Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The recent controversy regarding grace-unity has raised certain questions pertaining to how man is saved. All kinds of theories are being stated, including those which have God saving men who are walking in sin and unrepentant about their sins. However, a study of how men are justified is worthy of our attention at any time but especially in the midst of this controversy. I know of no better passage to consider than Eph. 2:1-10 to understand how men are saved. Examine with me this important passage.

Man’s Condition: Dead In Sin (2:1-3)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we 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.

Like the first three chapters of Romans, Eph. 2:1-10 opens with an establishment of man’s need of salvation. Certainly no one will become very much concerned about salvation until he is convinced that he is lost. Hence, this passage begins by showing man’s universal need of salvation. Verses two and three contain two different pronouns, ye and we. By these two different pronouns, Paul designates the Jews and Gentiles respectively.

1. The condition of the Gentiles (v. 2). Their past manner of life is described as walking “according to the course (aion) of this world (kosmos). ” The “course” (aion) of this world is defined for us by Trench as follows:

All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations hopes impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,-all this is included in the aion, which is, as Bengel has expressed it, the subtle informing spirit of the kosmos, or world of men who are living alienated and apart from God (Synonyms of the New Testament).

These are under the “prince of the power of the air” (v. 2), the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), Satan himself.

The Gentiles of the first century were no different from those of us today. Every one of us knows the temptation of being conformed to this world around us. The world’s acceptance as respectable of such things as the usage of marijuana, fornication, adultery, gambling, drinking, petting, homosexuality, and a hundred other sins causes men to become involved in these transgressions. When a young person sees everyone else “doing it,” he wants to do it too. No one wants to stand out like a sore thumb in opposition to acceptable conduct among his peers. And, my brethren, the God-fearing man of this day stands out in just that way. Hence, the spirit of this world under the control of Satan leads men to walk in sin.

This disposition is further described as “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” We understand what the spirit of disobedience is; it is rebellion. This is manifested when the man refuses to submit to God’s holy commandment and openly and defiantly rebels against God Almighty. It was the spirit which Adam and Eve manifested in the Garden of Eden. It was the spirit which King Saul manifested when he refused to slay Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15).

2. The condition of the Jews (v. 3). Having shown the sinful condition of the Gentiles, Paul turned to describe the sinful condition of the Jews. He mentions their “conversation” (an archaic usage of the word meaning “general behavior, deportment”) as being marked by the lusts of the flesh. The Jews had walked in the lusts of their flesh.

There is a great civil war going on inside each of us. This war is the battle of the flesh against the spirit. Paul said, “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:16-17). The flesh pulls man in one direction; the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit commands that man walk in a different direction. There is a great conflict going on inside each of us.

The man who walks in the lusts of the flesh is the man who has allowed the lusts of his flesh to triumph over the commandments of God. He has allowed his body to be controlled by the natural fleshly lusts rather than by God’s holy commandments. Hence, he does whatever pleases his flesh and whatever his mind so desires that he should do.

By Nature The Children of Wrath (v. 3)

The special terminology used in this verse needs special comment. The phrase has been interpreted by Calvinists to teach that man inherits the sin of Adam and is born into this world an object of God’s wrath because he is totally depraved (depraved in all of his parts). The Scriptures, of course, teach that the guilt of sin is not transmitted from one man to another (cf. Ezek. 18). However, Calvinist commentators have a field day on this verse.

Joseph Henry Thayer commented specifically on this verse when he defined the word phusis (nature). He defined the word to mean “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (p. 660). He specifically distinguished this from something that was innate, something obtained through birth. We still use the word “nature” to mean “the essential character of a thing; quality or qualities that make something what it is, essence” (Webster). Let us notice the “nature” of those who were “children of wrath.”

The Nature of These Men

1. “Ye walked according to the course of this world” (v. 2).

