Today, August 18^th (8/18), is “We Agree with Moroni 8:18” Day. Every year since 2011 “We Agree with Moroni 8:18” Day has been promoted by Christians on social media as a day of focused outreach to Mormons using (you guessed it) Moroni 8:18 from the Book of Mormon:

“God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”

This passage from the Book of Mormon has a biblical parallel:

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalm 90:2)

Therefore, Christians agree with this idea expressed in the Book of Mormon. The one true God has always been God – from all eternity to all eternity; from everlasting to everlasting.
But modern day Mormonism does not agree with Moroni 8:18 or Psalm 90:2. While professing to believe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormonism actually espouses something quite different about God.
In 1830 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of Mormonism, published the Moroni 8:18 declaration that God was “unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity,” claiming to have received this information by revelation from God Himself. Fourteen years later this same prophet told his congregation,

“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.” (King Follet Discourse, April 7, 1844)

In 1830 Joseph Smith (via the Book of Mormon) taught that God was an unchangeable being, unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Then in 1844 he refuted that idea, teaching instead that God was not always God, but had to become God. The prophet went on to explain,

“These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did; …
“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, – namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, – from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”

Joseph Smith refuted Moroni 8:18. In other words, he sought to prove that the “unchangeable” God that Mormons believed in, the God who was “God from all eternity,” was in fact not “unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” And by insisting that this post-Book of Mormon doctrine of God was true, he disproved (refuted) the Book of Mormon itself.
Christians strongly disagree with Mormonism and view it as a non-Christian religion, yet we agree with Moroni 8:18 insofar as it agrees with the Bible. But Mormonism, the religion that professes the Book of Mormon as scripture, disregards this verse and promotes a different god.
The Bible says,

“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

Knowing the only true God is crucial. If Mormons hope for a blessed eternal life, they must know the only true God. They must embrace the truth of the unchangeable, eternal God taught in Moroni 8:18 and Psalm 90:2.
Today, August 18^th (8/18), please join us in agreeing with Moroni 8:18 and Psalm 90:2.
May you know the only true God – the God who was and is and is to come (Revelation 4:8).

I have both Mormon and JW family members and have studied apologetics in that area for decades now. I appreciate that you try to reach them with the gospel and that you understand the JW’s are more likely to have a chip on their shoulder. I would say that with JW’s you must change your strategy. Trying to prove the trinity or divinity of Christ is a dead-end with the JW’s and it is the area they train for. Worst is that it doesn’t really get you to the gospel. Go for an area where they are less prepared and is essential to the gospel. They deny the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Push them to tell you their position that Jesus’ body was dissolved into gases and God recreated the archangel Michael again from His memories. Then get them to read through John 2:18-22. This outright contradicts their beliefs. Then go to the gospel definition in 1 Corinthians 15 and go through that slowly with lots of questions. Their rejection of Jesus’ resurrection is a rejection of a key and essential part of the gospel. Your time will be much more well spent there.

*****

Speaking as a former Mormon, I can tell you that it can be very difficult to get through the hard veneer of Mormon doctrine - especially since most of these young men have grown up in the Mormon faith and have been indoctrinated since birth with the false gospel of Mormonism. I’m sure you know that they do not hold a view of the Bible as inerrant and that their founder Joseph Smith re-translated many verses of the Bible to fit the doctrine they teach. They hold the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants in much higher esteem and authority than the true Word of God and, for this reason, it can be difficult to point them to errors in their doctrine using the Bible alone. This is why praying for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to them is so key. Also, it is important to know that terms we use and take for granted have very different meanings in the world of Mormonism (such as Jesus, salvation, & hell) so you can’t assume that you are all on the same page just because you are using the same terms.

When they arrive on Saturday, you can expect them to be prepared to present to you an overview of the gospel as they understand it. They have been trained to basically ignore any objections and deflect any questions you might have. It is an excellent move to request that they listen to what you have to say in exchange for listening to their message but don’t expect too much. As I said, these are young men who have been heavily indoctrinated, have never seriously investigated the claims of their church, and rely heavily on well-practiced, canned presentations to make their point. Any veering off-script tends to be met with a deer-in-the-headlights look and an exhortation to read a highlighted passage in the Book of Mormon they will leave with you and to be on the watch for a “burning in your bosom” that will testify of the “truth” they are sharing. I pray, Tim, that the Holy Spirit will give you wisdom, discernment, and the right words to say that will at least get them questioning their beliefs and set them on a journey of discovery that will set them free from the falsehoods and imprisonment they are living under.****

Appreciated your recent article on Mormonism and agree with what you say. One thought, though: I have shared the gospel with Mormons, and they will agree with everything I say. This is because of the language barrier. Every important word has been redefined by the LDS church such that you must slowly define every term carefully or else what you’re saying and what they’re hearing are two different things. I try to be intentional about defining my terms so that they will know that terms like “God”, “Jesus”, and “grace” mean something different than what the LDS church has taught them. Blessings to you.

Pastor and the LORD's prayer

Let me tell you a personal experience story here, and then I'll get back to the review (if you actually want to know more than just it being a "turd"). In May, I participated in a National Day of Prayer event with about a dozen other pastors in my community. Each one of us was designated to pray before the congregation over a particular subject or issue. (Mine was for the media. I was appointed that because of my background in radio. I posted my prayer here.)

Before taking the stage, we realized that a pastor had not yet been appointed to close with the Lord's Prayer. One pastor was approached, and he declined: "No, I don't have it memorized," he said. He straight-up admitted that like it was no big thing. Another pastor was asked. Same thing. "I don't do anything without a script," he said. Um, open your Bible then? Another pastor said, "There's just so many versions of it -- you know, trespasses, debts and debtors -- I'd rather not."

Pastors. Who either couldn't or wouldn't recite the Lord's prayer. And that was funny to them. They stood in their circle and laughed about not having it memorized.

God, help us.

So no, the average three-Bible carrying church-goer is not automatically going to understand the difference between Exodus and Exodus. Not when Christian leaders are calling the Bible movies of atheist filmmakers "Brilliant." Take my word for it though and avoid this film. Do not wast your money. (Fortunately, I didn't waste mine, either. I'll share how that worked out at the end.)

