Skip to main content

Is Cupid Old Fashioned?

Written by Rick Shrader

Is Cupid Old Fashioned?

by Rick Shrader

This is what comes of giving one’s heart to anything but God.   All human beings pass away.  Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose.  If love is to be a blessing, not a misery,  it must be for the only Beloved who will never pass away.   St. Augustine, Confessions

In this latter part of the twentieth century, when the sordid lives of Madonna and Michael Jackson seem common place, when public displays of vulgarity by musicians and artists are accepted as normal and indiscretions of public figures from the pulpit to the presidency do not even raise an eyebrow, what chance does that fat little imp with his toy bow and arrow have at making a dent in this year’s market? How can a truly decadent generation, whose lives are filled with every vice and substance, sit around brightly colored banquet rooms with balloons and ribbons and eat tiny candy hearts that say things like ‘‘I think you’re nice?’’

Well, before we write cute little Cupid off, we ought to consider if this ancient pixie hasn’t really won an age-old offensive the spoils of which are being paraded down main street today. The story of Cupid is truly primitive and labyrinth. It would take volumes to make all the connections to the ancient national histories as well as mythologies and lore. The biblical connections alone require more space than this.  A few reminders during this month, however, are appropriate.

There was a Saint Valentine, a Catholic martyr, who died in AD 270. He is the ‘‘patron of lovers and the helper of those unhappily in love.’’ February 14 is his feast day. Beyond providing a date to celebrate, he has little to do with the story of Cupid.

Cupid is a Roman name (also called Amor) associated with his lover Venus. They are the god and goddess of love whose stories fill the mythologies as well as the pop charts. So far, so good. But, as C.S. Lewis said, ‘‘when natural things look most divine, the demonic is just around the corner.’’ Venus and Cupid were known by many other names. In Babylon they were Semiramis and Tammuz. In Egypt they were Isis and Osiris. In Phoenicia they were Ashteroth and Baal. In Greece they were Aphrodite and Adonis (Eros). In Iceland they were Frigga and Balder. Even in the far East, Cupid was known as Zoroaster (zoro, ‘‘seed of’’ and aster or ‘‘ashteroth’’).

Biblically, Cupid was the same tradition as Nimrod (Gen 10:8), the mighty hunter of wild boars; Baal (Num 22:41), the ‘‘Winged One;’’ Tammuz (Ez 8:14), killed by a wild boar; Bel (Isa 46:1), the confounder; Jupiter (Acts 14:12), the son of Kronos; and even ‘‘Easter’’ (Acts 12:4), though a translator’s prerogative, was to a Roman such as Herod, the feast of ‘‘Ishtar,’’ the mother of Tammuz.   The whole tradition goes something like this (all the stories vary depending on which national tradition you are following). Semiramis and Tammuz were husband and wife, lovers. Tammuz met a violent death (as Nimrod he was killed by a wild boar) and the power of the queen, Semiramis, was in jeopardy. While the women of the realm wept for him (Ez 8:14) Semiramis feigned to have descended into Tartarus and brought Tammuz back from the dead. Semiramis was seen as a goddess (in Babylon, she was ‘‘Ishtar’’ i.e. ‘‘star’’ and hence ‘‘Venus’’ in Roman times, the feast of Easter in Saxon times) and Tammuz was a resurrected son. The ‘‘son’’ was also the ‘‘sun’’ and his birth was celebrated on December 25 , the winter solstice when the sun begins its northern trek and his death was celebrated on June 24, the summer solstice when the sun turns southward again. (The modern dates are December 21st and June 21st). Semiramis became the Queen of Heaven and Tammuz her son as well as lover. This lurid relationship became the basis for the cult being a fertility cult as is seen in all its variations. Israel was commanded to separate from it in any form, whether the calf worship of Egypt or Baal and Ashtoreth from Phoenicia. That is why God is angry when women are weeping for Tammuz in God’s own temple (Ez 8:14). In Greece, Tammuz is Eros, the son and lover of Aphrodite. I saw a statue of him in the Athens museum (looking exactly as Cupid would look) and it was not something you would hang on your family room wall. Of the four Greek words for love, eros means ‘‘erotic’’ and is not used by New Testament writers to portray God’s love or brotherly love.

In Rome, this tradition was Venus and Cupid. Venus was believed to have descended from Heaven (one story says in an egg which was hatched by bunnies, hence the feast of Ishtar) and Cupid was the winged youth (as Baal, ‘‘the winged one,’’ he supposedly created the birds) who shot arrows (like Nimrod the mighty hunter). The Norse tradition has the son, Balder, meeting a tragic death from an arrow fashioned out of a Mistletoe sprig (the mythological Greek Cupids were slain by a serpent called Python).

As I wrote in an article about Halloween, I do not advocate dropping every American custom which has its roots in paganism. The cakes baked to the Queen of Heaven (Jer 44:19) were the birthday cakes celebrating the birth of the sun. I am not ready to give up birthday cake just yet (though many old country Christians do not celebrate birthdays, neither did the early church celebrate Christ’s birthday). I think I might even look for a chance to kiss my wife under the mistletoe and give her a Valentine card. We know that an idol is nothing!

The present day battle is deeper than mere symbols. It is an age old struggle between ancient foes. Nimrod, Tammuz, Baal, Eros and Cupid were just silly representations of the real Messianic Counterfeit who is a liar from the beginning. The book of Revelation describes a ‘‘Mystery Babylon’’ (17:5) led by ‘‘that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’’ (12:9). Today the stage is being set for such a condition. Paul described our age as being lovers of ourselves, without natural affection, dispisers of those that are good, lovers of pleasures (literally ‘‘lovers of Adonis’’) more than lovers of God who have a form of godliness without any real power (2 Timothy 3:1-5). The Anti-Christ himself will be a false representation of a slain and risen son (Rev 13:3) following the tradition of all the ancient counterfeits. He could be alive today and carrying on the cultic rituals.

The word that God chose to describe His own love, agape, was not used to describe love before the New Testament. It has no connection with Eros. It was a new description of a pure and holy love fashioned by God for His purpose. So while the world worships daily at the altar of Cupid and carries on the lusts to which they are slaves, ‘‘let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water’’ (Hebrews 10:22). And let us think about those who do not know the love of God as Jude who said, ‘‘of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh’’ (Jude 22-23). This is accomplished when ‘‘the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us’’ (Romans 5:5).

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Abstinence–Our Area!

