Truth Magazine

By Randy Blackaby

Religion and politics  the two subjects you’ve always been advised never to discuss with your friends  are in great upheaval in America. .

And, despite the fact we’ve always been warned not to mix politics and religion, the upheavals in the two are occurring simultaneously.

There also are some parallels in the types of changes occurring in these two controversial and emotional realms.

In politics there is less and less distinction between the two predominate parties. Fewer people identify as Re-publican or Democrat and more and more declare themselves “independents.” And, more people simply have dropped out of the political process. Voter turnout is embarrassingly small for the leading democratic nation of the world.

Turning our attention to religion, we see the parallels. There is less and less difference between the major Catholic and Protestant faiths. Fewer people identify with any “church” and if they do, they are attracted to new churches that claim to be undenominational and free of doctrinal positions. Also, as in politics, fewer and fewer people actually go to worship  about 20% of Protestants and 28% of Catholics.

What do these trends and statistics mean? Do they mean Americans have lost interest in politics and religion? Some have so suggested.

But this hardly seems the case. The topics of the radio and TV talk shows, as well as the debates around the nation’s coffee tables suggest politics is alive and well.

The same is true of religion. While fewer and fewer people go to houses of worship, polls show 94% of Americans say they believe in God and 84% believe in a personal God with whom they can communicate via prayer.

The media finally seems to be taking some interest in religion, other than to ridicule and demean it. Psychiatry seems to be recognizing the positive role of religion in sound mental heath and more and more writing is dealing with the “spiritual” aspect of life.

Again, what does this all mean?

I don’t know all the answers, for sure. But Americans seem to be saying that traditional political parties have failed to convey public expectations to and through government. Discussions of third parties abound. And, the two major parties, fearing they may join the dinosaurs, are trying to revamp their positions and images.

Many of the mainline denominations which left the spiritual realm in past decades to address perceived social needs are finding their members going elsewhere to fill the spiritual void. Old denominations, losing members by the tens of thousands, are trying to survive by copying the tactics of the newer denominations.

What still seems unclear in both politics and religion, however, is whether we know what we are looking for. Both arenas seem more driven by emotion than reason. There is an absence of standards in both realms.

The Constitution and the law no longer are sacred in politics. They are deemed subject to constant change at the whim or fancy of politicians and public. And the same is true in religion. The Bible no longer is the standard of authority to most of the religions and there is no fear among most church-goers about changing God’s law to suit their own desires.

What the immediate results of these turbulent times will be is unclear. What politics and religion will look like as a new millennium dawns is yet unknown.

What should be clear to Christians is that teaching the doctrine and gospel of Christ is as needed as ever. Our mission is clear (Mark 16:15-16). A world is searching for truth, but doesn’t seem to know where to find it.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 1
September 19, 1996

By Ralph Joiner

The tour bus stopped in front of a huge, impressive office building, dominating everything else around it. Responses were immediate from the tour group. “Isn’t it magnificent,” whispered one man, spellbound. “Ugliest thing I ever saw,” opined another. “It’s simply beautiful,” one lady commented to her husband.

The tour guide raised his hand for silence, and began the spiel he had given hundreds of times. “This building was designed and its erection supervised by the great architect, Harold Lloyd Wright, and is representative of his work in the later years of his life.”

Every accolade was a tribute to Wright; every criticism an insult and offence to the man’s work and his memory. Those few who had no opinion of the building had no opinion of Wright. Other than his work of architectural design there was little about Wright to distinguish him from others millions who were his contemporary.

This is, if it is not already clear, intended to be analogous to Christ and his great work. A comparison that suffers through necessity, but an analogy nonetheless. When I first began preaching the gospel a third of a century ago, one of the most common criticisms I heard about the church was that we preached too much about the church and baptism. “Why don’t you just preach Jesus?” we were asked. “Preach the man, not the plan.” Little has changed. How truly did the wise man speak when he said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). Now, however, some of our preaching “brethren” have joined the sectarians in pleading a moratorium on preaching the “plan.” Like our denominational friends, they believe that “preaching the man, not the plan” is the answer to every problem hindering unity among “believers.” “If we just preach Jesus,” they contend, “there would not be so much division in the religious world.”