  

“Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.” The terms of grace and peace are common terms with Paul and are now pretty well understood. But since we are explaining this epistle, you will not mind if we repeat what we have so often explained elsewhere. The article of justification must be sounded in our ears incessantly because the frailty of our flesh will not permit us to take hold of it perfectly and to believe it with all our heart. The greeting of the Apostle is refreshing. Grace remits sin, and peace quiets the conscience. Sin and conscience torment us, but Christ has overcome these fiends now and forever. Only Christians possess this victorious knowledge given from above. These two terms, grace and peace, constitute Christianity. Grace involves the remission of sins, and peace involves a happy conscience. Sin is not canceled by lawful living, for no person is able to live up to the Law. The Law reveals guilt, fills the conscience with terror, and drives men to despair. Much less is sin taken away by man-invented endeavors. The fact is, the more a person seeks credit for himself by his own efforts, the deeper he goes into debt. Nothing can take away sin except the grace of God. In actual living, however, it is not so easy to persuade oneself that by grace alone, in opposition to every other means, we obtain the forgiveness of our sins and peace with God. The world brands this a pernicious doctrine. The world advances free will, the rational and natural approach of good works, as the means of obtaining the forgiveness of sin. But it is impossible to gain peace of conscience by the methods and means of the world. Experience proves this. Various holy orders have been launched for the purpose of securing peace of conscience through religious exercises, but they proved failures because such devices only increase doubt and despair. We find no rest for our weary bones unless we cling to the word of grace.

When we look at Mormon teachings in comparison to the teachings of Christianity, we find that Mormonism truly is the religion of NO! Christianity states truths about the teachings of the Bible, and Mormonism says NO! In my book When Salt Lake City Calls, I compare Mormonism to the Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity, let’s begin looking at the Religion of NO there and then look at some of the other teachings of NO in Mormonism.

The Religion of NO, and the Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity
On page 49 of When Salt Lake City Calls, I list the The Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity:

The Deity of Christ
The Trinity
Bodily Resurrection
Salvation by Grace
Sufficiency of Scripture
Universality of Sin
The Atonement
The Virgin Birth
Mormonism says NO to all of these fundamental teachings of Christianity.
The Deity of Christ

1. CHRISTIANITY: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, an the Word was God.” (John 1:1) “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
MORMONISM: “Jesus is man’s spiritual brother. We dwelt with Him in the spirit world as members of that large society of eternal intelligences, which included our Heavenly Parents and all the personages who have become mortal beings upon this earth or who ever shall come here to dwell. In that spirit-creation, when we became children of God, Jesus was the “first born,” and so He is our eldest brother.” (The Gospel Through the Ages, pg 21.)
So, the Religion of NO says Jesus isn’t God, he’s our elder brother. Really?

The Trinity
2. CHRISTIANITY: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”. [bracketed word added] (Matthew 28:19)
MORMONISM: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
So, the Religion of NO says the Trinity can’t be true because God isn’t Spirit, God has a body, and the Holy Spirit is a “personage of Spirit.” Seriously?

Bodily Resurrection
3. CHRISTIANITY: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)
MORMONISM: “Contrary to the views found in the uninspired teachings and creeds of modern Christendom, there are in eternity kingdoms in glory to which all resurrected persons (except the sons of perdition) will eventually go. These are named: celestial, terrestial, and telestial—the glory of each being beyond comprehension.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg 420).
So, the Religion of NO says the view of the resurrection as taught by Christianity, as found in the Bible, is uninspired and they must add a man-made, non-Biblical definition to it. They’re joking right? Sadly, they’re not.

Salvation by Grace
4. CHRISTIANITY: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
MORMONISM: “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.” (Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg 206)
So, the Religion of NO says that “Salvation by Grace” is a fallacious doctrine from Satan.” Ridiculous!

Sufficiency of Scripture
5. CHRISTIANITY: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
MORMONISM: “Who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?” (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt in Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon. From a series of pamphlets. Liverpool, England: np., 1851)
So, the Religion of NO says that the Bible cannot be trusted; in fact, no one knows that even a single verse has been transmitted to us in our day without being polluted. Jesus says His words shall not pass away; the Religion of NO says they did. They can’t possibly believe this – oh, but they do!



Universality of Sin
6. CHRISTIANITY: “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (Ephesians 2:3)
MORMONISM: “Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. IF we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve, why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite. How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and His government? No. Dut they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world. The Lord knew they would do this, and He designed that they should.” (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, Vol 10, pg 312.)
So, the Religion of NO, says that the sin in the Garden of Eden was not “in direct opposition to God and to His government;” NO – “it was necessary that sin should enter the world.” The Religion of NO says it was God’s plan for Adam and Eve to sin. In fact in this quote, Brigham Young says one cannot be exalted without knowing sin; so, Jesus was a sinner? Only in the Religion of NO! Blasphemous!

The Atonement
7. CHRISTIANITY: “But if we walk in the light, as his is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)
MORMONISM: “Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.” (italics in the original, 10th Mormon Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 1, pg 135)
So, the Religion of NO, says that the Blood of Jesus Christ does not cover all sin – in fact, the Religion of NO, says that the blood of the sinner has more cleansing power than the blood of the unblemished Lamb of God! Double Blasphemy!!

The Virgin Birth
8. CHRISTIANITY: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18)
MORMONISM: “I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pg 51) “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547)
So, the Religion of NO, says that God being an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones fathered Jesus’ body the same way as all mortal men are fathered. The ultimate blasphemy!!


Other Statements of NO from Mormonism
Mormonism so strays from the teachings of the Bible that many unique teachings of Mormonism will be presented here, adding to the comparison between Mormonism and the Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity.

Jesus Died on the Cross for Our Sins
9. CHRISTIANITY: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (Col 2:14). “Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye where healed.” (1 Pet 2:24)
MORMONISM: On page fourteen of his book, “Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson,” the Thirteenth Prophet of the LDS Church stated it was in the Garden of Gethsemane that Christ “suffered as only God would suffer, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah prophesied.” He further states on the next page: “It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that his pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg 15).

So, the Religion of NO says NO to the Cross and moves the Atonement to the Garden of Gethsemane.

There is only one God
10. CHRISTIANITY: 4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: (Deut 6:4)
MORMONISM: “I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 370)
So, the Religion of NO says that there isn’t one God, rather there are a plurality of Gods. The pagans of the world teach the same thing. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Creation Ex-Nihilo
11. CHRISTIANITY: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Heb 11:3
MORMONISM: “You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, ‘Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?’ And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They have no beginning, and can have no end.” (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352)
So, the Religion of NO says that God did not create the heavens and the earth from nothing. Instead Mormonism teaches that elements always existed and God only had the power to organize that which was already there. In Mormonism God is not all powerful!

by Rocky Hulse
© Copyright 2002, Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach—Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Some of Rome's rejections of Scriptural truth are more clear than others. One particularly clear set of examples comes from the dogmatic Constitution, "Unigenitus,"dated Sept. 8, 1713, and authorized by Clement XI. I've previously posted a full list of the 101 "errors" condemned

There many alleged errors identified. I've taken the liberty to highlight a few of them. Remember, these are what the Roman church has officially proclaimed to be errors.