Written by Rick Shrader

Abstinence–Our Area!

by Rick Shrader

I want to speak of the danger which at present, in my opinion, especially haunts the act of love. This is a subject on which I disagree, not with the human race (far from it), but with many of its gravest spokesmen. I believe we are all being encouraged to take Venus too seriously; at any rate, with a wrong kind of seriousness. All my life a ludicrous and portentious solemnisation of sex has been going on.  (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves )

 

There is a run-away train in our society that the world has no handle on called the sexual revolution! If it were not so tragic it would be comical to watch a nation which has discarded God, pour the coal into the engine’s boiler without realizing this train has no brakes! The country’s present leadership is fiendishly cheering on the participants. We can re-elect leadership. We cannot easily rediscover our moral bearings.

Recently I overheard a college couple philosophizing, ‘‘If God is against pre-marital sex, why did He make us to enjoy it?’’ That is the most common expression of unbelief in our day. ‘‘If there is a God, either He doesn’t care what’s going on or He is not able to do anything about it.’’ This young couple was saying the same thing:  ‘‘If God doesn’t want us to have sex, then He either can’t do anything to stop us (or He would) or He really doesn’t care if we do.”In a Washington Post article, one high school student said, ‘‘There’s a feeling that it’s okay for us to have sex because we’re educated and know what’s going on. If we do slip up, we’ll get an abortion.’’ Another high schooler said, ‘‘I could count the number of virgins in my high school peer group on the fingers of both hands.’’

Sex education in the high schools and colleges of our country has become x-rated orientation dogma into the dark world of no return for many students. Walter Williams, in a recent article, quoted from Stanford University’s sex education kit words I wouldn’t repeat to my wife! William F. Buckley wrote, ‘‘Every society has a sexual underground, because sex is a biological appetite that obsesses some men, and indeed some women, but which like other appetites can usually be controlled.  Those who can’t, or don’t, control this appetite are to sex as alcoholism is to the gourmet: the human perspective is destroyed. Sex becomes as alluring as what it was for Don Giovanni, as satisfying as inhaling crack cocaine, or chugalugging a fifth of gin.’’ There is no doubt about the addictive powers of sexual promiscuity. The Denver Police Chief once said of rapists, ‘‘Not everyone who reads pornography is a rapist. But you can be sure that every rapist reads pornography.’’ Malcom Muggeridge said, ‘‘Sex is the only mysticism offered by materialism, whose other toys–like cars, airplanes and pictures and swimming pools and flights to the moon–soon pall.’’

Where did America get off track? Perhaps it was our open door to Sigmund Freud’s philosophy in this country. Perhaps it was our fascination with Alfred Kinsey (Sexual Behavior of the Human Male/Female) who made sex a matter of statistics and everything from homosexuality to pedophilia appear more normal than heterosexuality (he began the myth that one out of every ten persons are homosexual). These days, Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver are not merely interesting old sit coms but are moralistic witch hunts. David Breese wrote, ‘‘The porous-minded prognosticators of our time look back on that day and call the people prudish or Puritan. They think it unfortunate that society in that day missed out on all the fun by not dragging sex into the streets, into the books and newspapers, and even into the Christian community. Yes, our present generation believes that the one who possesses morals, who possesses his vessel in sanctification and honor, is a pitiable individual. The person who has a recalcitrant attitude toward the sexual revolution is the one who needs a psychiatrist, our pundits say.’’

In any society of fallen humanity, this course of action is as natural as gravity. America’s Christian beginning kept back the expression of sinful nature for an amazingly long time but Christianity must be first in the heart, then in society. For a number of years now Christianity has been in the heart of a few, merely lip-service for many and openly opposed by many more.  We were shocked in 1991 when the Presbyterian Church (USA) published a committee report to its three million members that attacked the church’s position on sexuality as patriarchal, homophobic and biased toward heterosexuality. Christianity Today called it a document that ‘‘more closely resembled a Canaanite fertility cult than a Christian church.’’ Newsweek called it a ‘‘sermon on Eros prepared in the heat of politically correct passion.’’ Since then, the Episcopal church has voted on ordaining practicing homosexuals, the Catholic church is repeatedly embarrassed by pedophilia within its priesthood, the Assemblies of God have allowed infamous scandal to go unchecked, indiscretions continually shock all of our denominations, and the snowball continues. The conscience of America has all but died. The highest level of Christian conversation these days seems to be over the rating of the latest box-office release.

In the midst of the fusillade is the word ‘‘abstinence.’’ In a day of AIDS and other dangers, it has a growing popular usage. Society is trying to use it but it can’t figure out how it logically fits in. That’s because it doesn’t! At least not in an atheistic setting.  Oh, it might catch on as a fad or a groupie thing, but it won’t last long because its premise is moralistic. It goes against every natural instinct of the human nature. Its only real basis for practice is a love for the revelation of a holy God.

I only use the word ‘‘abstinence’’ because of its familiarity and popularity. Dictionaries will seldom associate the word with sexual promiscuity. It denotes, more specifically, refraining from alchohol and over-eating. A more accurate synonym is ‘‘continence’’ from a Latin base meaning ‘‘to hold in’’ and specifically refers to the act of self-restraint in sexual activity. Though the Bible uses the word ‘‘abstain’’ more often (7 times from apecw), the KJV does translate akrasia as ‘‘incontinent’’ twice (2 Tim 3:3, 1 Cor 7:5). The 1 Cor. passage is significant because it specifically describes refraining from sexual activity. When the Apostle wrote, ‘‘Flee fornication (1 Cor 6:18),’’ he had this idea in mind. I am not advocating that we exchange the word ‘‘abstinence’’ for ‘‘continence.’’ It would only create confusion and young people would think we were talking about the way the earth is divided. We should keep the word but when we preach ‘‘abstinence’’ we should not simply be enlisting people to join a club or start a protest movement, but we must be presenting, as Paul says, ‘‘The will of God, even your sanctification (1 Thes 4:3).’’

This message is our message! It belongs to the children of God! It is a message of absolute commitment, not a fad or gimmick. We don’t practice it as some New Year resolution!  It is a clear application of our belief in a holy God. Abstinence can be taught to our children when they first have a love for the Lord Jesus Christ and then, want to ‘‘glorify God in (their) body and in (their) spirit which are God’s (1 Cor 6:20).’’