Now, an analogy is just an illustrative comparison. It doesn’t necessarily prove anything. But it should be apparent to anyone with a modicum of common sense that we cannot preach “the man”  we cannot preach Jesus  without drawing attention to that which gives us the motivation to preach him: our salvation. Jesus is declared to be “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb.12:2), or the “architect and perfecter of our faith” as it might be accurately translated. How can you “preach” the “architect” without praising his work? It is impossible. The “architectural design” of Jesus did not consist in just his existence; nor even of his earthly teaching, though, even if you allowed that to be your limit, you must, of necessity “preach the plan” for that was what Jesus personal minis-try was all about. “Preaching the man” involves not only preaching about Jesus  his virgin birth, his Deity, the miracles he worked, the prophecies he gave, the sin he rebuked, his death on the cross for our salvation  it includes preaching about the church he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28) to which the saved are added upon their obedience to the gospel (Acts 2:47), of which he is the Savior (Eph. 5:23), and which he will one day deliver up to God (1 Cor. 15:24). It includes telling lost sinners not only what Jesus has done but what they must do to have forgiveness for their sins, happiness in this life, and more in that eternal home that awaits the faithful. Did not Peter imply that the “plan” was available only through the “man” (2 Pet. 1:3)? In the same way, when “the plan” is preached, Jesus must be taught as the “author and finisher” of that plan. If Jesus is not everything the word of God declares him to be not only was he the greatest charlatan the world has ever seen, but “the plan” is useless and its teaching and application are exercises in futility. Paul aptly described such when he wrote, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor 15:19). As a building draws attention to its designer, so the “plan” of salvation, and all it encompasses, draws attention to Christ who accomplished it.

Brethren, it is not an either/or situation. The “man” and the “plan” are not mutually exclusive; they are complements to one another. One does not obviate the other. The “plan” without the “man” would leave us with a gospel that is impotent, not “God’s power unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The “man” without the “plan” would leave us in a spiritual maze, not knowing which way to turn to get the prize at the end.

Sunday morning, when I preached a lesson on marriage, I preached the “man” and the “plan.” Sunday evening when I extolled the all sufficiency of the Scriptures, I taught the “man” and the “plan.” May God give me the courage, the wisdom, and the strength to always preach both, for one is powerless without the other. May I always be able to say with Paul, “. . . I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). Only then may I, with all the exuberance of that faithful saint proclaim, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 19-20
September 5, 1996

By Randy Blackaby

More and more young Christians are going to dances. Fewer parents stop them from doing so. And despite sex education that begins in kindergarten, nearly everyone feigns ignorance about what’s wrong with dancing.

Are parents and children really this lacking in under-standing? Do we really fail to see the impact of males and females moving together in close embrace or gyrating be-fore one another to the beat of seductive music? Are we blind to how some dance movements imitate the motions of the sex act itself?

Impudent or offended voices demand, “Show me in the Bible where it says not to dance!” Does the Bible say all dancing is sinful? Well, actually, no it doesn’t. Jephthah’s daughter danced alone (Judg. 11:34). You fmd Jewish women dancing alone in celebration (Exod. 15:20-21). More women are mentioned dancing alone in Judges 21:19. There are women recorded as dancing in celebration of King David’s victory (1 Sam. 18:6). David himself danced before the ark of God (2 Sam. 30:16). The Bible mentions a group of soldiers dancing (1 Sam. 30:16). Solomon recognized a time for dancing, in contrast with a time for mourning (Eccl. 3:4). The prophet foretells a time when joyous dancing will be the result of God’s work (Jer. 31:13). Dancing even appears to have been a form of praise to God in Old Testament times (Pss. 149:3; 150:4). Dancing was part of the celebration upon the return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:25).

So, if women want to dance with one another in celebration, we probably ought to be silent about it. If male soldiers gleefully dance and shout over a victory, no condemnation likely is needed.

But notice in all the Bible’s condoned accounts of dancing that males and females didn’t dance together. The purpose of the dancing was celebration or praise or even worship of God. In these dances, as contrasted with the dance of Herodias’ daughter (Matt. 14:6), there was no sexual element.

It is true that the Bible doesn’t say “thou shalt not dance.” But in Galatians 5:19-21 licentiousness or lasciviousness is condemned. These words describe behavior of any sort that exhibits a lack of restraint, indecency, unchastity, lewdness, or shameless behavior.

The same verses also condemn “revelry,” or partying accompanied by drinking, a common addendum at places of dancing.

Is it really that difficult to see that most of today’s dancing is designed to arouse emotions and physical reactions which God tells us to control and utilize only within the circle of marriage?

Ask yourself, what really is the purpose of men and women, boys and girls dancing together?

Curt Sachs, writing in World History of Dance, describes dancing as an art form to ex-press love-malting. For this reason the steps and positions are designed to bring into physical contact those parts of a man and woman which are most sexually sensitive. Movements are de-signed to be visually stimulating sexually.

The Bible doesn’t condemn a man dancing with his wife in the privacy of their home. But it does condemn “lusting” after a woman. It forbids committing fornication or adultery. So, it would seem ludicrous to participate in an act with someone not your spouse that would arouse the very feelings that lead to all three of these sins.

Can a person go to a dance if he or she doesn’t dance? Answer this question by deciding whether Jesus would show up there for any purpose other than giving a stern condemnation. Whether it is righteous to dance or not is an issue, like smoking, drug use, or playing the lottery, that must be decided on general principles of righteous conduct enumerated in Scripture.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 15
September 5, 1996

By Irvin Himmel

Following the death of Saul there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. Abner, who had commanded Saul’s army, made Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, king as a rival of David. Eventually, David was recognized as the lawful ruler over all the tribes. Some resentment against David lingered.