Scripture

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures, and have heresies been born.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.
The Power of God in Salvation

30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ, are infallibly saved.
31. The desires of Christ always have their effect; He brings peace to the depth of hearts when He desires it for them.
Particular Redemption

32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect.
Justification by Faith that Works through Love

51. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity.
Faith as the Gift of God

69. Faith, practice of it, increase, and reward of faith, all are a gift of the pure liberality of God.
The Church

72. A mark of the Christian Church is that it is catholic, embracing all the angels of heaven, all the elect and the just on earth, and of all times.
73. What is the Church except an assembly of the sons of God abiding in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living in His spirit, acting through His grace, and awaiting the grace of the future life?
74. The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head, but all the saints as members.
75. The Church is one single man composed of many members, of which Christ is the head, the life, the subsistence and the person; it is one single Christ composed of many saints, of whom He is the sanctifier.
Total Depravity

38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.
39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.
40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.
41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.
42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthiness.
48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and except sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity?
The Absolute Necessity of Grace

1. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a slothful indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work?
2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done.
5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it the more.
9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him.
The Irresistibility of Grace

10. Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard.
11. Grace is nothing else than the omnipotent Will of God, ordering and doing what He orders.
12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at whatever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God.
13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.
14. Howsoever remote from salvation an obstinate sinner is, when Jesus presents Himself to be seen by him in the salutary light of His grace, the sinner is forced to surrender himself, to have recourse to Him, and to humble himself, and to adore his Savior.
15. When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal exhortation by the unction of His Spirit and by the interior force of His grace, He works that obedience in the heart that He is seeking.
16. There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty.
17. Grace is that voice of the Father which teaches men interiorly and makes them come to Jesus Christ; whoever does not come to Him, after he has heard the exterior voice of the Son, is in no wise taught by the Father.
Unjust Excommunication

91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.
Yes, folks, those are things that Rome has officially taught are errors - yet many of these teachings are the truth, as I think will be obvious to most of those reading.

- TurretinFan

Two thousand years back into time - in a conquered dusty spit of land, that has been under the control of Babylonians and Assyrians, then overrun by the Greeks with their culture and language, and now troddened under the oppressive iron rule of Pax Romana - at the physical crossroads of known humanity (Europe, Africa and Asia) - there is Jesus, the little suckling infant of two poor teenage parents, in a stall's feeding trough with barnyard animals milling about.

He grows as the young lad, separated from his parents during his first visit to the City of Jerusalem, with its tall-pillared stone temple, and seated among the wise men who usually spend their time pontificating on weighty matters now listening intently to the boy who speaks so authoritatively.

He matures into the carpenter-turned-itinerant preacher with a dozen followers wandering through the countryside making pronouncements that are novel and strange to Jews and Samaritans.

He becomes the piece of meat, whipped and beaten to the edge of death, face disfigured beyond recognition, dragging His own crucifixion cross towards the garbage dump beyond the town walls where He will be hung exposed, shamed, tortured, impaled with a Roman spear, ridiculed, and suffocating.

Everyone wants Jesus to die (except a handful of followers, who misunderstood Him).

+ The Romans saw Jesus’ death as the end of a deranged nuisance in an outlying territory.

+ Jewish religious leaders considered Jesus’ death as the comeuppance of a rival and cult.

+ Satan viewed Jesus’ death as a solution to prevent fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

+ God proscribed Jesus’ death as the required sacrifice for yours and my God-belittling sinful treason against God, and as God’s substitutionary provision for Jesus to bear our punishment.

+ Jesus recognized His own death as the completion of a fully-lived totally-perfect human life, which God credits to each of us who will relinquish and renounce everything of this world in order to love, trust and obey Jesus Christ as our Lord (Master) and Savior.

Jesus ressurrects back to life on Easter Sunday, and the sovereign Jesus Christ is now sitting at the right hand of Almighty God, having completed His redemption for all who would call upon His name and who would place their entire trust upon Him and His promises.

This is THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, the God Almighty
He is the First and Last, the Beginning and the End.
He is the keeper of Creation and the Creator of all!
He is the Architect of the universe and
The Manager of all times.
He always was, He always is, and He always will be . . .
Unmoved, Unchanged, Undefeated, and never Undone.
He was bruised and brought healing.
He was pierced and eased pain.
He was persecuted and brought freedom.
He was dead and brought life.
He is risen and brings power.
He reigns and brings Peace.
The world can't understand Him,
The armies can't defeat Him,
The schools can't explain Him,
The leaders can't ignore Him.
Herod couldn't kill Him,
The Pharisees couldn't confuse Him, and
The people couldn't constrain Him.

Nero couldn't crush Him,
Hitler couldn't silence Him,
The New Age can't replace Him, and
Scientists cannot explain Him away.
He is light, love, longevity, and Lord.
He is goodness, Kindness, Gentleness, and God.
He is Holy, Righteous, mighty, powerful, and pure.
His ways are right,
His Word is eternal,
His will is unchanging, and
His mind is on you and me.
He is my Redeemer,
He is my Savior,
He is my guide, and
He is my peace.
He is my Joy,
He is my comfort,
He is my Lord, and
He rules my life.

I serve Him because His bond is love,
His burden is light, and
His goal for me is abundant life.
I follow Him because He is the wisdom of the wise,
The power of the powerful,
The ancient of days, the ruler of rulers,
The leader of leaders, the overseer of the overcomers, and
The sovereign Lord of all that was and is and is to come.
And if that seems impressive to you, try this for size.
He desires a personal relationship with you and me!

He will never leave me,
Never forsake me,
Never mislead me,
Never forget me,
Never overlook me, and
Never cancel my appointment in His appointment book.
When I fall, He lifts me up!
When I fail, He forgives!
When I am weak, He is strong!
When I am lost, He is the way!
When I am afraid, He is my courage!
When I stumble, He steadies me!
When I am hurt, He heals me!
When I am broken, He mends me!
When I am blind, He leads me!
When I am hungry, He feeds me!
When I face trials, He is with me!
When I face persecution, He shields me!
When I face problems, He comforts me!
When I face loss, He provides for me!
When I face Death, He carries me Home!