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Incarnation: A Worldview

Written by Rick Shrader

The Incarnation: A Worldview

by Rick Shrader

G. K. Chesterton said, ‘‘The incredible thing about miracles is that they happen!’’ The incredible thing about the incarnation is that it happened! God became a man and walked among us! This fact, along with its corollary of Christ’s resurrection, together form the basis of the Christian life view i.e. the person and work of Jesus Christ. If either miracle is not true and did not happen, Christianity is reduced to an interesting philosophy.

The world, the flesh and the Devil are at war with the truth of the incarnation. Their success hinges on its failure and their defeat hinges on its triumph. Christians who trivialize the miraculous have not helped our cause. In our age of spiritual mediocrity, finding a parking place close to the mall entrance is praised as a miracle akin to crossing the Red Sea. Praying that God will cure Aunt Rosie’s cold is as serious as raising Lazarus from the dead. Without realizing it, we have made the wallpaper in the house more important than the foundation under the house.   The writer of Hebrews begins the most copious argument for Christianity ever written by saying, ‘‘God . . . hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son.’’ The incarnation thus becomes the cornerstone of all we hold dear in faith.  Jurgen Moltmann, a German theologian, once said that “The Bible is a book of God’s promises.  At the center is the incarnate promise of God in Christ.”

There is a law of non-contradiction (that a statement and its opposite cannot both be true) at work in this world view. Either the incarnation is false and the Bible, Christianity and morality are a sham, or the incarnation is true and cries to all, ‘‘Come, let us adore Him.’’ Ravi Zacharias said, ‘‘It is more reasonable to say that all religions we know are wrong than to assert that all are right.’’ The incarnation is Christianity’s claim to uniqueness. If it happened, humanism and naturalism are blind guides in a multicolored world and all other religions are charlatans.  That is not a popular religious viewpoint in our eclectic society.  It is seen as religious bigotry to say that one belief is true and all others are false.  But if the incarnation is true, common sense can lead to no other conclusion.

How do we explain a miracle like the incarnation? We cannot. We can only observe whether it happened. Believing that it did, in the light of overwhelming evidence, is not feckless faith. Francis Schaeffer gave the following illustration. Suppose you leave a room with two glasses of water on a table. Glass A has two ounces of water in it and glass B is empty. When you return, glass A is empty and glass B has four ounces of water in it. You are faced with a problem that has only a partial explanation. Whether the contents of glass A were poured into glass B is debatable but what is beyond debate is that all of the water in glass B could not have come from glass A. The additional two ounces had to come from elsewhere. The world without Christianity can explain two ounces of water in glass B, it cannot explain the origin of the other two ounces of water.

Humanly, we can explain a mother, a baby and a humble birth. Only by faith can we explain a virgin conception of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus asked Peter who he believed he was, Peter responded, ‘‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’’ Jesus blessed Peter and said, ‘‘Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’’ Some things can only be explained by believing what God has revealed to mankind. To refuse this source of information is to remain willingly in the dark. John wrote, ‘‘In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.’’

The implications of the truth of Christ’s incarnation are myriad. If it is true, there is a God in heaven who transcends any earthly limitation. Like the sun, you may not be able to look at Him, as Chesterton says, but without Him you cannot look at anything else. If He exists, heaven and hell exist and if so, perhaps we will live in one eternally. Zacharias says, ‘‘Life nudges us in our consciences, with its still small voice, that justice must be done, if not in this world, then in the world to come. Hence, the question rages in our hearts, whether death ends that possibility for justice or guarantees it.’’ The incarnation is that megaphone in the world’s ear.

It is no surprise that a society such as ours, with its lack of restraint and moral moorings, its insatiable appetite for the bizarre, and its insentient murder of the unborn, would bristle with conviction at the sight of a nativity scene. While in Russia during Christmas two years ago, the first sign I saw of a nation pulling itself out of atheism, was the sprouting of nativity scenes even on government property. The same Christmas in America found lawsuits filed against the government for having such reminders of the incarnation in the sight of sinners. ‘‘And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.’’

Christmas, along with Easter, must be kept prominent in our churches as beacons of the true life view. We may have only passing interest in July 4, Labor Day and Thanksgiving, but the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ is our business in this world. The incredible thing about those miracles, and the power behind our message, is that they happened!

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

All Hallows’ Eve

Written by Rick Shrader

All Hallows’ Eve

by Rick Shrader

‘‘Knock knock.’’ ‘‘Who’s there?’’ ‘‘Trick or treat.’’ ‘‘What?’’ ‘‘Give us something we want or we’ll play a trick on you.’’   Why is it that that little greeting doesn’t seem as innocent as it once did?   It wasn’t that long ago that no one cared that Halloween is one of the eight Sabbats of the WICCA church and it didn’t seem to matter that our little children dressed up like them and mimicked what they take very seriously.   Now, all of a sudden, it does! And it’s about time!

This strange holiday comes from the religious and pagan traditions of two countries that merged into a national event in a new country. We might say it started in Rome before the time of Christ. In 27 B.C., Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, aid to Caesar Augustus, built a temple in Rome to the gods called the Pantheon (‘‘all the gods’’). When Constantine ordered the Romans to become Christians in A.D. 313, the pagan systems of the old empire slowly took on Christian names and forms. The Pantheon remained a symbol of that dark past until A.D. 610 when its name was changed to the Santa Maria Rotunda (from which we get the shape of modern rotundas such as our capital buildings and White House) and November 1st chosen as a day when ‘‘all saints’’ would be remembered rather than ‘‘all the gods.’’ This converted pagan holiday was now called ‘‘All Hallows’ (saints) Day.’’

All Saints’ Day was practiced by the English church as well, where, in the tenth century, it found a strange mix. The ancient Celtic empire (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) had long been led in pagan worship by the Druids, the priests of Bel. Their two holiest days were May 1st, the celebration of Beltane (‘‘fires of Bel’’), and November 1st, the celebration of Samhain, the Celtic New Year. Samhain was also the end of harvest with its ingathering of grains. The Druids, however, celebrated much more than grain. They also celebrated the dying of the summer sun with festivals to placate the Lord of Death.  At this time they believed the spirits of the dead were released on the night before November 1st (October 31st) to roam about the world. The Druids built huge fires on the hilltops (Stonehenge was one such site) to warm the spirits and even made human and animal sacrifices in these fires (the derivation of ‘‘bonfire’’ is ‘‘bone-fire’’ due to the bones of people left behind).

