Category: Reflections Articles

In Genesis chapter two, history records God’s words regarding the partnership of men and women. “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'” (vs. 18). In commenting on that partnership, the inspired writer records, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (vs. 24). Jesus, commenting on this passage of scripture, said, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6).

These passages describe the divine origin of the marriage relationship, and express its sensible design. Despite man’s attempts over the years to modify the parameters of the marriage relationship, the principle established by scripture of one man for one woman for a lifetime will remain the foundation of humankind’s existence. Assaults upon the foundation of the home invariably have a deleterious effect upon societies, and have even contributed to the decline and fall of nations.

It is important for us to know the purpose and design of the marriage relationship, to keep this institution strong. A strong home leads to a strong nation, and more importantly, a strong church.

The Purpose of Marriage

Simply put, the marriage relationship affords a stable environment in which to raise children. Now, this does not invalidate childless homes, but it does recognize that God designed the husband/wife relationship to be the building block of society. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:27-28). The husband/wife relationship is the most intimate in life, and in it alone is sexual activity appropriate and acceptable. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

The Design of Marriage

As the primary purpose of the marriage relationship is to “be fruitful and multiply”, the relationship must be defined in sexual terms. Again, this does not mean that sexual activity is the only important thing between a husband and wife; much to the contrary; but it does indicate that in marriage alone is sexual activity acceptable (see Heb. 13:4 above).

Three things become immediately apparent as we recognize the sexual aspects of the marriage relationship. First, that marriage, by definition, is a relationship between a man and a woman. Setting aside the condemnation of homosexuality which is so common to scripture (cf. Romans 1:28-32), the purpose of the home is to procreate. This is impossible in a homosexual marriage, and is unnatural. Men may seek to change marriage, but God from the beginning said, “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (cf. Genesis 2:24).

Second, the obligation of sexual activity is found in the marriage relationship. So often the emphasis is placed upon the prohibition of sex outside of marriage, that there is a neglect in teaching the obligation of the individual within the marriage relationship. Paul did not neglect to teach on this delicate subject, and said in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” The sexual drive is so strong that specific instruction is given by the apostle to the obligation, (before God), which each spouse has to the other.

Third, sexual immorality is a horrible sin, and sufficient to destroy the marriage bond. Paul said, “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Jesus indicated that sexual immorality, (i.e. fornication), is the sole scriptural cause for an individual to divorce his or her spouse. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Sexual immorality is so destructive to the marriage bond that Jesus allows the dissolution of the bond in such cases. Any other “cause”, coupled with remarriage, is unacceptable to Him.

Conclusion

While the husband/wife relationship is not exclusively defined by its sexual aspect, that is what makes it unique. Sex is a blessed privilege and obligation in that union, but is unacceptable in any other context. Men have largely rejected these facts, but the future welfare of our society is dependent upon our acceptance of this truth.

The home was established by God at the dawn of time. It is the most ancient of all God ordained institutions. In his conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew 19, Jesus said:

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (verses 4-6).

Jesus’ reference to the Genesis account of God’s creative work, and his subsequent divine commentary on that event, establish two very important points for our consideration. First, the institution of marriage has a divine mandate. Second, the parameters of the institution, as ordained by God, include a lifetime commitment to the arrangement.

A Divine Institution

The most important consequence of the understanding that marriage has a divine origin is that the design of marriage is not open to human modification. On December 20, 1999 the Vermont State Supreme Court ruled that it violated their state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the state. Previous to this landmark decision, Gay and Lesbian lobbyists applied pressure to have their “unions” recognized as legal marriages. National politicians resisted the efforts, and responded by passing the “Defense of Marriage Bill”, which President Clinton passed into law in September of 1996. The measure limits the definition of marriage to those unions consisting to two individuals who are sexually opposite. However, many legal scholars believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and the jury is still out as to whether homosexual marriages will be given legal standing in the country.