2. They manifested “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (v. 2).

3. They had their conversation “in times past in the lusts of our flesh” (v. 3).

4. They fulfilled “the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (v. 3).

These terms from the context describe “the essential character of” the man who is outside of Christ; these are the “quality or qualities” that make them what they are.

Obviously, such men are “children of wrath.” This simply means “children” who are the objects of God’s wrath. Any person who lives as the ones who are described above live are objects of God’s wrath. Hence, we see Paul’s description of man’s condition.

Dead In Trespasses And Sin (v. 1)

The phrase at the end of the third verse, “even as others,” is somewhat like the summary statement in Rom. 3:23-“for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This statement wraps all of humanity-both Jews and Gentiles-in sin. There is none righteous, no, not one!

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). The death intended is not physical death; we suffer physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin. (Men suffer the consequences of the transgressions of another without bearing the guilt of their sin. This is one of the mistakes committed by Calvinists. They have the guilt of one man attributed to another.) The death intended is spiritual death-separation from God because of sin.

Some have pressed this metaphor beyond its intended usage. Here is an example of an abuse of this phrase .

. . . First of all if a man is physically dead there is no sense asking if he is entirely dead, is there? We just accept the fact that he is completely dead and is not able within himself to do anything physical. And spiritual death is the same way. If God’s word says that a man is spiritually dead then it doesn’t make sense to ask to what extent he is dead, but just accept the fact that he is completely spiritually dead, and is not able to accomplish a single spiritual act. Now, what if your loved one lay in a casket and a great physician said to you, “I will give that loved one of yours physical life if only he will believe in me and come asking for it.” Wouldn’t that be a hopeless case! We can see right away that there`could be no hope for that loved one.

Now suppose that loved one did raise up out of the casket and say “give me this physical life. I believe.” Wouldn’t you know that this loved one is asking for something that he already had? Just the fact he has completed a physical act would be enough to let you know that he is already alive. But there are those, my friends, that read God’s precious word every day and hear God say that before a man’s eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit he is spiritually dead, but that they want to make Jesus say who is the great physician, I will give unto that loved one eternal,. spiritual life if only he will of his own free will give me this spiritual life, although God says that he is spiritually dead (Carl D. Tharp, “Salvation-Offer or Gift?” The Christian Baptist, Vol. II, No. 8, p. 3).

This usage of the metaphor states that a “spiritually dead man” is unable to do one thing to obtain salvation by grace. Rather, God has to give that man spiritual life before he acts and without him acting in any way. Under these presuppositions, they raise the question, “What can a dead man do?”

In response to this question, let me mention that a spiritually dead man can some things. For example, a spiritually dead man can (1) do good (Lk. 6:33), (2) hear the voice of God (Jn. 5:25), (3) do the things of the law (Rom. 2:14-15, and (4) be provoked unto emulation (Rom. 11:14-15). In a similar vein, one should notice the usage of “dead” in the phrase “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2). Does this mean that a man cannot commit sin until God acts upon him to cause him to be able to sin? Certainly not! The man who would so state would be soundly rebuked for pressing a biblical metaphor beyond its intended usage.

Col. 2:13 offers a divine definition of what it means to be “dead in sin.” There, Paul wrote, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Notice that the Colossians, like the Ephesians, were dead in sin. However, they were made alive (quickened). They were made alive by this method: “having forgiven you all trespasses.” Hence, a man who is dead in sin is simply an unforgiven man! Those who make this phrase men a man who cannot act spiritually to do anything with reference to his salvation should be consistent by saying that a man who is “dead to sin” cannot act so as to commit a sin! One is no more wrong than the other.

Conclusion

When we consider salvation by grace through faith, we need to begin by stating man’s need for salvation. All men are “dead in their trespasses and sins.” We all stand before the Lord unforgiven and doomed to an eternity in Hell. Having committed sin, we each deserve the just penalty for sin-death! Yet, man’s deplorable condition is not hopeless. Continue this study with me next week to see what God has done to save sinful men.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 403-405
June 21, 1979

By C. Titus Edwards

There are many people in the church who believe that it is right for a church to support a “Christian college.” In this article we want to consider whether or not it is right for a church to do so.