Since the English church was trying to celebrate ‘‘All Hallows’ Day’’ at this time, October 31st was simply called ‘‘Hallows’ Eve’’ or ‘‘Halloween,’’ but it was pagan from the beginning. The Druids released spirits and demons on this night to terrorize Christians who were at home preparing for ‘‘Hallows’ Day.’’ Witches (women who had sold themselves to the devil) were believed to have flown about on broomsticks and danced with imps around the fires as the devil played on bagpipes made from dead men’s bones. Christians were known to place crossed branches of ash and juniper at the stable doors to keep the spirits from stealing animals for sacrifice.

In America, Halloween was only scarcely known until 1845-46 when the massive Irish immigration took place. Bringing a milder form of the Druid rite with them, these immigrants eventually established a national event. The Celtic influence in this country only occasionally saw outbreaks of witchcraft (for which they got a taste of their own fiery medicine). For over a hundred years children innocently (seemingly) dressed up as spirit creatures and went to the houses of their Christian neighbors with a simple request: ‘‘trick or treat.’’ All seemed like fun and games. We were a Christian country and put no stock in superstitions.   As one reference book put it, ‘‘Thus the basic Celtic quality of the festival as an evening of annual escape from normal realities and expectations has remained into the twentieth century.’’

Dealing with the pagan customs of Halloween is not a new exercise for believers in America. Volumes have been written on the pagan sources of many holidays. We know that the mother-son worship at Babel of Semerimus and Tammuz can be traced to Phoenicia (Ashteroth and Baal), Egypt (Isis and Horus), Greece (Aphrodite and Eros) and to Rome (Venus and Cupid). We know that the old English name ‘‘Easter’’ is from the feast of Ishtar, the ‘‘Queen of Heaven’’ (see Jer 44:17-19) and that Herod, no doubt, was thinking of that rather than Passover in Acts 12:4.

The Easter Bunny was associated with Easter because the Romans believed Venus fell from heaven and landed in the Euphrates river, was pushed out onto the bank by fish and was hatched out of an egg by bunnies. Christmas trees were first used to worship Tammuz when he was brought back to life on December 25. Birthday cakes were then baked to worship him on his ‘‘birthday’’ (see Jer 44:19) which was the celebration of the winter solstice or the resurrection of the sun. Fireworks were originally part of the Druid celebration of the Summer solstice or the dying of the sun. On and on the pagan accounts go.

So what is a Christian to do? I don’t advocate that we do away with birthday cakes or Christmas trees unless they begin to encroach upon true faith and belief. Old religious nonsense often becomes harmless national custom. If, however, old religious nonsense begins to be resurrected as religion and not custom, the people of God will have to separate. It may be that we are watching the revival of occultism associated with Halloween being resurrected in our country now. Besides, when did we ever not believe that witches and demons are real?  On October 31, 1993, there may be as many people worshipping the Lord of Death through witchcraft and sorcery as there will be worshipping the Lord of Glory in Sunday morning services.  I don’t think that we need to amuse the enemy by playing at his altar.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Tradition Called ‘Church’

Written by Rick Shrader

The Tradition Called ‘Church’

by Rick Shrader

Christian churches must pause to ask why those young people, many of whom were reared in church-going families, failed to find genuine community and fellowship in the church. We should neither sacrifice authentic fellowship nor indulge in what some call ‘‘koinoniaitis.’’  Fellowship cannot be treated as an end in itself, but rather as a means of growth in grace.   –Michael Scott Horton

It seems church has fallen on hard times. I mean specifically Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night. Even though many polls have shown an increase in church ‘‘activity,’’ the service itself, especially the more traditional type of service, is less interesting to today’s Christian life style. What has happened instead is that alternate forms of worship have popped up all over our cities. The most popular form is the small group prayer or bible study.

George Barna (Christian researcher) recently wrote, ‘‘one of the hot ministry strategies in the church market today is that of establishing an extensive small group ministry. Depending on which guru you follow, you may be pursuing ‘growth groups,’ ‘cell ministry,’ ‘cluster groups,’ ‘the metachurch,’ or any of a dozen other new ‘models’ offered for church consumption.’’ That is an interesting statement coming from a member of Bill Hybel’s huge Willow Creek Community Church (which produces a curriculum for small groups called Willow Creek Network). Much of the popularity surrounding the small group concept comes from the megachurches that have grown while using this tool.

There is a vast amount of literature available for anyone wanting to start a small group ministry. One supplier announces, ‘‘This Small Group Ministry System is the only system available that addresses all these needs–and more. Think of it as a one-stop shopping approach.’’ One church, adopting a small group curriculum says that they will be ‘‘decentralized so that evangelism, discipleship and shepherding will be taking place in large measure in the groups.’’ I commend them both for their spiritual purpose.

In many cases the small group has replaced the normal church service, especially the Sunday evening and Wednesday evening services. Some books even admonish members to leave the normal service and begin their own ‘‘home church’’ during the same hour. It is not unusual today to hear someone say, ‘‘the church is fine and I attend, but in order to grow, evangelize and have fellowship, I need a small group setting.’’ And the truth is that many times the traditional churches have failed in these areas while the small group has succeeded.

I am not anti-small group. I have participated in some and encouraged others to do so (though never instead of the church service). But I have a few thoughts about the phenomenon as we see it today as well as about the traditional church service.

1. There is a small group described in the New Testament and it is called the ‘‘church.’’ Sometimes this group was small and met by a riverside (Acts 16:13) and sometimes it was large and met in the open places (Acts 3:1). The first such group had 120 and met in a room (Acts 1:15). Though we find disciples together in other settings, there is no doubt that ministry was carried on in these groups called ‘‘churches.’’  I spent most of my young life in large churches of several thousand and I worked in a church of about 30 while I was in seminary. I found that the personal growth factor is not so much the outward surrounding as it is the inward surrender!

2. Whatever the group is called or whatever its size may be, if it supplies the attending saints with biblical necessities for Christian life, it is also obligated to take accountability for those saints. If a small group ministry actually takes the place of the larger church ministry, it needs to function like a church (ordinances, officers, etc.) or it is not fulfilling the New Testament pattern or requirement.   I personally don’t understand the person who wants to get all of his spiritual food from one source and then come to another source to go through a weekly ritual merely out of duty. Then, membership, ordinances and accountability are diminished to the point of legalism.  The New Testament knows of no such arrangement.