While some men seek to redefine the parameters of the marriage relationship, it should be understood that such efforts constitute a usurping of authority. God designed marriage, and he defined marriage in the following way: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The woman was created to complete the man. She is not identical to him, but rather supplements him with her own unique characteristics (cf. Genesis 2:18). As the two combine, a synergism is created. (Synergism – cooperative action of discrete agencies such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently. Websters). Obviously, this effect is not possible in any same-sex union.

Other departures from God’s design, though not legal distortions, are nevertheless destructive to the institution. For example, some seek to destroy or modify the roles God has given to the man and woman in the marriage relationship. In Ephesians 5, Paul gave instructions to the wife, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (verses 22-24). Some wives, perhaps from confusion, perhaps rebellion, are not in proper subjection to their husbands.

Likewise, Peter has instructions for the husbands, “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). One obvious reason why women in our society have left their roles in the home is because of the mistreatment they have received from their husbands. The role of headship contains great responsibility. Too many men are not giving their wives proper respect and honor. They are selfish in their own desires and care too little for the precious partner they have chosen for life.

Unfortunately, such distortion of marriage has even influenced Christian homes. Christian husbands and wives need to carefully consider God’s requirements of them in marriage.

The Duration of Marriage

A final departure from God’s marriage design is seen in the proliferation of divorces in our society. Jesus, in indicating the divine nature of the marriage contract, said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 9:6). The prophet Malachi clearly stated God’s attitude toward divorce, “‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence’, says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously'” (Malachi 2:16).

In contrast to God’s design, society, and even many brethren have rebelliously clamored for the right to divorce and remarry. Societal pressures have led the government to establish “no-fault” divorce laws. A summary of California divorce law found at the California State Library web site states the following:

“Three years after Governor Brown (Edmund Brown, 1966) urged reforming California’s fault-based divorce law, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act of 1969 into law, making California the first no-fault divorce state in the nation. Or, looked at by some in another way, ‘On September 5, 1969, with a stroke of his pen, California governor Ronald Reagan wiped out the moral basis for marriage in America.’ Since California’s historic divorce reform, every state has enacted some form of no-fault divorce.”

It is not surprising that brethren have been influenced by such ungodliness. Of course, rationalization is necessary for any who claim to love God, so abundant theories exist as to how one can “scripturally” get around God’s prohibition of divorce. Such theories ignore the plain truths established above. God hates divorce, and intends the contract between a man and woman in marriage to be a lifetime commitment. It is a directive we must obey!

God designed marriage. He defines the parameters of the institution, and man is bound to follow them. If man refuses, God will judge him for his sin. The world does not accept this… The Christian must!

One of the primary areas where division has occurred in the church in the past 50 years is in regard to the church’s obligations in benevolence. Some fail to make a distinction between what God obligates the individual Christian to do, and what he obligates Christians, collectively working in a local congregation, to do.

Recently, while reading The Arlington Meeting, a series of transcripts in book form from speeches made in a meeting between institutional and non-institutional preachers in Arlington, Texas in January 1968, I came across the following quote from Reuel Lemmons, now deceased former editor of the Firm Foundation, and a widely known and respected preacher in the institutional camp:

I want to make it clear that I believe that all commands are given to individuals primarily and when a command is given to individuals in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related, then that command becomes a church command to be carried out (and can be carried out) by the church. (pg. 150)

Lemmon’s quote indicates a common leap taken by individuals who wish to continue in unscriptural practices when their rationale for such practices are exposed. No doubt his inconsistency in argumentation is unintentional, but it nevertheless is present.

The most common expression of this rationale is that “whatever the individual can do, the church can do.” Stated in this way, the commands found in James 1:27 and Galatians 6:6, which are obviously given as instructions to individual Christians, can be used to authorize collective (church) action as well. Note the two scriptures:

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

The rationale supposes that since “whatever the individual can do the church can do” such passages give authority for churches to establish or support from their treasury institutional homes for orphans and the aged. The problem with this rationale is that while it seems logical to the mind of some, it is decidedly not scriptural reasoning. In fact, the Bible clearly makes a distinction between what are individual responsibilities, and responsibilities of the local church. The most familiar example of such a distinction is found in Paul’s instructions regarding the care for Christian widows in his first epistle to Timothy.