He is everything everybody needs; everywhere,
Every time, and every way.
He is God, He is faithful.
I am His, and He is mine!
My Father in heaven can whip the "father" of this world.

So, if you're wondering why I feel so secure, understand this . . .
Jesus said it and that settles it.
God is in control, I am on His side, and
That means all is well with my soul.
Everyday is Easter Day,
Reminding me that He is Emmanuel which means "God is with us" and
A blessing because Jesus Christ lives!

Because of the blood Christ shed at Calvary, believers enjoy the eternal rewards of these central truths:

Propitiation. This word means an atoning sacrifice—specifically, the influence or effects of the death of Christ in appeasing divine justice and gaining divine favor. Our sin is forgiven, as the wrath of God was fully vented on His own Son at the cross. Even God’s chastisement for sinful behavior is motivated by compassion.

Redemption. Literally, this refers to a transaction in which some item or person is exchanged for payment on a debt. Spiritually, it indicates the price that Jesus paid on the cross to free every person from slavery to sin. To “redeem” us, Christ paid the debt we owed—His shed blood paid the penalty of death and ransomed us from sin and evil. We have been delivered from the kingdom of Satan and placed into the kingdom of God.

Justification. This term, which means the act of declaring someone righteous in the eyes of God, is made possible only by the crucifixion. Through Jesus, the believer’s past, present, and future sins are totally washed away (Eph. 1:7-8). What’s more, all guilt is removed and replaced with the righteousness of the Savior. Christ’s death released us from the sentence of death, and by God’s grace, we are no longer guilty before Him.

Reconciliation. This describes the act of restoring harmony between humanity and the Father. The cross made a permanent change possible between a holy God and formerly alienated, sinful humanity. Once enemies, God and man are now friends.

Sanctification. This word is defined as the life-long maturing process that begins when a person trusts in the Savior (Heb. 13:12). A believer is set apart from the rest of humanity for the purpose of becoming Christlike. Through discipleship, testing, and teaching, God “drains out” our old selves and pumps the life of Jesus into our hearts and lives.

As grateful as we are for the blood Christ shed on the cross, you and I can be even more thankful that our Savior didn’t stay there. He not only paid the price for our transgressions—He rose again! Jesus’ sacrifice made it possible for us to enjoy the exquisite delight of union with Christ and also to experience the abundant life He promised

If the purpose and pinnacle of the gathering of the church is for the people to hear one man give a sermon, then why shouldn’t we just listen to the very best men via teleconference or even recording? We hear all the time that the problem with the church is that we need more and better expository preaching. With all love to my friends who preach and in full recognition of my own limitations in preaching, I would say that you get a much better expository sermon from Piper or MacArthur than you get from virtually any senior pastor in any local church in America. If the goal is to hear a solid, expository sermon why not get the best sermon you can get? Better yet. What if you broadcast Bob Kauflin every Sunday morning on a tape delay “leading the worship”? What is the difference between Bob on video and a guy up front telling you what songs to sing? Bob is going to give you a “better”, more polished and professional song leadership. The accompaniment will be on key, the singing will be perfect, the songs will be properly vetted. How about we film Ligon Duncan praying and reciting 1 Corinthians 11 over a huge pile of oyster crackers and pallets of grape juice? Then we could ship portions out to churches observing the Supper that week and splice in the footage of Duncan blessing it prior to passing around the platters.

For most Christians in traditional churches on a Sunday morning, they are primarily sitting and watching. Does it really matter if they are watching a guy in-person on stage or Mark Dever on a video feed? I think taking the traditional model of evangelical church life to a logical extreme, why not do this? Just think, we could take up the offering and put it into the bank and then the central church could sweep the money into one big account and distribute it. That is how mormons do it. Instead of squabbling about carpet colors at the local level, let a regional super senior pastor figure it out. For those of us who are Reformed, we could break it down regionally. Albert Mohler could get the south, MacArthur everything west of the Mississippi, Piper the Midwest and Northeast and Dever could run the east coast. We could appoint under-under shepherds in smaller areas, Steve Lawson in Alabama, Kevin DeYoung in Michigan, etc. No more boring, wandering sermons. No more butchering of “A Mighty Fortress is our God”.

I think this idea has real promise.

Mormonism

If Joseph was prophet, seer, and revelator, how could he have gotten the Book of Abraham (published as the “Pearl of Great Price”) so wrong? He claimed it was written by Abraham’s own hand. Modern scholars and Egyptologists (some hired by the church) have discovered that the papyrus is nothing more than a pagan funerary document on preparing the dead for the afterlife. And, if the church is headed by real “prophets, seers, and revelators,” why did it have to hire scholars to translate the papyri in the first place?
If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did many of his specific prophecies not come true? The bible teaches that one false prophecy makes a false prophet.
Why did “prophet” Brigham Young say by way of revelation that black men were never to hold the priesthood until after the Millennium because of their spiritual unworthiness and “prophet” Spencer W. Kimball give them the priesthood in 1978? Did God change His mind (again)? Did Joseph Smith not know this “decree of heaven” when he ordained a black man to the priesthood?
Why did Joseph partially “translate” the metal plates found in Kinderhook, Illinois proclaiming them to be the ancient writings of a Lamanite, when in actuality the plates were a hoax, made and buried locally by men seeking to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud?
Why was the church buying forged documents purported to be written by early church leaders from Mark Hoffman in the early 1980’s? This alleged church history proved to be embarrassing to the church. How come Gordon B. Hinckley didn’t know as an “agent for God” that the documents were fraudulent

Other religions will bring you to God. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they’ll all eventually bring you to God. Mormonism, Christian Science, paganism, animism, and Roman Catholicism will bring you to God. Every practitioner of every religion created by man and/or demon will, by that religion, be brought to God.

But none of those religions will bring us to God as “Father”!

They will bring us to God as Judge.

Roman Catholic church

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Or, how about this one?

“On this account it was,” says St. Bernard, “that the Eternal Father, wishing to show all the mercy possible, besides with giving us Jesus Christ, our principal advocate him, was pleased also to give us Mary, as our advocate with Jesus Christ.” “There is no doubt,” the saint adds, “that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God; that, by virtue of his own merits and promises, he will and can obtain us pardon and the divine favors; but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, and this advocate is Mary, than whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty, or one more merciful towards ourselves.” The saint says, “Christ is a faithful and powerful Mediator between God and men, but in him men fear the majesty of God. A mediator, then, was needed with the mediator himself; nor could a more fitting one be found than Mary.” (Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pp. 195-196)

Don’t grieve for me, for now I’m free
I’m following the path God has laid you see.
I took His hand when I heard him call
I turned my back and left it all.