3. ‘‘Corporate worship’’ may be more of an Eastern phenomenon than Western. We are constantly finding (see, for example, Bruce Alina, The New Testament World) that our individualistic mind-set is very contrary to the World of the New Testament. To us, corporate worship means the gathering of individuals who come to share their own thoughts. To the Eastern mind, corporateness is a solidarity that binds the individual to the family, group or nation with a definite loss of individualism. I would suggest the same thought lies behind the word ‘‘church’’ in the New Testament.  I am saying that we, in the western world, are too quick to abandon the corporateness of our church services because to remain is to give up individual prerogatives for the sake of a larger group that is somewhat unlike ourselves.

4. Decentralization into smaller entities may be a passing cultural phenomenon. Even Barna admits, ‘‘But if small groups are the panacea that many seem to assert, then why are there fewer people in small groups today than there were one year ago?’’ He then gives a graph that shows a drop of adults involved in small groups from 25% in 1992 to 17% in 1993 (Ministry Currents). Some large churches (including the one where I grew up) have totally abandoned the small group concept because it declined quickly in popularity. Some have noted areas of divisiveness that caused its quick demise.  I think one reason for this drop is because many have reached out to one specific ‘‘target group’’ (in my opinion, a practice foreign to New Testament ecclesiology), especially ‘‘Boomers’’ and simply rode the wave until it fell out from under them.

5. Our Baptist history has a rich heritage of forming informal congregations of all sizes that meet people’s needs. Perhaps we forget that it was non-Catholic, non-Protestant churches like ours that made ‘‘corporate worship’’ what it is! Our churches were the ones to shed the clerical robes of the minister for ordinary dress. Our churches invited everyone to participate in the singing rather than to be sung to. We have no priests that pray for us but rather believer-priests that lead us in prayer. Our sanctuaries have no altars or lavers but simple pulpits from which to speak. And our churches were the ones to invite people to open their Bibles and read for themselves to see if ‘‘these things were so.’’

So what are we to do if God blesses such corporate worship that the size multiplies? I say stay together and unified or start new churches! When we have small groups (and all churches do to some degree) such as Sunday School classes, group meetings or bible studies, they must be to supplement the body, not to sever it. They must encourage corporate worship, not divorce it.

Perhaps it is time also to take a new and loving look at the dignity of our church services. Are we relevant? Are we spiritual? Are we perceptive of people’s real needs? Do we worship God? I have always loved the church service regardless of its size. God has blessed my heart in all types of services. I love the corporate meeting of the whole church family. God made me part of her through baptism. And what God has joined together, let us be very careful about putting asunder.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

World Youth Day

Written by Rick Shrader

World Youth Day

by Rick Shrader

Colorado has been an interesting place to live in 1993. We’ve watched Amendment 2, Dan’s Bake Sale, Pat Schroeder’s hair style, and now World Youth Day. This last event has been the most amazing by far. 375,000 Catholics from 70 countries of the world came here to observe the Mass from their holiest priest. This is at a time when one in seven Americans born Catholic has left the Church and 100,000 Hispanics alone are leaving the Church every year. Yet this spectacle in Denver left even a casual observer with the impression that every Catholic believes that the church is a cause for rejoicing! The L. A. Times (8/16/93) reported, ‘‘It was the church at its most triumphant; a panorama of trumpet fanfares, large choirs, gospel music, prayers, incense and, of course, the pope himself.’’ All week long our local media fed us with pictures of cheering, applauding crowds of teenagers acting as though they were at a rock concert.

From the earthly side, the American side, I found myself also emotionally attracted to the Pope’s point of view. It was a constant pro-life, pro-morality message. I enjoyed yet grieved as the world’s most prominent religious person scolded the world’s most prominent political figure, our President, for his lack of concern for life and morality.  Too bad!

There were lots of interesting, behind-the-scenes occurrences also. The pictures of acres of trash; 15,000 people treated for various ailments at the Sunday Mass; two people dying of heart failure; thousands of young people dancing to blaring music in Mile High Stadium; and the fact that John Lemke was awarded the exclusive merchandising contract for the event (John Lemke also has the merchandising contract for the Rolling Stones’ concerts).

As a non-Catholic, born again believer, I have a major concern about this event. You, perhaps, have already experienced the concern while reading this article. You grieve over this country’s lack of morality yet you know true morality, the kind that is accepted by God, can only come through faith in Christ. We applaud the Pope for taking a pro-life stand yet he himself is unacceptable to God for his rejection of Christ by faith. This is not a new dilemma for believers of the age of grace. Believers in this age live in two realms. We have an earthly citizenship with other human beings made in God’s image (who are, therefore, governed by a God-consciousness) but we have a greater responsibility to a heavenly citizenship with those who are truly born again by faith. My concern over World Youth Day is the true Christian’s ability to keep these two citizenries in proper perspective.

In our day it seems that we are allured by the sirens of religious unity and togetherness, that to harken to these calls will bring about the advancement of both our kingdom and God’s. We hear the pope say, ‘‘Those young people now know that life is more powerful than the forces of death. They know that the truth is more powerful than darkness, that love is stronger than death.’’ A papal spokesman said, ‘‘I think the pope is constructing the future. He’s not fighting the past. He’s constructing the future, and for that he needs young people.’’ One Monsignor said, ‘‘It’s the rebirth of joy as a Christian virtue.’’

One evangelical writer (who professes to be born again) responded to this rhetoric by saying that these were ‘‘people who believe in and order their lives according to God’s word and his will.’’ And again, ‘‘The pope’s message was to reconsider the principles of scripture, the life of Christ and the teachings of the church that they might not walk down the same alley and be morally mugged.’’ But as born again believers, are we only concerned with temporal morality? Are we as concerned about people being ‘‘morally mugged’’ at the entrance to the heavenly kingdom as we are about this kingdom? Or do we know the difference? Have we forgotten that the ‘‘future’’ for which the pope is fighting may be one that the Bible calls a ‘‘Great Harlot?’’ Columnist Jeffrey Hart observed (8/12/93) of World Youth Day, ‘‘In John Paul II we are in the presence of a world-historical figure who seized the moment for enormous change. Because of him, I think there is going to be a strong and global Catholic movement. His church will fill the vacuum.’’