Let us establish some principles which will help us to understand whether or not churches supporting colleges is wrong.

1. The church is spiritual in nature (Jn. 18:36).

2. The work of the church is spiritual consisting of preaching the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15), relieving needy saints (Acts 4:32-35), and building itself up (Eph. 4:11-16). Money from the treasury may be used to do this work.

3. God made the church in such a way as to be sufficient to accomplish its work (Eph. 3:10-I1). The church is fully capable of preaching the gospel, relieving needy saints, and edifying itself through the framework of the local congregation.

4. To use the Lord’s money for anything else but its prescribed work is to go beyond the doctrine of Christ (1 Cor. 16; Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Jn. 9; Mt. 7:23).

When one understands these principles, the question boils down to a matter of authority. Where is the authority for a church to donate money to a college (or any other human institution) to do its work? None has yet been found! Therefore, to do so is to work lawlessness and go beyond the doctrine of Christ!

Some have tried to justify churches supporting colleges by saying that it is only a method of training preachers, teachers; and elders. Admittedly, training the young (and others) to be more productive in the Lord’s work i& part of edification and authorized by God. But supporting a college to do part of that work is not the church using a method. The church is simply providing the money,.so that a human institution may decide what methods are used. “Method” refers to a form of action. A college is not a method (how), it is an organization (who) that will have to use methods to get the job done. If the church is sufficient, why cannot it arrange and oversee the methods (work) itself? God told the church to edify itself! To support a college to do, that work is to put a human institution between the church and the work it is to do, which is unnecessary and unauthorized. (I am assuming that all of us know the difference between donating money to an organization and buying a service or. product from an organization.)

Let us also understand that even “Christian colleges” are secular educational institutions. Most give courses in many phases of life, not just the Bible. Most of these are liberal arts colleges offering liberal arts degrees. They provide much of the same things that other colleges would (athletics, plays, etc.). The church’s work does not extend into these other areas. It is not for the church to provide secular education. Remember; the church’s work is spiritual! If some brethren still maintain that if a church supports a school it is simply using a method, then they have the church working to provide secular education, athletics, and all that goes with it!

Some .protest that these schools are doing a good work. Even if that be the case, that does not, mean they are authorized by God for the church to support. Hospitals do good works. Should churches be supporting them? The church is not under a blanket authorization to do good works. It was given specific works to be done. The individual Christian is to be ready to do good works, but there is a difference in what a Christian can do, as an individual, and what the church can do (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Tim. 5:16).

Let is be clearly understood that I have nothing against the right of a school with a Bible department to exist. I am glad that such do exist. I appreciate the good work that they do and that young people can receive Bible instruction while furthering their education. It is commendable that these schools try to maintain a good moral environment that cannot be found among other schools. Christians, as individuals, may join together in any legitimate business endeavor. The problem is not in their right to exist, whether Christians can operate them, or even whether individuals can support them, but whether a church can contribute money to them.

Let each congregation recognize its God given work and be zealous to accomplish it. Let us make sure that we are properly edifying ourselves and training the young and others so there will be qualified and able men and women to work in the Lord’s vineyard. Also let each congregation recognize its limitations of doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way and be fully determined to abide in the doctrine of Christ.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, p. 402
June 21, 1979

By Jack Kirby

Christians agree that drunkenness is sinful. Paul lists it as one of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Here it is clearly indicated that the impenitent drunkard “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The same apostle also declares that a local congregation is not to extend to nor maintain its fellowship with a drunkard. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). Therefore if, in facing the problem of the drinking of alcoholic beverages, the extent of it was drunkenness, then the solution is plainly set before us. There is more to the matter, however, than just drunkenness.