I could not stay another day
To laugh, to love, to work, to play.
Tasks left undone must stay that way
I found that peace at the close of day.

If my parting has left a void
Then fill it with remembered joy.
A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss
Oh yes, these things I too will miss.

Be not burdened with times of sorrow
I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow.
My life’s been full, I savored much
Good friends, good times, a loved one’s touch.

Perhaps my time seemed all too brief
Don’t lengthen it now with undue grief.
Lift up your hearts and peace to thee
God wanted me now; He set me free.

The new "papal encyclical" Caritas in veritate or "Charity in Truth" from Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope Benedict") has garnered some attention and a lot of concern for the language it uses.Granted, I am not all that interested in theological ponderings from Joseph Ratzinger and I am even less interested in his economic theories. Much of the encyclical is filled with flowery pronouncements and reiterations of prior papal declarations, sprinkled liberally with quotes like this:It is an expression of the prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give apostolic guidance to the Church of Christ and to discern the new demands of evangelization.That reinforces the misguided notion that the men who style themselves “popes” somehow speak for all Christians everywhere. Regardless, there are some useful statements within this declaration. Certainly he is right that charity and love play a central role in the Christian life and all too often both are missing from those who claim the name of Christ. We all certainly need to reflect on our lack of charity, our failure to express love to those around us as Christ expressed love to the unlovely, i.e. redeemed sinners.Where I have grave reservations is where Mr. Ratzinger applies how this should be practically lived out.There are numerous statements that exhibit an misunderstanding of basic economics, like this one:On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.Intellectual property rights in the private sector provide protection of investment, especially in health care. It is not like a new drug springs forth ready for market after an afternoon of brainstorming. The process is extremely competitive, very expensive and new drugs have limited protections before they become available for generics, so even a breakthrough drug must go through exhaustive regulatory hoops and then the clock starts ticking toward the day when the drug is able to be replicated as a generic. It is precisely because of patent protections that companies are willing to invest enormous sums of money that lead to life saving drugs. People have these drugs that save, extend and improve lives because of the right to intellectual property. Another example:The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.Quite to the contrary. Rerum Novarum was written in 1891 when basic workers rights were absent. Today, we see the collapse of venerable institutions like General Motors and Chrysler and the crippling of Ford because of, in large part, these very same workers associations.The words “redistribution”, “solidarity” and “exploitation” appear often in the encyclical and are not chosen by accident. When he writes: “What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.”, one is forced to wonder how this is to happen, who is decide how much is to be redistributed and who is to receive these resources.The strongest statement comes in this paragraph (emphasis added):To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.Did you catch all of that? A centralized international authority with the power to ensure "security" and enforce "compliance". I am sure all of the end-times types are jumping all over this, but this is not a sign of the coming "rapture", it is a sign of a dangerous call for international authority over U.S. property and resources.
In the end, Christian charity is expected of Christians but nations are not Christian. They may contain many Christian citizens who are bound to demonstrate love and perform acts of charity not as a condition for but as a result of their salvation, but nations are not and should not be expected to behave in “Christian” ways. Even with that in mind, what Mr. Ratzinger proposes is not only economically unsound, it also misinterprets what the Bible teaches about charity. What he is proposing: wealth redistribution, class warfare, socialism/communism, authoritarian centralized international government are not the signs or the enablers of charity and love. Wealth seized by force or the threat of force is not charity. When the early church sold their belongings and gave the proceeds to the apostles, they did so freely and out of love for one another. A central international authority reallocating resources from "rich" countries to "poor" countries is not only doomed to failure, it is also foreign to what the Bible speaks of in regards to Christian charity.Caring for the poor is noble but centralized governments and wealth distribution do not lead to positive economic equality but instead lead to shared misery. To expect countries and companies to behave in a Christian fashion is foolhardy and unrealistic, and ultimately is counter-productive. If Mr. Ratzinger is truly concerned for the poor, he should be encouraging the free market not calling for centralization. It is the free market, capitalism for lack of a better word, that has led to unprecedented increases in the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people. True, it has not been equitable but that is not a fault of free markets but of totalitarian governments. Without the free markets we would certainly have equity, but it would be equitable poverty and misery. (As a gratuitous cheap shot, if he is so concerned about the poor, maybe the Vatican can sell of some of its treasures and use the proceeds for hunger relief?)Why do I care? I reject Joseph Ratzinger's claims as the "Vicar of Christ" and I see his office as contrary to Biblical teachings and an invention of men. His opinions to me are irrelevant and hold no authority or sway. So why does this warrant the attention of Christians? Many people outside of the church see Mr. Ratzinger as representing Christians, and I am sure that this encyclical will be put forth by some as a defense of socialism. Many Christians also don't recognize the unBiblical nature of the papacy and the use of Scripture quotes and "God talk" may confuse some people. Finally, anytime someone misrepresents the teaching of Scripture, it warrants a response.
So take my thoughts for what they are, my thoughts, and tell me what your thoughts are. Is Mr. Ratzinger correct? Is this who kerfuffle irrelevant? Is this encyclical a veiled call for one world government and socialism?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one’s own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual. More recently the term “gay” has come into popular use to refer to both sexes who are homosexuals.

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God’s Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one’s imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: “And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God’s viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for “know” in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to “do not so wickedly.” Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace?

There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk’s office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have “married” in a private ceremony.

However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a “marriage” is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God’s order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won’t.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), “There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible.” How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term “The New Morality,” which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as “a kind of holy communion.” This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, “Gay and Christian.” But the two terms, “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on “The Lesbian Christian Experience.” Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian. Calling one’s self a Christian does not make one a Christian.

Malcolm Boyd speaks about “The Gay Male Christian Experience.” Boyd, a protestant clergyman, says he has been a homosexual secretly for years. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the “church”!

Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: “A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God.”

Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God’s revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. “If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him” (I John 2:29). “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

Q. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as “gay”?

The word “gay” means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word “gay” by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word “gay” when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

Q. You made reference to First Corinthians 6:9-11. What is the meaning of the word “effeminate” in verse 9?

There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of “effeminate” is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man. Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians unduly masculine.

Q. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality?

Yes. Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of “the truth of God” (1:25). They refused “to retain God in their knowledge” (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul’s day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God’s commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God’s Word with one’s own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God’s orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan’s big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God’s truth, his mind becomes “reprobate,” meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God’s truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a “vile affection” (1:26). The Greek word translated “vile” (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word “affection” in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The “vile affection” is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Q. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view?