Again, if the pope scored some points for moral restraint in this worldly kingdom, we will all benefit and I, for one, will be grateful. But my concern remains. As I watched the week’s activities, I saw a real moral contradiction. Here were Catholic people, mostly young people, who love their moral freedom cheering a church asking of them moral restraint! Here was a media, normally condemning of religion, pouring on the compliments ad nauseam! And here was a President (and various other political figures), who is systematically destroying any semblance of moral order in our country, literally and figuratively embracing the mission of a religious body. And this was more than obvious! Teenagers were screaming, people were treated for hyperventilation, Catholics were dancing in the streets! Yet a USA Today! poll of Catholics 30-49, showed that 89% use birth control, 57% have sex out of wedlock, 71% believe in divorce and 71% do not go to confession. Then why the celebration?

Columnist Don Feder writes (8/16/93) that he thinks the contradiction is due to so many Catholics merely being born into Catholicism and so few really adhering to the church’s creeds. But wait a minute! Being brought into the church as an infant is the church’s creed! And this is my point. Catholics are not believers by faith, they are members of an organization. They were born that way! The falseness in their doctrine is that you inherit eternal life from the church because you were baptized into it as a child.

In the Catholic church you can have your religion and your fun too! It is a religion tailor-made for Adam’s progeny. You’re born into salvation! Live as you like! The church is flexible and is able to take you to heaven at no expense to you. (This was vividly illustrated during the pope’s 10th African pilgrimage the week before, when he told African believers in voodoo that they wouldn’t have to betray their faith by converting to Christianity!) So go ahead, abort your babies. Have sex with whom you will. You were born a Catholic and you will remain a Catholic! What a great church!

And, I think, it was that realization that brought rejoicing to Catholics, Liberals and even the otherwise contrary news media. Now watch some right-wing, fundamentalist type go mess it up by preaching the need for personal faith in Jesus Christ to be morally right before God!

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Pardon Me?

Written by Rick Shrader

Pardon Me?

by Rick Shrader

I’m sure that when Congregationalist John Harvard founded the school in 1636 that still bears his name, and Puritan minister John Eliot was busy converting and civilizing Massachusetts Indians, they were not anticipating the recent article in the Harvard Theological Review by Roy Bowen Ward. According to Ward, first century Christians had no hang-ups on nudity and in fact probably frequented the 850 Roman baths where citizens came to relax, eat, exercise and listen to recitations.

Has all that missionary work of trying to put clothes on ‘‘heathen’’ been a waste of time? The first Christian missionary trip ever taken was by Christ himself to the far side of the sea of Galilee. There he met a heathen Gadarene running naked through the cemetery. According to Ward, this was all prim and proper and surely a breech of cross-cultural ethics to try to change such a thrifty style of living. But when Jesus left, the Scriptures tell us, he was sitting, clothed and in his right mind (Mk 5:15). Eliot sent many of his ‘‘heathen’’ to Harvard for a proper education and training. I’m sure that in heaven right now, Rev. Eliot is grieving because he didn’t have Dr. Ward’s new revelation on true Christianity. Just think of what modern Harvard could do for those ‘‘native’’ Americans today!

One thing Ward points out is true. The Greek and Roman world had no mores about clothing!  All of the exercising was done in the nude. The New Testament word for ‘‘nakedness’’ is ‘‘gumnotes’’ from which we get our word ‘‘gymnasium.’’ This also partly accounts for the high rate of homosexuality in the Greek and Roman world.

Sorry Dr. Ward, but when God found His first two creatures in sin, He clothed them because public nakedness is an exemplification of man’s sinfulness before God. The degree to which a nation is unclothed is an barometer of their standing before a holy God. The Judeo-Christian ethic turned heathen to saints and nakedness to decency. If Christians in the first century, the seventeenth century or today choose to undress because everyone else has, nakedness will still be wrong. Our ethic doesn’t come from the societal norm. It comes from an unchanging and holy God.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Democracy and Christianity

Written by Rick Shrader

Democracy and Christianity

by Rick Shrader

I’m glad to be a Christian living in America. But I must admit that as another July 4th comes and goes, it is getting more difficult to put my hand on my heart, which belongs to a holy Savior, and pledge allegiance to what I see around me! I’m not a pessimist. I’m not a dooms-dayer. I get bored reading the conspiratorial views of history. I thank God for the freedom America has brought the gospel for the last two hundred years! But America is not heaven nor the kingdom of God. It is a nation of people. Lost people. People who have a sinful nature.

I believe that a national system that leaves the church alone is best for the church. A group of believers will govern themselves through the Spirit of God within and without the church. The Apostle Paul said that national laws are made for lawbreakers not lawkeepers (Rom 13:3-4). In a country where people have freedom, Christians will thrive. The problem always will be (this side of the kingdom of God) the lost man who is not led by the Spirit of God. To him, freedom is the opportunity to sin without paying the consequences. That is what democracy means to many Americans today.

Consider the words of Urvashi Vaid, former executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, spoken at the March on Washington this Spring; ‘‘On one side are the values that everyone here stands for. You know what those values are? Traditional American values of democracy and pluralism. On the other side are those who want to turn the Christian church into the government. Those whose value is monotheism. We believe in democracy.’’ Why? Because democracy represents the freedom to practice sodomy without punishment. Consider the current baseball commissioner’s defense of Michael Jordan’s gambling habit by saying, ‘‘We don’t think we should be regulating whether a player can go to a casino and engage in an activity that is not only legal, but is actually encouraged by virtually all state governments. Go to casinos. Go to Indian reservations for gambling. Go to riverboats. Bet lots. Gambling is good. It supports higher education, lower education, senior citizens, you name it.’’ Pete Rose was just born ten years too soon! Consider our local newspaper which, this week, ran an article on how single parents can arrange their schedules in order to have affairs while the kids are still in the house! Consider . . . well, you get the point.

We could add to these examples the profusion of Christian-bashing both from the various forms of media to the current cultural expressions in art and music. Should we be surprised? Christianity is a Divinely based system of moral absolutes. Democracy is a humanly based system of fluctuating ethics. Democracy works for Christianity as long as Christians out number non-Christians. But because population (the proliferation of Adam’s nature) has out-raced evangelism (the proliferation of Christ’s nature), human nature has gained the upper hand. In 1713, Joseph Addison said, ‘‘A day, an hour of virtuous liberty, is worth a whole eternity in bondage.’’ Really? That seems to be what Americans have opted for. ‘‘Liberty’’ has now come to mean the freedom of man’s nature to make the rules.

It is tempting to add a list of America’s pagan symbols but I think such avenues are inefficacious. We have used pagan symbols to our own good constantly (the birthday cake, the Christmas tree, etc.).  Even if we believe (naively) that everything about this country’s founding was purely Christian, it would not change the subsequent course of man’s nature.