In the United States today, over sixty-five million persons above the age of twenty years use alcoholic beverages. Seven million of these are “problem drinkers” and three million are addicted to alcohol. One million are chronic alcoholics. Easily grasped is the idea that drinking is a problem which faces everyone of us – even those who are “tee-totalers.” Another aspect of the problem arises when we realize that the annual cost of America’s liquor bill is nearly $10,000,000,000. That is more money than all the people and institutions in our country spend in a year’s pursuit of educational and benevolent purposes.

Perhaps someone reading this has wrestled or is wrestling with this problem in a very personal way. The habit of drink has fastened itself upon you and you struggle to control the situation. Let it be understood now that the purpose in these remarks is not to cry “shame on you.” We face a problem here that involves all of us directly or indirectly, and therefore, I have no choice but to deal with that problem carefully and directly.

In some ways, it is hard to receive a fair hearing on the matter of drink. This is true because of the extreme thinking that prevails about the problem. Some feel that to discuss- drinking is infringing upon their personal liberties. Thus, because of these pre-conceived prejudices, and the obvious fact that the liquor industry-is “big business,” it becomes difficult to lead a group of people into such a frame of mind that the problem can be approached in a realistic fashion.

Drinking Is A Very Real Problem

Is it possible that any of us live so far removed from the world about us that we see no real danger? Do we feel that some excitable preachers are crying “Wolf!” when there is no wolf?

We cannot blink our eyes at the well-documented fact that drinking and, as a result, drunkenness is on the increase in this nation. The Yale School of Alcohol Studies leaves no doubt at this point. Alcoholics are increasing at the rate of fifty thousand a year. Problem drinkers (those who need a “bracer” two or three times during the course of a day) are growing at the rate of two hundred thousand a year. Not even the most fanatical supporter of a man’s right to drink can ignore the simple fact that, out of the million people killed in highway accidents, one-quarter of these died where liquor was directly involved. This figure does not include the number who were injured or maimed; nor can we translate the heartache and the heartbreak into numerals. Between one-fourth and three-fourths of the divorces obtained in this country have listed drinking as either the primary cause or a contributing factor.

When we view television, we receive the distorted impression that drinking is always pleasant, beneficial and good. When we open many of our major magazines, we immediately become acquainted when “men of distinction” wearing roses in their lapels. The impression is left that success and efficiency in business, the professions, and in personal relationships goes hand-in-hand with drinking. You are bound to succeed, provided you drink the right thing at the right time! This is another false impression.

The nature of the problem is impressed upon us by a survey conducted among college students. Two facts stand out: (1) Of those who drink, four out of five men and two out of three women began to do so before they entered college. This indicated that drinking originated in high school age groups. (2) The incidence of drinking among these students increased with each year that they spent in college. Thus, the habit of drinking is one that begins with young people. Any way you look at it, drinking (not just drunkenness) is a problem. In fact, it appears to be several different kinds of problems rolled into one. This is another reason why it is hard to get a fair hearing on the subject of beverage alcohol today. Will anyone deny that drinking is not a health problem? Can we say that the problem has no economic aspects? Is it not also a matter that concerns our law enforcement agencies? Yet, many will deny that drinking is a moral, religious problem! That simply means that some are saying: “It is my business if, when, where, and how much I drink.” Exactly at this point issue must be taken.

Alcohol is a naracotic that removes inhibitions. By releasing these inhibitions drinking makes for social ease and pleasure. Alcohol impairs reason, will, self-control, judgment, physical skill and endurance. Drink is used primarily for psychological effects as a means of escaping unpleasant reality. Are we to believe tha” beverage which does these things is not a maker of problems in human life? Shall we accept the idea that a thing which produces these results in our lives is not the concern of a Christian and of the church? Let us consider, briefly, these ideas, and see a few of the religious implications that are involved in them.