I read in a periodical that in June, 1963 a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union. That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one’s genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away.

There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin. When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.

A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail. She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her. She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life.

Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is– sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called “homosexual need.” No baby is born a homosexual. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of “leaving the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27), meaning that his behaviour is “against nature” as in the case of the lesbian (Romans 1:26). Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely. If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed.

Q. Are there contributing factors to homosexuality for which a homosexual might not be responsible?

Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy’s contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy.

Lesbianism has been known to follow this same pattern. Some mother-daughter relationships are not conducive to a normal social and sexual development. One young woman came to her pastor seeking help. She had gotten involved with a lesbian in the community where she lived, a woman twenty-one years her senior. The girl’s parents had a defective marriage which ended in divorce when the daughter was ten years old. Her mother became bitter and resentful against all men. She convinced her daughter that men were not to be trusted, and that man’s one goal was to exploit women sexually. The daughter grew up with a fear of men, a fear totally unwarranted. She was an easy victim of the seductive older lesbian. The good and wise pastor showed the counselee from the Bible that homosexuality was sinful and that God condemned it. She confessed her sin to God and received Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord. Today she is happily married to a fine Christian man.

Q. Do you believe that the homosexual controversy is causing problems for the churches of America?

Evil in any form is a problem in the church. It always has been. The greater problem, however, is the church’s failure to discipline evil when it arises. Karl Menninger’s book, Whatever Became of Sin?, deals directly with that point. There are ministers, priests, and rabbis who never talk about sin. There was a time when the minister of God’s Word preached the whole counsel of God. Today many pulpits are silent on the sin question. Sin has become fashionable and therefore acceptable. When sin gets its victim into serious difficulty, the psychiatrist and psychologist tell him he is sick. The church must face the fact of sin squarely.

Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?

In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God’s attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death. Now God loved His people Israel dearly, and it was from His great heart of love that He chastened them. The Epistle to the Hebrews says, “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:7). When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning. However, when anyone broke the law, the offender paid the penalty due him. God is a holy God who hates and judges sin. Parents who love their children will not refrain from warning them of prevailing evils, nor will they fail to chasten them when they disobey. The church today not only tolerates sin but in some instances condones it. God does neither.

In the New Testament the principle of discipline was applied with apostolic authority. In the church at Corinth the young man who was committing fornication with his step-mother was excommunicated. Paul instructed the church to take that action “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and with the power (i.e. the authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 5:1-8). In Romans 1:21-32 where Paul shows the Gentile world in its downward plunge into sin, including the sin of homosexuality, verse 32 concludes with the words, “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . ” Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Q. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the church?

Nothing is more foundationally essential for the church and the world than a return to the truth. Recently I read where someone said we are suffering from a famine of the worst kind, “a truth-famine.” Our modern culture is in a degenerating, deteriorating stage caused by a departure from the truth. And I must say unequivocally that truth does not exist independently of God, and His written Word the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth is in no sense of man’s imagination or contrivance. Man in his fallen state does not know truth, and that is why he continues to go on sinning. A civilization without the truth is doomed to oblivion. Every ancient civilization that ignored God and His laws has crumbled. Our present civilization is well on the road to doom. We cannot survive independently of God and His Word.

The Church must return to the truth, the whole truth, the sum total of truth founded and grounded upon Him Who said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6). In our Lord’s high priestly prayer for His own He prayed, “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). There must be in our churches the clear exposition of the Scriptures and a continuing exaltation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ if our civilization is to be saved from the disasters that overcame past civilizations. Any civilization with a philosophy or a doctrine which denies the real truth cannot survive.

Q. Do you see any prophetic significance in the recent homosexual upsurge?

Yes, I do. However, I would suggest caution on this point. It is not uncommon for preachers to attach a prophetic meaning to every earthquake, riot, war, moral scandal or political disaster, labeling all such events as “signs of the times.”

The modern homosexual upsweep is one phase of a declining trend in morals. When the disciples asked our Lord, “What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?” He told them that “iniquity shall abound” (Matthew 24:3, 12). There is today a permissiveness and a promiscuity in sexual behaviour unprecedented in the history of America. There is little restraint upon the widespread of material containing pictures and writing depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement. This would be included in our Lord’s prophecy about abounding iniquity.

There is also a prophetic statement in Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy which has some bearing upon the subject we are discussing. Paul said, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection . . . ” (II Timothy 3:1-3). Homosexuality is an unnatural affection, practiced by persons “that defile themselves with mankind” (I Timothy 1:10), translated in the New American Standard Version “homosexuals,” and in the New International Version, “perverts.” I conclude, in the light of these Scriptures, that the rise of homosexuality is very definitely a trend which indicates the approaching end of the age.

Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?

Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. One man of wealth was reportedly married and divorced six times. Most of his wives were young enough to be his daughters. The two homosexual men who applied for a marriage license in the Maricopa County Clerk’s Office in Arizona were 39 and 21 years old, quite a variation in ages.

Q. Do you attach any significance to the age factor you mentioned?

Yes, I do. I see a potential threat to young people who are exposed to homosexuals. Older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.

Q. Do you care to make any comments on the Anita Bryant crusade in Dade County, Florida?

In my judgment Anita Bryant was justified in the action she pursued. She did not want her children exposed to the influence of a practicing homosexual in the public school classroom. Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children. Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert. As an American citizen I consider that choice to be my right. Anita Bryant laid her career on the line in the bold and courageous stand she took. She should not have to fight the battle alone. Christians should support her.

Q. What should be the Christian’s attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God’s love. The Bible says, “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God’s love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God’s displeasure and a strong desire to do God’s will, there is no hope. A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, “Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?”

As for reconciling his lifestyle choices with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, et al.), Allen says part of his interpretation is contextual, part cultural, and part gleaned from his own understanding of God.

As I've studied Scripture to understand the purpose of the church meeting, I've seen the importance of mutuality. What is "mutuality"? Mutuality is the recognition that God can and does work through all of his children, and therefore, everyone should have the opportunity to edify others during the church meeting.

In most modern church meetings (of almost every denominational flavor), mutuality has been abandoned. In fact, when I ask people why only the pastor is allowed to speak during the church meeting (with very rare exception), I get one of a few answers.

1) There could be heretical teachings.

2) It would be chaotic to allow anyone to speak.

These answers demonstrate that the people believe that mutuality is dangerous and not acceptable during the church meetings.

There are other answers to the question of mutuality:

3) There are too many people in the congregation.