After God judged a world like ours in Noah’s day, He promised not to do it again in such a way for a peculiar reason. Genesis 8:21 includes, ‘‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.’’ It almost sounds paradoxical. Man’s nature is why God should curse us in our generation. But our ways are not God’s ways. If He judged man again the same way, there would never be a second generation alive. God was explaining His grace to Noah! It is because man’s heart is evil that he cannot obey God and so God determined to inaugurate a certain uniformity (after the great catastrophe) of judgment in the interim between the great judgments of water and fire (see 2 Peter 3). The fact is, man cannot behave even in the best of situations. That was true in Eden, in the antediluvian world and in a free democracy.

Francis Schaeffer’s title, ‘‘How Shall We Then Live?’’ is such an appropriate question. In that book he writes of freedom and government, ‘‘The latter carries with it an important corollary, namely, that 51 percent of the vote never becomes the final source of right and wrong in government because the absolutes of the Bible are available to judge a society. The ‘little man,’ the private citizen, can at any time stand up and, on the basis of biblical teaching, say that the majority is wrong. So, to the extent to which the biblical teaching is practiced, one can control the despotism of the majority vote or the despotism of one person or group.’’ John Calvin put it this way, ‘‘Scarcely is there one in a hundred who has not in his mouth that diabolical proverb, ‘We must howl when we are among wolves;’ and the greater part, framing a rule for themselves from the common practice, judge everything to be lawful which is generally received’’ (on Genesis 6:10).

The Christian in America is finding himself to be ‘‘one in a hundred.’’ We may lament what the ninety nine do but we should never be surprised! They are simply proving God to be true and men liars. What a relevant truth to present in reaching our generation! Peter started saying it centuries ago, ‘‘Save yourselves from this perverse generation’’ (Acts 2:40).

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Biblical Feminism?

Written by Rick Shrader

A Biblical Feminism?

by Rick Shrader

Sure, the men of this world have gotten a little extreme at times. An old German proverb states, ‘‘Never believe a woman, not even a dead one.’’ An old Persian saying goes, ‘‘Woman is a calamity, but every house must have its curse.’’ The Talmud teaches, ‘‘Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.’’ But the women of this world have often had their say also. ‘‘Men become older, but they never become good.’’ ‘‘Sure I wear the pants in this family, somebody’s got to.’’ However, these amiable exchanges do not fairly represent the attitude of today’s Feminists. A popular Hollywood feminist says, ‘‘I’m loud, and I’m vulgar and I wear the pants in the family.’’ Another activist admonishes, ‘‘Liberation will not happen unless individual women agree to be outcasts, eccentrics, perverts, and whatever the powers-to-be choose to call them.’’ Columnist Suzanne Fields responded, ‘‘This is hilarious, but not funny. When real men finally fight back, it may be too late.’’

‘‘But,’’ we say, ‘‘all of this does not affect the Body of Christ.’’ We should know better! The cultural battles of our secular society are usually just a precursor of similar battles in the church. Today’s ‘‘Christian Feminists’’ (a pregnant oxymoron) are lamenting ‘‘the appalling loss to God’s kingdom that results when half of the church’s members are excluded from positions of responsibility’’ and the tragedies that follow a ‘‘hierarchical interpretation of the husband’s ‘headship.’’ Since they have appealed to the Scripture for justification, we should note their point of view and answer accordingly. There are two major scriptures brought into question on this issue.

Galatians 3:28. Paul writes, ‘‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’’ Feminists consider this passage the most important statement in the Bible on equality. Paul Jewett (Man as Male and Female) calls this the Magna Carta of Humanity. Stendahl (The Bible and the Role of Woman) sees Paul reversing the order of creation and advocating that these categories in Gal 3:28 are functional as well as positional. Any lines, they say, that separate the function of men and women in the church have been obliterated by this statement of the Apostle. This includes the offices of Pastor and Deacon as well as teaching and authority positions.

Is that what Paul means by this statement? Not at all! One could not find a more didactic portion of scripture on the nature of our justification in Christ than this portion of Galatians. Throughout the third chapter male and female are included as mankind, human beings, in the great story of sin and redemption until we are all brought to salvation ‘‘in Christ Jesus’’ in verse twenty eight. In the family of God, all human beings are equally sinners saved by grace. Neither race nor gender makes one more or less of these.  Peter admonishes husbands to keep in mind that although the wife is the ‘‘weaker vessel’’ in her function in life, she is an ‘‘heir together (with him) of the grace of life’’ (1 Peter 3:7) in her spiritual essence. ‘‘In Christ Jesus’’ we are all saved souls. That is how God sees us. But that does not change our stewardship before Him as we carry out our calling.

1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul writes, ‘‘But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.’’ The problem for the feminists is obvious and they have approached the problem in ways ranging from denying the inspiration of Paul at this point to blatant refusal to accept the authority of scripture at this point. But their major thrust in this verse has been to redefine the word ‘‘head.’’ Feminists, unable to accept the common interpretation of ‘‘head’’ as ‘‘authority,’’ have searched high and low for a meaning acceptable to their point of view. Writers such as Alvera Mickelsen (Women, Authority and the Bible) and Markus Barth (The Anchor Bible, Eph 1-3) have scoured the ancient uses of the word kefalh to find a place where the word could mean ‘‘source.’’ They have found scarce sources where the word might refer to a river’s ‘‘head’’ and, therefore, mean ‘‘source’’ and one Greek lexicon where the plural is given the optional meaning of ‘‘source’’ (Liddell & Scott).

The feminist interpretation is lacking in two points. The first is context. Paul is not at all saying that man procreated from Christ and Christ procreated from God, therefore, the woman simply procreated from the man. This is a passage on authority and relationships. It is impossible to find the idea of ‘‘source’’ in these couplets. The second error is a typical lexicon and concordance usage problem. For some reason many treat such reference books as a multiple-choice pool of meanings. They simply take the meaning that they want to attach to the word but now they can say they have a reference. No language dictionary works that way. Rather, it lists possible meanings the word may assume in a given context. Generally, only one of those possible meanings will fit. In this case, ‘‘authority’’ and ‘‘source’’ cannot both be right.