The Releasing of Inhibitions

Just what does this mean? An inhibition is an internally imposed curb on action; that curb is usually conscience, or it may be fear or dread produced by past experience. Some inhibitions bring shyness, cowardice, or other “unsocial” reactions. True, these need to be removed, or,at least to be managed if not removed. Other inhibitions are called “social control” and grow out of our environment, training and ideals. Thus, they constitute our standard of judgment and of values. But drinking removes or lowers all inhibitions both good and bad! The same power that can conquer shyness can also numb the conscience and encourage the breaking down of morality. It is entirely vain to argue that this is not a matter of concern to the church and to every Christian. If this is not a religious problem, there are none!

Drinking impairs reason, will, self-control, judgment, physical skill and endurance. What remains of a man when these qualities have been removed? The extent of the removal of these qualities depends upon the amounts of liquor which are consumed. But even “light” or moderate drinking can cause a man to be unfit for exacting physical and mental work. It is well known that much of the absenteeism in industry is due to the consumption of alcohol. It has been demonstrated by actual tests that drinking a cocktail or two makes it necessary for the driver to have six more feet to stop a car than he would need before drinking or without drinking. Men may say, “It is my business when I drink,” but if the child whose life is saved by that six feet is yours or mine, it becomes our business!

Alcohol is used as a means of escape from unpleasant realities. But such an escape from reality is temporary and can be achieved again only by another drink or by more drinking. Christian principles, when believed and followed in our lives, will enable us to face the realities of living and solve them permanently by the doing of God’s will. Dodging the facts of life is not a solution to them; nor does dodging remove the realities that are with us.

The Case For Total Abstinence

Some questions have been discussed for centuries. There is often a revival of interest in them. They need to be studied anew and often. Such is the question denoted by the heading of this section. This question should be studied in a manner as free from prejudice as possible. One should give due emphasis to “intellectual honesty.” He should not be swayed by popular opinion. What does the Bible teach?

Did First Century Christians Have The Right To Drink Moderately?

Those who take a dim view of “total abstinence” have one thing in common-they all try to construct a case from the New Testament showing that moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages was permitted in the first century. Almost without exception they use 1 Tim.5:23; Titus 2:3; and John 2:1-12. These, and some other passages, use the word “wine” in such a way as to indicate that Christians, on occasion, did drink it. They assume this was intoxicating wine. On this basis they try to construct a case of the Christian’s moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages with divine approval. They fail in their assumption that all wine was of alcoholic content. Was it?

The word wine (Greek, oinos) was a general word used to translate more specific Hebrew words. Sometimes it did mean wine of the intoxicating variety, but not always. Isa. 65:8: “Wine is found in the cluster.” There the word refers to the juice of grapes while they are still on the vine! Josephus (Antiquities, Bk. 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 2) tells of three clusters of grapes hanging from a vine, “and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink.” These are but two of numerous recorded historical uses of the word “wine” when it could not possibly refer to an intoxicant.

Furthermore, the wine with alcoholic content was not strong except in cases of “mixed wine.” Yeast, found in the hulls of the grapes, causes the fermentation of grape juice. When the alcohol content gets to approximately 14%, the alcohol kills the yeast and the process of fermentation stops. Many times the process is stopped early so that the alcohol content is far less than the maximum 14%. Canon Farrar says, “The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like sirups; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even diluted, but 4 or 5 per cent of alcohol.”

Some writers assume that there was no way of preserving the juice of the grape without fermentation in the first century. However, various ancient writers give different methods for so doing. The new Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary says, “Means for preserving grape juice were well known: Cato, De Agri Cultura, CXX has this recipe: `If you wish to have must (grape-juice) all year, put grapejuice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape-juice for a whole year.”‘

Thus, it is an unwarranted assumption to declare that all wines in New Testament days were alcoholic.