The passage shows that not only is the congregation limited in its benevolent obligations to those who are saints (a pattern established clearly in scripture), it limits even the reach of the local church’s responsibility in this area. Paul states, “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Timothy 5:16). So, collective (church) obligation is clearly distinguished from the obligation given to the believer (individual) in this verse. The passage clearly shows the error in the rationale “what the individual can do the church can do.”

Which has led to the revised statement of brother Lemmons, “when a command is given to individuals in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related, then that command becomes a church command…” The clause “in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related” must be added to avoid the obvious conclusion in 1 Timothy 5:16 that individual and collective action are not always parallel. You can’t establish authority for one by establishing authority for the other.

What should be obvious, and must be pointed out, is that there is no logical or scriptural reason for such a caveat. The only reason for such an added provision is to avoid the obvious conclusion that individual action and collective action are different.

Others have tried to add “clauses” to the rationale. They have said, “Whatever the individual does, in the spiritual realm, the church can do.” Again, a provision added to avoid the obvious (a church can’t get a job, engage in business enterprises, wage war, etc.). but, again, an arbitrary clause added to defend what cannot be proven, that individual and collective action are synonymous. Paul has clearly shown that it is not so!

As Christians we are commanded to practice pure religion, which includes benevolent activities (cf. James 1:27; Gal. 6:10). We are to follow the example of the Good Samaritan (cf. Luke 10) and be a neighbor to others whenever possible.

We must also recognize that the church is a spiritual institution, primarily concerned with the salvation of the souls of men, rather than the creation of a utopia on earth. The social gospel has no place in the Lord’s church. God has given the individual the primary responsibility of benevolence, “and do not let the church be burdened.”

It is seldom that I utilize the Sunday before the Christmas holiday to speak out against the unauthorized religious observances that are practiced by most churches on that day. I have no problem with pointing out this error, but often have another more pressing message to share.

However, from time to time it is important to note that Christ does not authorize the religious observance of Christmas, and such is not acceptable before God. Though many churches are organizing and participating in Christmas plays, cantatas, Nativity scenes, parties, etc., here at West Side we are not. The reason is simple. If there is a divine connection between the holiday and the birth of Christ, we should be able to turn in our New Testaments and find it. We cannot.

The question arises, when did men first begin to observe December 25th as the birthday of Jesus? A quick look at any reference work shows the origin not to be from God’s word, but rather from the 4th century. For example, note the following from Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament, on the Christian Calendar:

“We do not read of either of these days (Christmas and Epiphany) being observed as festivals in the 3rd century. The first mention of such a commemoration on 25th December is in the Philocalian Calendar, which was copied in 354 A.D., but represents the official observances at Rome in A. D. 336. We find the entry: ‘viij kal. Jan. Natus Christus in Bethleem Judae.” It is not indeed absolutely certain that 25th December was at that date observed as a feast; but it is highly probable that this was so, as the other days, commemorations of bishops of Rome and martyrs, seem to be noted in order that they might be observed.” (vol. 1, pg. 261)

Also, there is a pagan festival that has its observance on the same day. The winter solstice, (December 21st on our calendar, but December 25th on the Julian calendar which predated our own) is the date when the days begin to lengthen in the Northern hemisphere. As such, it was recognized as a day of great import to the sun-worshippers in Rome during the 3rd and 4th century. Pagans referred to that day as the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

Note the following quote from Hastings:

“But it is quite possible that when, in the 4th cent., the Christians began to observe the Nativity as a festival, they seized on the coincidence between the day as calculated by Hippolytus and the heathen feast-day, and Christianizing the latter as the Birth of the true Sun of Righteousness, showed a good example to the pagan world by making the day a true holy day.” (ibid, page 261).