4) Other people are not trained or educated.

These answers demonstrate that mutuality can be good, but not necessary. Thus, in some circumstances, it is okay to abandon the concept of mutuality when the church meets.

However, Scripture seems to indicate that mutuality - mutual ministry and mutual edification - is necessary for the growth of the body. In Ephesians 4:11-16, Paul says that every member of the body must work together in order for the church to mature. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, Paul encourages two or three to speak in tongues (with interpretation) and two or three to prophesy (with others judging). Would Paul also apply his "two or three" rule to teaching, exhortation, etc.? Either way, it seems that Paul has mutual speaking in mind during the church meeting. The author of Hebrews tells his readers to "exhort one another daily" and to "consider one another to stir up love and good works". This last exhortation is given specifically in relation to "not forsaking meeting together". Thus, the context of stirring one another up to love and good works and encouraging one another is whenever believers meet together.

Scripture exhorts the church to find a way to allow mutual ministry, mutual teaching, mutual exhortation, especially when the church is meeting. Instead, in many cases, we've decided to set aside the instructions and examples of Scripture. While most believers would never set aside commands about murder or stealing, we're more comfortable abandoning the exhortations toward mutual ministry when the church meets. We're much more comfortable in allowing our circumstances or decisions (i.e. size of the congregation, tradition, education) override what Scripture teaches about our responsibilities toward one another.

I'm glad to see that more and more followers of Jesus are beginning to question how and why the church meets.

This is what Dave Black (Friday, April 3, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.) says in the first chapter of The Jesus Paradigm:

What might this kingdom-focused church of the twenty-first century look like? It will be a serving church. Its organizational structure will be simple, unencumbered by bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Its financial priorities will reflect a commitment to missions, local and global. Capital expenditures will be reduced and the savings earmarked for discipleship. Most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help or eliminated. Denominations will make drastic reductions in funds spent on publications that are a waste of the church's money (bulletins, glossy magazines, and Sunday School quarterlies – the Bible will be used instead). Church buildings will be used for primary and secondary Christian education. Believers will gladly work transdenominationally and cooperatively, especially at the local level. The church will proclaim the Good News of the Gospel as its first priority while not neglecting the cultural mandate. A full-fledged lay ministry will replace clericalism. Individual believers will be expected to assume specialized ministries according to their giftedness. Churches will provide regular lay training and build voluntary programs of education into their structures. Worship will no longer be confined to a single time or place. Preoccupation with church buildings will be seen for what it is – idolatry. The church will no longer cling to its prerogatives but take the form of a servant. It will refuse any longer to shun the secular. Trained pastors will become humble assistants to the "ministers" – every member. Disciples will take the going forth as seriously as they do the gathering. New believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement (neighborhood council, PTA, volunteer library staff, nursing home visitation, etc.) in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.

Plus, Henry Neufeld, the publisher, has read the book and responded to it in his blog post here. Here are some of his remarks:

Normally, prospective authors inform me of the tremendous sales possibilities of their manuscript, how many people will love it, and why I ought to be willing to invest substantial sums in bringing it before a soon-to-be adoring public, certain to make them (and me) rich. Generally they’re very wrong.

But Dr. David Alan Black, author of more than 20 books, said: “Nobody will really be happy with my book.”

And that is a book that I choose to publish. This is not because I object to selling books or want to make people unhappy. It’s because for me, Energion Publications is a ministry, and ministry means service.

The bottom line is that I think that every Christian, especially in America, would do well to read this book. I have just made my first complete run through the manuscript, and that conviction grew stronger with every chapter. Do I agree with everything said? No. Did each and every page give me a glowing feeling inside? No. Do I think you’re going to love every minute of the time you spend reading it? I don’t.

The fact is that this book hit the spot for me. Now “hit the spot” is an expression we use to refer to comfort. After a good meal, we might say, “That really hit the spot.” But there’s another kind of spot-the one you find in the center of a target. You know, that big red circle surround by all those concentric rings. The arrow of conviction hit the spot.

There are many reasons that I'm looking forward to this book. The publisher mentions several in his blog post. For me, there's another one: I'm attracted to what I see God doing in Dave Black's life. For those of us who know him, I think this book will be even more important and more challenging. Why? Because, we will read his book and his life.

Music in the Church: How Special Should We Make It?Jim Elliff
You could put the entire teaching about church music in the New Testament in a paragraph or two. Add to this teaching those spirited illustrations of corporate singing in heaven displayed in the last book of the Bible, when angels and throngs of people fill the air with thundering six to eight line choruses. When it comes to intentional instruction about music, however, there are really only four passages in the New Testament:
Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Ephesians 5:19

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26

That’s it. For all the millions of dollars spent on buying equipment, paying music leaders, crafting multi-level music programs, training choral leaders, and building buildings that accommodate elaborate musical presentations, these verses comprise a very tiny pedestal upon which to rest such a large elephant as the music program of the church.

With all this going on, you would think that surely under it all you would discover a solid foundation of Scripture to support such massive, expensive and time-intensive behavior. Sadly, however, very few churches think through what the New Testament teaches when forming their music strategy. What did churches of the New Testament, large or small, mature or new-born, do with music under the tutelage of the Apostle Paul?


“I Go Because I Like The Music.”

I’m guessing, but I doubt that anybody joined with the early believers because they liked the music. If they were looking primarily for music and show, perhaps the local temple would have been the better choice. The pagan temple worship that most people knew in those days included plays, dance, singing, and even parades, but the early believers appear to have never thought of emulating their kind of worship in order to attract such people for Christ. Early church music was no match for the extravaganzas temple leaders could put on. Unlike our churches today, early Christians didn’t even compete with them.

The Jewish Temple worship was also highly skilled, choreographed and perhaps exciting to listen to, but, again, the early church seemed to by-pass that approach to winning people to Christ, or for designing their church life together.

In more recent days (yet long before Christian people used the words “Church Growth”), enterprising leaders sought to attract crowds to their churches with music. It was called “special music.” I once made up an entire verse of a well-loved solo piece in a large church which rhymed but didn’t make sense. Perhaps that could be called “special,” but not most of what happens in churches every Sunday. What we do each week in churches might better be called “routine music.” We should say, “Miss Roselle will give the routine music this morning.” It doesn’t matter if Miss Roselle wilts the flowers with her shrill soprano warble, the order of service demands “special music.” It is planned out and pressed into the agenda, even if you have to get the most ungodly church members to do it. How did the apostle Paul ever make it without special music prior to his messages?