The Problem Of Social Drinking

In our society today, social drinking constitutes a very real problem. Functions are attended where alcohol is served; business relationships often involve drinking; thus, many people have come to feel that drinking is a complement to good business and to social contacts. It is here that the importance of example and of Christian influence must necessarily enter the picture. Like it or not, accept it or not, face it or not, we are responsible for the influence we exert on others. Paul faced this question of influence in Rom. 14. The individual may say, “I can drink, and control my drinking.” This may be very true. How about someone else who is weak, or young in faith or young in years, who may conclude from your example that drinking is good and, while you can control yourself, he cannot and goes into drunkenness? Will the influence of social drinking actually lead men to obey Christ? Sincerely, do you feel that the influence and the example are good for the young people? What will be-what is-the influence of the social drinker in the church of our Lord? Are those who continually engage in social drinking viewed by the world and by the church as among the most devoted, consecrated members of the body of Christ? Will they-should they-be chosen to serve as elders, deacons, or teachers for the instruction of the young people? These are questions that each one must answer from the depths of his heart before God. And the question of the influence of social drinking upon the children in a family cannot be lightly considered. A parent may never develop into an excessive or dangerous drinker but how about the children? They may grow up thinking that to drink is the way of culture, the way of refinement, and a part of a normal happy life; but will those children in their lives be just moderate drinkers? Young people are more vulnerable to the temptations of drink by the very nature of their immature development than the average adult. What example shall we set before them about the use of beverage alcohol? The church must face the responsibility that is here, as well as in other areas of life, and warn against the dangers of drinking.

Let us realize that no heavy drinker or drunkard-no alcoholic-ever deliberately started drinking to become that. Are not those today enslaved by alcohol the very people who began with the intention of reaping only the “benefits” of this narcotic? Are not they the very people who reasoned what liquor used in moderation could do for them forgetting at the same time what drinking would also do to them? You may be a potential alcoholic, though you have never taken that first drink. You may be a moderate drinker today who could become an alcoholic tomorrow. You cannot know where the use of alcoholic beverages may ultimately lead you; therefore the danger is a stark, terrible reality. Yet every one of us – and the young people can here heed especially – must face the possibility of what drink can do as they ask the question, “Shall I drink?”

It has been our intention to point out that drunkenness is sinful. There are dangers connected with drinking. The influence of social drinking is not good. Drinking alcohol is dangerous to the body and society as well as being sinful. We pray that each of us when confronted by the problem of drinking will determine by the help of God to chart that course which will not bring reproach upon the body of Christ, ourselves, and our families.

QUESTIONS

1. What scriptural proof do we have that drunkenness is sinful?
2. What obligations does the local congregation have towards the impenitent drunkard or impenitent social drinker who might be in their midst?
3. Are we infringing upon another ‘s liberties when we discuss and condemn drinking?
4. Other than the fact that there is scriptural proof that drunkenness is sinful, what other areas prove that drinking is a real problem?
5. Which of our faculties does drinking impair?
6. Can we justify social drinking by stating that one is able to control his drinking?
7. Does the word “wine” always refer to an intoxicating beverage? Give evidences to prove your answer.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 395-397
June 14, 1979

By Jerry Parks

Did you know that the Bible says absolutely nothing about shoplifting? But the Bible has much to say about thieves, -stealing, dishonesty, greed, selfishness, extortion, deception, covetousness and crime; principles which need to be taken into consideration when discussing our modern day term “shoplifting”. It is a crime punishable by law as well as a sin in the sight of God. Such a person is a thief. He or she is stealing, dishonest, greedy, covetous and selfish. Such a person is engaging in deception and extortion. This being the case, it is easy to see how an article on the subject of’ shoplifting fits into the general theme of morality.

I doubt if many of us realize the seriousness of this problem. Shoplifting is a serious problem from many standpoints. It is a social problem, it is an economic problem, but far more important, it is a spiritual problem. The Bible condemns stealing in no uncertain terms and those who do so are going to be lost if they do not repent and turn in obedience to God’s will.

To show you the relevance and reality of this matter, let me quote a few statistics. U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 28, 1977 says the following:

“Merchants this yuletide are bracing for a wave of shoplifting and employee theft that could easily exceed 1 billion dollars.