What more can we say? Christian Feminism tends to make us all uncomfortable. Not because we are unsure of the biblical position, but because we know what friction the explanation causes. But perhaps we should be thankful. First, because we are being forced to restate our position in a more relevant way. The present generation of young people needs to hear the church’s position taught plainly. Secondly, because we need to get over that uncomfortable feeling when stating biblical truth. This is what we are called to do in our generation.  We don’t do feminists or anyone else in our churches a favor by softening the Bible on this point. Perhaps if we hadn’t been so soft for so long it wouldn’t hurt so much now. No wonder the Apostle Paul takes so much guff. But it was the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write, ‘‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’’ (1 Timothy 2:12-14). And in case one thinks that such a doctrine is oppressive to women, consider the position of women in Christian societies for the last two thousand years compared to Muslim societies, tribal societies or any other non-Christian societies. Men and women alike are thankful for the liberation Christianity has brought us.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Values Or Morals?

Written by Rick Shrader

Values Or Morals?

by Rick Shrader

May I express my opinion about you being so fat? Not according to a recent interview I heard on the radio! It seems a woman journalist adorned her averaged sized frame with a ‘‘fat suit’’ that made her appear 150 pounds heavier than normal. She then spent the day mingling among the unaware, expecting to feel embarrassed and awkward. Instead, the journalist was outraged at the comments and innuendoes made about her obvious obesity. In the interview she called such comments as much ‘‘racist’’ and ‘‘bigoted’’ as ethnic comments might be about blacks or Hispanics. Uncalled for, yes, but bigoted? Racist? If I make a value judgment about obesity and conclude that such is not good, even wrong, am I not allowed to express such a conclusion? Now perhaps the way in which I express myself is right or wrong, but is the opinion itself wrong? This is a case of society, when it wants, making a simple value into a serious moralism.

But let’s turn the coin over. Again, on the radio, I heard a reaction from a pro-homosexual to a ‘‘right-wing fundamentalist type’’ being delivered as ‘‘who made your set of values better than anyone else’s set of values?’’ Now we have the case of society, as it wants, making a serious moral issue into a casual ‘‘set of values.’’ As we all have experienced, it is getting more and more difficult to conform to the standard of the politically correct thought-police.

Where did we lose such a good word (excuse me for making a judgment) as ‘‘value?’’ And where did we lose any connection to what is really moral or not? Can we really exchange these two words at will? Perhaps even the church has been so enamored by society’s use of ‘‘value’’ that we sold the word to them at a high price. There were some among us years ago who thought ‘‘values clarification’’ in the schools was a good and noble thing. ‘‘At last we will teach good values to our kids.’’ Did we?

My 1976 American Heritage Dictionary does an acceptable job of defining ‘‘moral’’ and ‘‘value.’’ Something that is ‘‘moral’’ has to do with ‘‘the goodness and badness of human action, the discernment of good and evil.’’ Something that is of ‘‘value’’ has ‘‘utility or merit.’’ It means to ‘‘rate according to relative estimate of worth.’’ In other words, Something that is moral is absolute, totalitarian, black or white, whereas something that is of value is utilitarian, good only because it serves you well. The value to you of a certain object or even concept might be great at one point but poor at the next. It is the circumstance that dictates value.

Is it no wonder why our society likes the word ‘‘value’’ but hates the word ‘‘morals?’’ Morality (Victorian, legalistic, Puritanic) is a barrier to self-expression and man’s basic drives and desires. Values, on the other hand, reduces an adulterer to a sexual partner, homosexuality to an alternative life-style and abortion to a choice. And in case something is left in the philosophical middle, we have what the Rev. Charles Curran called ‘‘proportionate reason,’’ that there may be a compelling reason to do something even though it is wrong.

What will be the result on our society as we have known it? Is this what C. S. Lewis said in The Abolition of Man,  would finally produce the destruction of humanity? Oliver Wendell Holmes envisioned this type of society in his The Common Law when he wrote, ‘‘Truth is the majority vote of that nation that can lick all others.’’ Holmes also wrote in a personal letter, ‘‘So when it comes to the development of a corpus juris the ultimate question is what do the dominant forces of the community want and do they want it hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions must stand in the way.’’ Alan Bloom traced the word ‘‘values’’ as we have been using it, back to Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s influence on Adolf Hitler is common knowledge. In Auschwitz today, the words of Hitler are recorded: ‘‘I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality . . . we will  train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence–imperious, relentless and cruel.’’ The results of a Germany where the elite ruled without morals and with only relative values is all too familiar.

Opinions as to what the church ought to be doing in this kind of society are varied. Some hawks are out in the streets, city halls and abortion clinics crying the message of morality to a sinful society. Some doves are withdrawn into the security of their closets, waiting for the end. It seems to me that the early church was somewhere between the hawks and the doves. The Roman church was not advised to line the streets of Rome holding hands and protesting abortions, homosexuals and child abuse. But neither did Paul neglect to have morality taught to the church or to speak personally to Roman guards to whom he was chained. The early church worked on society from the inside out and on the church from the inside and the outside. Paul did not command the church to take judgment of the lost into its own hands. He did, however, command the church to ‘‘judge those who are within’’ (1 Cor 5:12) so that at least the church would be a testimony of morality and virtue.

But are we distinguishing between morals and values in the local church? Can we still talk about absolutes and commitment to the truth or are we simply making a bid for a sizeable market? The nineties is not the decade for commitment nor for behavioral absolutes. We may laugh when we mistakenly sing the old song, ‘‘Take my life and let me be’’ but that is truly an accurate expression of today’s average Christian. When people come to our church do they bring with them, as Dave Breese wrote, ‘‘The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life.’’ Then he concludes, ‘‘That is the heart of existentialism.’’ Utilitarian values fit well into the thinking of such people. Morals are frightening, restricting and inhibiting to the deeper cultivation of self-esteem.

I have no doubt that preaching on moral issues such as fornication, cursing, drunkenness, modesty or being unequally yoked to unbelievers will not be popular to some. For popularity, we must put all of these issues into the context of ‘‘values’’ as they relate to each person’s situation. Give them an ‘‘out’’ in case their situation becomes too tough. In this way we can say we have upheld a standard and also been on the cutting edge. ‘‘Conversely,’’ as Ravi Zacharias writes, ‘‘upholding the moral law as an expression of his love, in response to the love of God, is the sound of the Christian worshipping his Maker. The moral law, then, is not seen as an imposition upon him from without; rather, it is a commitment born out of gratitude to the God whose love he has experienced. This relationship, undergirded and motivated by love, in recognition of who God is, forms the foundation of right and wrong.’’

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More