You may observe that Hastings considers the adaptation of the Pagan holiday as showing a “good example”, and assumes that God has given authority for Christians to “Christianize” and to establish for themselves true “holy day[s].” Here we find the problem with the religious observance of Christmas. Some, unwilling to limit themselves to the will of Christ expressed in the New Testament, have taken upon themselves to establish new acts and days of worship. Time has passed, and with such passage this usurping of Christ’s authority has taken on a patina of orthodoxy. People today call for Christ to be put back into Christmas, when in reality the observance of Christ’s birthday was not even considered until 300 years after Christ’s death.

This being true, it is not surprising that many other aspects of Christ’s birth are distorted as well. The date itself is suspect, as it is not probable that Shepherds would have had their flocks in the fields at that time of year. Indeed, the custom of the Jews would necessitate the event to have transpired sometime during the late spring or summer.

Traditional observance of the day has included nativity scenes showing three wise men (while scripture is silent on the number, tradition has gone so far as to number and name the men), who met the Christ child in the stable, as he lay in a manger (rather, scripture indicates a time frame possibly 40 days after Christ’s birth, in a house. cf. Matt. 2:11-12). Other distortions, as well as the pagan origins of the Christmas tree, with the so called “Star of Bethlehem” put on top, and other man-made traditions, show clearly that the entirety of Christmas celebration has its origin in the mind of men.

The point is this, if God desired for us to celebrate the birth of Christ, he would have let us know in His word. He desired such an observance of the death of our Lord, and established a supper to commemorate that death (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26). We must “speak as the oracles of God” (cf. 1 Peter 4:11). We have no authority to establish religious institutions or holy days on our own authority.

In this we are not saying it is wrong to culturally and secularly observe a holiday. We can do so not only with Christmas, but also Easter, Halloween and Thanksgiving. So long as our observance is not religious, and our conscience is not violated, (cf. Romans 14:22, “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves”), there is no sin in exchanging gifts, observing secular tradition, and visiting with family at these times. Just remember the law of love, that we do not, in this liberty, cause a weak brother to stumble. “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God” (Romans 14:21-22).

Authority and Christmas
(The following short article appeared on the front page of the same edition of Reflections)

We often are asked why we do not, as a congregation, observe the birth of Jesus on December 25th. While many are calling to “bring Christ back into Christmas”, we have argued that Christ never belonged there in the first place.

Our problem is not with remembering with great appreciation the wonderful event. The Christ child’s entry into the world signified “good tidings of great joy” (cf. Luke 3:10). The angel said, “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (vs. 11). This we do often, as we contemplate not only our Lord’s birth, but also his perfect life, sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension back to the Father. Our problem is with any man (or group of men) who would take it upon himself (or themselves) to establish a religious holiday (holy day). Nowhere in scripture is there any authority for such a practice. It finds its genesis entirely in the mind of man. The Pharisees were one time guilty of establishing their own religious tradition. In response to their arrogance, Jesus said:

“Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men'” (Matthew 15:7-9).

Let us be willing to limit ourselves to worshipping God in ways revealed in His Will.

Just this past week I finished reading an interesting book, entitled Tuesdays with Morrie, written by Mitch Albom. The book developed from a series of conversations Albom had with his old college professor Morrie Schwartz, near the end of the man’s life. Schwartz suffered from ALS, a debilitating disease more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. It leaves the mind intact, but progressively destroys the muscles, bringing paralysis, then death. The conversations were held over a period of fourteen weeks, with the author visiting his former teacher each Tuesday until his death.

The book begins in this way:

“The last class of my old professor’s life took place once a week in his house, by a window in the study where he could watch a small hibiscus plant shed its pink leaves. The class met on Tuesdays. It began after breakfast. The subject was the Meaning of Life. It was taught from experience.”

Albom held his old teacher in high regard, and the respect and tenderness he feels for the man is obvious throughout the book. Morrie Schwartz is in many respects an amazing man, and showed tremendous dignity and grace while dealing with his terminal illness.

Schwartz taught sociology at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. He was an engaging man, emphasizing love and kindness to his students and friends. He had a sweet smile, a gentle manner and was well respected.