About 500 million dollars will be lost to light-fingered shoppers and another 600 million to pilfering employees this year, according to Gordon Williams of the National Retail Merchants Association. The total will be swollen by another 400 million spent by merchants on loss prevention.”

Time Magazine, Dec. 12, 1977 is an article entitled “There are 18 shoplifting Days till Christmas” also reports some interesting statistics:

“Shoppers who neglect to pay for their merchandise are criminals for all seasons, and their numbers are increasing at an alarming rate. The FBI reports more than 600,000 shoplifting arrests across the nation last year, nearly three times as many as in 1970, and the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates merchants’ losses from thefts in 1976 at some $8 billion.

You may have noticed that these statistics I have quoted are not the most current. If the losses are estimated at $8 billion for 1976, think what they must be for this past year! Let me also hasten to point out that the problem is not simply restricted to the poor or lower class Americans. It is to be found in every class of our society.

Why Are So Many Involved In This Crime?

This is an interesting question and deserves our attention. I believe there are a number of reasons why people decide to shoplift. Many from a psychological point of view, I would be totally unqualified to deal with. I am afraid, however, that many are too quick to label everyone who engages in this criminal pastime as simply being “psychologically maladjusted”.

A lady wrote to Ann Landers once, complaining about her husband bringing things home from work that did not belong to him. Ann replied by saying that she should take him to a psychiatrist because he was “sick”. They used to call such a one a ferry thief. Certainly there are some who are psychologically maladjusted, and a psychiatrist probably could help; but let us not forget that most of those who engage in such action are simply thieves and need to be identified as such.

But why are so many involved in this crime? Permit me to list a few of the more obvious reasons:

1. The tendency to rationalize: Those whom I have talked to about why they shoplifted, generally say, “The prices are too high”, or “The stores are trying to rip us off so why not?” or “Everyone else is doing it.” In other words, they are simply rationalizing their conduct. They are trying to convince themselves and others that there is nothing wrong with such conduct. Of course no amount of rationalizing will make something right that is inherently wrong to begin with. Stealing in any way, shape or form is wrong. It is sinful, and no amount of rationalizing will make it right. It was condemned in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. One of the ten commandments simply stated “Thou shalt not steal.” (Ex. 20:15). Jesus endorsed this commandment in Matt. 19:18, as did the apostle Paul in Rom. 13:9. Rationalizing will not remove or erase these verses from the Bible.

Such rationalizing begins early in life. Children will take money from Mother’s purse thinking, “She doesn’t need it,” or “She has so much she won’t miss this small amount.” Sometimes children will take something from a parent as a means of retaliation because the parent disciplined the child or told the child “no”. Sometimes parents will in a subtle way condone children taking things that do not belong to them. This is often done because parents have guilty feelings about not giving their children as much time and attention as they should. Stealing seems to have a great deal to do with the issue of entitlement- what a person feels is due him. Stealing or shoplifting, to such a one, is’ simply making up for something which is rightfully his, but which was denied because of life’s unfairness. These people say to themselves, “I have this coming to me.”

Usually, the person who steals thinks that, at some point in the past, something that belonged to him was taken away. Thus, the person who steals sees himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator of a theft. Often he feels victory rather than guilt when he has successfully stolen some article from a store.

Sometimes the motivation for such action is based on the fact that the victim is impersonal rather than personal. They wouldn’t think of robbing a man on the street, but if they take something from a big department store and get away with it, they feel they have simply beaten the “system”. All this is rationalizing, it is convoluted thinking and in no way justifies the act of stealing.

2. Covetousness: This word is defined as: “To wish for, especially eagerly; usually, to desire inordinately, or without due regard to the rights of others.” There can be no doubt about it, this describes a shoplifter in every detail. He has an inordinate desire for something and has no consideration for the rights of anybody else.