The story of Shimei is told in 2 Samuel 16:5-13; 19:16-23; and 1 Kings 2:8-9, 36-46. This little-known Bible character is a rather interesting man. His actions and the reactions by David and Solomon reflect the conditions in Israel in the days of the United Kingdom and remind us of problems confronting ancient monarchs. There are lessons for us as well.

Shimei the Slanderer

David and his loyal supporters found it necessary to flee Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion. They made their way eastward to the Mount of Olives and on to the Jordan, eventually reaching Mahanaim. Not far from the Mount of Olives they came to Bahurim in Benjamite territory. It was there that Shimei, son of Gera, came forth and cursed David. He threw stones at David and his servants, yelling, “Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial.” Shimei asserted that the Lord had returned upon David the blood of the house of Saul. He felt that David was responsible for the overthrow of Saul’s rule. He may have supposed that David had something to do with the deaths of Saul and his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, as well as the deaths of Ishbosheth and Abner. He further considered the rebellion of Absalom as a means of David’s being taken in his own mischief. To the partisan mind of Shimei, David was a bloody man.

Abishai, David’s nephew and one of his captains, asked the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord, the king?” He wanted to go over and lop off Shimei’s head. David felt that this cursing might be a part of David’s own punishment for the sins he had committed, so he said, “Behold, my son . . . seeketh my life: how much more now may this Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him.” David felt that he must bear affliction, and he looked to the Lord to repay good for evil. So Shimei continued along the way, cursing as he went, throwing stones, and casting dust.

Shimei took advantage of David’s humiliating situation. He vented his hatred for the king. He was of the family of the house of Saul, clearly in sympathy with Saul’s house, angry that someone from the tribe of Judah was ruling, and happy that David’s son Absalom was attempting to over-throw the king. David showed remarkable composure under these trying circumstances. Abishai would gladly have cut off Shimei’s head if David had just given the word.

Shimei the Spared Sinner

After Absalom was killed and his revolt ended, David began the journey from Mahanaim, east of Jordan, back to Jerusalem. At the Jordan he was met by Shimei the Benjamite, and with him there were a thousand men of Benjamin. Shimei is not cursing and calling David ugly names, nor throwing stones and kicking up dust. He falls down before the king and pleads for mercy. He confesses, “I have sinned.” Doubtless he wanted to impress David that he was a man of considerable influence by bringing a thousand men with him. He knows his life is in the hands of the king.

Abishai, brother of Joab, asks, “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed?” Abishai and Joab were quick to settle all matters with the sword! David grew a bit weary with them at times.

At the moment David was more interested in healing and bringing the people together than he was in putting someone to death. He said to Shimei, “Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him.” David had been through some very difficult days and longed for peace. He wanted his return to Jerusalem to be a time of rejoicing, not a day of vengeance.

Shimei the Self-Convinced

When David was old and about to go the way of all earth, he spoke to his son Solomon, the new king, about Shimei. When Shimei had blasphemed the Lords anointed, that was a serious affair. David had spared his life under oath, but now the matter was in Solomons hands. David advised Solomon not to regard him as guiltless, but to do with him according to what might be considered wise.

Solomon called for Shimei, instructed him to build himself a house in Jerusalem, and not to leave the city. This would kep him under surveillance and away from the other Benjamites. He was warned that if he left the city, “Thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” Shimei acknowledge, “The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do.” Solomon was giving Shimei a place of refuge in the city that was Israel’s pride. If Shimei would abide by the king’s instructions, he could live out his days in peace.

Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem for three years. Then two of his servants ran away to Gath. Shimei did a very foolish thing. Instead of petitioning the king for permission to seek those servants, or arranging for someone else to being them back, he saddled his ass and went to Gath in person and brought back the servants. He risked his life for the sake of regaining two runaway slaves. Perhaps he thought that Solomon’s oath would be forgot-ten after all this time. Maybe he supposed he could slip away, bring back his servants, and the king would never know about it. Before we judge him too harshly, let us be reminded that people act in an equally sense-less manner today. Many throw off divine restraints and violate the will of God. They suppose that their deeds will go undetected by the King of heaven. They risk their souls for earthly possessions.

Solomon learned of Shimei’s violation of his agreement. He reminded him that he had sworn by the Lord to remain in Jerusalem. “Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord, and the commandment that I have charged thee with?” Solomon declared that “the Lord shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head.” Shimei stood self-condemned. He had admitted that Solomon’s agreement with him was good. He had nothing to plead in self-defense.

Acting upon orders from King Solomon, Benaiah fell upon Shimei that he died. Despite David’s leniency toward him, and Solomon’s allowing him to live in peace provided he would remain in Jerusalem, Shimei sealed his own fate. Many today are given marvelous opportunities by the mercy and grace of God, but they, like Shimei, play the fool.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 6-7
September 19, 1996