But some churches offer more than a shrill solo. Some lay out a feast of music that is close to dazzling. Nobody announces that Miss Roselle will sing. She just does it—maybe with smoke rising up all around her. And many more do it after her. I cannot count the number of times in churches around our nation when I’ve heard music that was so professional, practiced, and polished that it would rival any ticket-only concert. Only the top musicians could be engaged to do it. Everybody else is “audience.” To be more truthful, Miss Roselle wouldn’t have a chance to warble among such musicians.

Often people join churches only when they “like the music.” For many people, that alone is enough to satisfy. Sadly, many churches are so music-driven that the teaching of the word is swallowed up in its ample motherly arms until it is nearly irrelevant. Three weeks without the full production, and the church building would be emptied.

Don’t mistake my concern for a lack of desire for excellence. I once thought I would give my ministry life to music. I know something about it. But it seems to me that we have gone to elaborate extremes before reflecting on what the New Testament has to say.

The New Testament on Music

So how should we integrate moving, meaningful, Christ-exalting music into our church’s life? What should we do or not do? I could suggest a thousand things off the top of my head (beginning with, “Have a talk with Miss Roselle.”). But what we need is not better ideas, but biblical ideas. Let me suggest a few things the Bible teaches. I believe these are among the most critical ideas, because these are all God has chosen to say about music to the New Testament church in the New Covenant. Be prepared for some radical concepts:

First, the verses above indicate that music should be about edification of believers. At least this is the emphasis in Paul’s writing. From John’s Revelation we see music employed for praise, but Paul is straight as an arrow about insisting on edification as his principal directive. Music is not all vertical. It keeps others in view. We are to “speak” to each other with music, and “teach” and “admonish” (warn) each other. It should go without saying that edification is not the same as entertainment, which makes people happy and excited, but often does not deal deeply with the soul in the way that the word “edification” implies. The simple music of a congregation, for instance, when seeking to teach each other through thought-provoking words and music, can be a potent tool for spiritual development. This concept alone might change the content and manner of your music experience.

Second, music is to be a way to “let the word dwell richly among you.” This means that good music is the “word” or the “message” musically presented. It is joined to the testifying word, the preached word, the taught word, the prayed word of God, in such a way that the time spent together becomes a baptism in the word of God. The music of the song carries “the word,” “the message,” or “the truth” of God on its wings.

Third, Christian music is often to be an offering to the congregation from a spiritually-mindedbrother or sister. Paul says “each one has a psalm” as if to say, individuals come prepared and spiritually ready to sing a psalm (or, by extension, a spiritual song or hymn) to the group for their edification; or perhaps they are to suggest their psalm to the group for corporate singing. This does not preclude thinking through a song beforehand as opposed to being entirely spontaneous, but when offered, it often will give the appearance of spontaneity in the meeting itself. I know it is entirely out of range for most of us to consider this idea at all, but I’m only reporting what I’m reading. In the early church, people made contributions of their gifts and talents for the building up of the body. It was part of what it meant to have body-life in the church. The meetings were more or less open to believers’ gifts—orchestrated by God; not chaotic. To think otherwise is to be more a child of the Reformation than the New Testament.

Fourth, by necessary assumption, coordination of the meeting, including all musical gifts, must have been the responsibility of the elders who were in charge of guiding the believers, under the headship of Christ. I don’t think they would have understood an “order of service” as a means of doing this. The people simply brought their gifts and made their contributions under the guidance of the Spirit, looking to the elders as leaders for shaping the meeting as needed. Wise elders may have curbed the excesses of some, or even refused to allow others to offer their supposed gift, but however they worked it out, their meetings were open for the sharing of gifts and talents under their sagacious oversight.

Fifth, though Paul did not rule out ecstatic singing (singing in the spirit without engaging the mind), he admonished the church to “sing with mind also.” The larger point being made is that what is sung must be able to receive the “Amen” from those who are there. He mentions the “ungifted” being among them. It must be, on some level, understandable to them also. Here Paul is not approving what he denies earlier in 1 Corinthians (that those without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God), but is only meaning that people need to hear intelligible words in their singing. I am not going to delve into this debated issue of praying in the spirit and the matter of tongues, or the issue of interpreting such speech, but I am only making the obvious comment: Our singing must be intelligible to have its greatest value. It is what is intelligible that is ultimately most edifying. Understanding is important.

Sixth, a variety of music forms may used. Whatever is meant by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” we may at least note that this was not a “hymns only” church, or a “psalms only” church. I know there are arguments about these words from those who practice exclusive psalmody. Even so, I take the view that these represent varying forms of music found in the church. Who would argue that an emotive Scripture praise song done by memory is usually more appropriate during a heartfelt prayer-time, than the singing of even such a great hymn as “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”? We need variety.

Seventh, no music directors are seen in the early church pattern of worship. Paul highlighted in Ephesians 4 the human gifts to the church Christ left us: “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.” Surprisingly, he did not mention “music directors.” When spiritual gifts are listed in 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Peter, nothing about a music gift is mentioned there either. Though I owe a lot to those music directors I enjoyed as a boy, and though there are some godly ones that I sincerely appreciate, the absence of such a staff position in the local churches of the New Testament documents is glaring. This is not to say that pastors who have musical gifts cannot do some wonderful things with music related to the church, but they should be pastors (elders, overseers) in every sense of the word. At the same time, musical gifts are not a requirement of pastoral ministry.

Finally

All I’m really saying is that, like a child in the park, we have run off in all directions related to music without consulting our Father for His wishes. For 60 years my uncle faithfully and lovingly brought his sister chocolate-covered cherries for Christmas. Only in her late 80s did she tell me privately that she never liked chocolate-covered cherries. He had never consulted her, but assumed his taste was hers. What if we like what we do for God, but God doesn’t like it at all? When our practice, as sincere as it might be, almost totally disregards the body-life design of God for the church spelled out for us in great detail in the New Testament, we surely are working against His intentions. Even if arriving at His view of the church means that we make major structural changes, would it not be right to do so?

The main lesson, summarized, is that early New Testament believers purposefully abandoned choreographed, professional and elaborate musical presentations to the shadowlands of the temple age, and moved forward into the simpler, more fluid and flexible, leadership of the Spirit. Although I’m not sure exactly how all of this is accomplished, I would rather be attempting to go His direction than assuming I know better than God what He likes. With careful attention to the body language of the New Testament, and authentic trust in God, surely we can take steps, gradually if necessary, to return to this glorious simplicity, beauty and balance.

Copyright © 2009 Jim Elliff