The Bible also condemns such an attitude. Jesus warned the multitude in Lk. 12:15, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” Paul described the condition of the Gentiles without the gospel in Rom. 1:29, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness.” A)1 one has to do is glance at a concordance to see the numerous warnings against the sin of covetousness. Shoplifting involves the sin of covetousness.

3. Sense of excitement: Some people will shoplift simply for “kicks”. They feel a sense of excitement from having “put one over” on their victim. Those with this attitude enjoy the risk. They are very much like the gambler who also plays the odds for the sake of the big win and are quite willing to take the risk. Usually, they are aware of the security systems, but feel they are far too smart or clever to be outdone by a store detective or a camera. Many feel that if they are caught, they can get out of it by simply saying “It was a mistake”. Shoplifters are usually quite daring. I heard of one lady who boasted that she had shoplifted a garbage can. An article in the Sept. 1977 issue of Nations Business described as experiment that was conducted in one grocery store trying to find out if people would report a shoplifter if they saw one in action. The store detective walked up to the poultry department and stuffed a turkey under his coat and walked out the door. One person who witnessed the crime, deciding not to be outdone, stuffed one under his coat and also walked out. Daring indeed!

3. Desperation: The reason we might logically attribute to one becoming a shoplifter is in reality very rare. Stealing or shoplifting has very little to do with poverty or the lack of basic necessities. So states Dr. James G. Blakemore, professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. This being the case, it becomes obvious that those who are saying that we can cure the ills of the world. by giving everyone more education and more money, simply do not-have the answer.

What Is The Solution?

We have already quoted from the U.S. News article stating that $400 million was spent last year on loss prevention. Certainly this will help deter some from shoplifting, but this alone is not the answer. There is an interesting article in the Dec. 1978 issue of Family Health dealing with “Mind Manipulation”. The stores under consideration are using soft background music, but it is mixed with the voice of a person softly whispering, “Be honest, do not steal”. The tape rolls on, “I am honest, I will not steal, if I do steal I will get caught and sent to jail.” The message remains basically the same, being repeated some 9000 times every hour. They say that prospective shoplifters walk out of the store scratching their heads wondering why they did not take what they intended. Hmmm! Is that the answer?

Let me suggest another alternative. Let’s take the gospel of Christ to men and women, boys and girls, and see if that doesn’t help. After all, it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Hebrew writer said it is sharper than any two edged sword (and I might add, any mind manipulating tape recorder). Paul said, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (Phil. 2:5). Let’s teach people the principles of righteousness contained in the word of God. Let’s teach our young people that sin is real and that the consequences of sin are real. That whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap, (Gal. 6:7). Let’s teach people that truth is not something relative, but that God has an absolute standard of morality. It is reasonable, logical, ethical and equitable. Let’s teach people about the glories of heaven. Certainly that ought to motivate people to want to do right. Let’s teach people what it means to be a Christian. The life of a Christian is satisfying, but not self indulgent. What makes life great, is to have something great to live for, and then to try to influence others to do the same. The Christian will learn to accept the authority of God; to be ruled by God’s will, not self will or man’s will. This is the whole message of the Bible.

Shoplifting, like so many other subjects covered in this series, is simply a symptom. The real problem is basic disregard for right and wrong, and the word of God that shows us the distinction between the two.

Self examination is difficult to practice. Rationalizing our conduct is extremely easy. Do not be deceived to think that stealing can be condoned. We will be judged by God’s word, and the Word forbids such conduct. Parents, do not be deceived by thinking that your children would never do such a thing. Teach them that such is wrong, and why it is wrong.

QUESTIONS

1. Does an action have to be specifically condemned in order to be wrong?
2. Is shoplifting a serious problem in our society?
3. Is there any particular class of people who are prone to be shoplifters?
4. What is the difference between a shoplifter and a thief?
5. Name three reasons why people shoplift.
6. What passages would condemn shoplifting?
7. What solutions have been advanced by those concerned about the problem of shoplifting?
8. What alternative is there to these solutions?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 393-394
June 14, 1979