There is much wisdom to be found in the book. Aphorisms (a concise statement of a principle) came naturally to Schwartz, and many pearls of wisdom are found in the book, including:

“Accept what you are able to do and what you are not able to do.”
“Accept the past as past, without denying it or discarding it.”
“Learn to forgive yourself and to forgive others.”
“Don’t assume it is too late to get involved.”
“The most important thing in life is to learn how to give out love, and to let it come in.”

Albom wrote a list of things he wanted to talk about with his old teacher, which constituted the curriculum of their last “class.” The list contained the following topics: Death, Fear, Aging, Greed, Marriage, Family, Society, Forgiveness, and a meaningful Life.

While the book was very interesting, and no doubt has given comfort and pleasure to many who have read it, I could not help but be saddened at what the book did not contain. There was at no time a discussion of what would come after life. The extent of the discussion dealt with our existence on earth, with no thought to preparation for the life to come.

Of course, the reason for this is obvious. These individuals came from a secular background. Though Schwartz was Jewish, it is obvious from the book that he had little interest in religious matters. The writer, too, had a secular background that indicated a humanistic rather than a spiritual focus.

The book reminded me of the writer of Ecclesiastes, who wrote of the end of lives lived only in respect to the present, with no thought of eternity. “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind” (1:14). While there is much wisdom to be found in Morrie’s philosophy of life, ultimately it is lacking in the most important area, a man’s standing with his Maker.

Late in the book, there is finally a reference to God. Less than a month before his death, the disease having ravaged his body, he gave a short television interview with Ted Koppel. After the interview, Albom notes a short exchange between the two:

Koppel was near tears. “You done good.”

“You think so?” Morrie rolled his eyes toward the ceiling. “I’m bargaining with Him up there now. I’m asking Him, ‘Do I get to be one of the angels?'”

It was the first time Morrie admitted to talking to God.

A final aphorism summed up the “Meaning of Life” according to Morrie Schwartz. In that last TV interview, when asked if he would like to say anything to the millions of watchers who he had touched, he said, “Be compassionate, and take responsibility for each other. If we only learned those lessons, this world would be a better place. ” Then the aphorism, “Love each other or die.”

While there is much wisdom to be found in those words, they ring hollow without the final consideration of eternity. The writer of Ecclesiastes understood it well, stating a principle that is inclusive of Morrie’s final words, but encompassing so much more. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

I wish that I could say that Tuesdays with Morrie was a comforting read, but it was not. Because Morrie and his student never discussed the most important thing, the book left me feeling only sad.

Christians have faith in God.  Basically, we believe that God exists though we have not seen Him.  Despite our inability to prove the existence of God by the use of our physical senses, we accept the affirmation of Scripture.  We freely admit that this is faith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

This does not mean that there is no evidence as to the existence of God.  Indeed there is.  “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20).  The argument of design is one that cannot be successfully refuted by those who deny God’s existence.  If there is no designer, why does structure and organization abound in the physical universe?  Why is it “cosmos” (ordered) rather than “chaos”?  Design demands a designer. Continue reading “The Faith of the Atheist” →

And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God (John 3:19-21).

For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you (1 John 3:11-13).

Last week I received three emails from a person who did not reveal his name.  He was very critical of some writing I have done on the internet.  To give you a sense of the tone of the posts, note the following quote: Continue reading “Evil Hates the Light” →

The above title was the headline of a Fort Worth Star Telegram commentary by Pop Culture critic Miki Turner.  The first line of the article reads, “Where was God on Sept. 11, 2001?”

The commentary was a reaction to the author’s advance viewing of a special, set to air Tuesday, Sept. 3 on Public Television, entitled Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero.  Turner writes that the special, “does a fine job of soliciting myriad responses from theologians, clergy, educators, authors, survivors of victims — even an opera singer.  Some of these have lost faith in someone or something they cannot see.” Continue reading “Was God MIA on 9-11?” →