philosophical thought has nothing to do with education of a people (on all levels). Actually it is the education of a people that most influences the morals, politics, and religion of that people.

In modern vernacular the "left" indicates a liberal (unauthorized by law) mindset. Most people believe that the only real criteria for acceptable religious service is sincerity. Many of these people have thrown up their hands concerning various issues of religion and concluded that it really makes no difference what one believes or practices since any "sincere" belief or practice will bring the practitioner out at the same place as others who believe and sincerely practice something—even something practically opposite to the former! So the element of "truth" (the truth of God that makes one free) is relegated to a very unimportant place in the thoughts of these folks. This is the conclusion of the modern philosophy of "pragmatism." The word "pragmatism" is included in quotation marks here because the original use of the word has changed.

To the best of the understanding of this writer the pragmatic approach originally applied to things and situations where the presence or absence of a variable would make NO appreciable difference in the outcome of the situation or the nature of the thing considered. As William James said in a lecture in 1906,

The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right.

But how does this philosophy effect religious thought today? In a special way how does this system of thought influence those in the church of our Lord? This is the main concern of this writing.

The idea promoted by denominations that "one church is as good as another" has been adopted by many who call themselves New Testament Christians. This allows the establishment of the so-called community churches. In some places these churches are filled with formerly faithful Christians. Since the "pragmatic approach" used by many religious leaders in the church assumes that since we are all following the same God, then there is nothing wrong with having fellowship with those who do not believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. Others see nothing wrong with allowing women leadership roles in the organization (elders, deacons, etc.) and worship practices of the church (preaching, leading singing, teaching men and women in the same class, etc.). Why? Well, one church is as good as another, and many "good" people in various churches do these things so we need to help each other do good!

Who would have thought that congregations of the church of Christ in some places would use instruments of music in their worship? But it is being done! Who would have thought that a congregation of the church of Christ would go so far left (acting without Scriptural authorization) as to set women in as leaders (elders, or ministry leaders, etc.) over men in the work and practice of the church? But it is done. Who would have thought that boys and girls (in drama teams, etc.) would be teaching, by their stage acting, men and women and other boys and girls as a part of the work of the church?

When religious people leave the mooring of a "thus saith the Lord," anything can be "justified" by various types of illogical reasonsing! Please note that such "justification by illogical reasoning" is self-contradictory and false. There is very little difference between those on the extreme left (those who act without Scriptural authority) and those on the extreme right (who also act without scriptural authority when they restrict what God has not restricted, or when they make laws that God has not made). There is little difference in the "anti" mindset and the "liberal" mindset. It just depends upon which side of the cliff one wants to jump! The fall is the same.