FSTDT

Wayne Jackson #fundie christiancourier.com

Religion is Godward-directed attitude and action. It is the divine system whereby estranged humanity may be reconciled to their Heavenly Father.

It is tragic that so many people labor under the delusion that merely being “moral” represents the totality of human responsibility. It does not. Man must be correctly religious as well; morality is included in religion, but it does not exhaust it. There are numerous forms of religious evil.

First, dismissing God from one’s life is an evil common to infidels and apostates alike. In a passage addressed particularly to those on the verge of abandoning Christianity, an inspired writer warned:

“Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in falling away from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).

Observe the connection between the words we have emphasized.

Second, a refusal to accept the evidence regarding the nature of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice reflects a mentality that is evil. In chapter one of the Gospel of John, we are informed of the work of John the Baptizer, whose mission was to prepare the way for the coming Christ (John 1:6-8).

Our Lord, in this context, is symbolically portrayed as “the light” who purposed to provide illumination for this world of darkness. Later, however, the apostle declared that most men have rejected that light and loved darkness instead, the reason being, “for their works were evil.”

Again, “Every one that practices evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his works should be reproved” (John 3:19-20).

Third, perversion of God’s truth concerning the divine plan of redemption is a form of religious evil. In the first century there were certain Judaizers who contended that the Gospel system alone was insufficient to save. They argued that the Mosaic regime (circumcision in particular) was a requisite to forgiveness of sins (Acts 15:1ff.).

Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians, alluded to such false teachers when he warned: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision [a word-play on ‘circumcision’ — WJ]” (3:2).

Here is the important principle that may be deduced: any alteration (whether by addition, subtraction, or modification) of Heaven’s requirements for salvation is evil in the sight of God.In view of such passages as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, and others, those in the current religious community who advocate the dogma of “salvation by faith alone,” i.e., without obedience, should seriously reconsider their position.

Fourth, a corruption of Jehovah’s ordered pattern of worship is a manifestation of evil. When Jeroboam assumed the role of northern Israel’s new king, he proceeded to revise the Hebrew system of worship. Golden calves were set up at Bethel and Dan, an unauthorized feast-day was instituted, and a new, non-Levitical priesthood was appointed (1 Kings 12:25ff). This novel program of worship was that which the king “had devised of his own heart” (v. 33).

More than twenty times, the inspired narrative of the Old Testament record speaks of the sins of Jeroboam “who sinned, and made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16). Even though Jeroboam was rebuked by a prophet of the Lord (whose message was confirmed by a divine sign — 1 Kings 13:1-6), his “penitence” was short-lived, for, as the sacred narrative reveals, “after this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way ...” (13:33).

Any attempt to worship God apart from divine authority, regardless of one’s sincerity, is a form of evil.

Wayne Jackson #fundie christiancourier.com

To make a special class of social evil may be rather arbitrary; nevertheless, we make the distinction for the purpose of this study.

Slavery is an example of societal evil. It was never the ideal will of God that one human being should “own” another. Regardless, slavery was a part of the fabric of the antique world, and the Old Testament sought to regulate it and minimize its harshness.

The Hebrews acquired slaves in two ways. First, they frequently made
war-captives their slaves. Second, since property was a family inheritance and could not be sold, a poor Hebrew needing finances would sometimes sell himself into servitude.

It must be observed, however, that the treatment of servants, as regulated by the Old Testament, was far superior to the antebellum slavery of southern America. Slaves, under the Mosaic law, had civil, domestic, and religious rights. If a man killed his slave, he could lose his life; if he maimed a servant, the bonded one was to be set free. Slaves were frequently treated as family members, afforded certain liberties, and even shared in the religious life of the Jewish community. A Hebrew slave who had indentured himself was to be released after six years of service (see Tenney, pp. 453ff.).

The slavery of the first century Roman world was quite a different matter. It was extremely barbarous. It has been estimated that there were some 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire; they were considered a constant threat to governmental authorities. In Rome’s view, a slave was not a person, but a thing. He could be beaten, branded, or crucified.

Many have wondered why the New Testament writers did not boldly condemn this horrible institution. In the first place, it was not the essence of the Christian religion to precipitate a violent revolution — and that is what would have happened if the cry, “Emancipation!” had gone forth.

Rather, it was in the nature of the teaching of Jesus to provide a leavening influence that would enter the hearts of humanity and initiate a disposition of equality respecting human rights, which, in time, would reveal the evil of human bondage. The “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12) strikes at the very heart of this matter. William Barclay’s discussion of slavery, in the introduction to his commentary on the book of Philemon, is a masterpiece in addressing this theme.

Wayne Jackson #homophobia christiancourier.com

The Plague of Perversion

One of the most potentially devastating movements to evolve from the environment of human degeneracy in recent decades is the so-called “Gay Movement.” The homosexual “lifestyle,” with considerable support from the entertainment industry, and significant publicity from the news media, is a growing phenomenon.

No longer content to practice their perversion behind closed doors, homosexuals have moved into the mainstream of society and are flaunting their immorality in the most extravagant ways imaginable. Marching in “Gay Pride” parades, they thrust lewdness in the faces of men, women, and children alike. Their agenda has no limits.

They are demanding their full “human rights” which, according to them, include the right to hold influential governmental positions, the right to teach in schools, the right to “marry,” and the right not to be “discriminated against” in any job. Huge corporations have capitulated to the powerful gay-rights lobby, and even cities (such as San Francisco) have caved in to this movement so that private businesses have been forced to acknowledge “civil unions.” Now, “gay marriage” is in their nation-wide agenda as they await the snail-paced process of legal review on a state-by-state basis.

The very fact that so many within our country have taken a tolerant—even sympathetic—view of this perverted movement, ought to be a danger signal to every moral-minded person in the United States.

[...]

The Matter of Rights

The contention is frequently made these days that sexual preference is entirely a private affair. We are told that what homosexuals do is their business. Those who fancy themselves as broadminded intellectuals allege that the “rights” of all must be protected. There are several things wrong with this reasoning:

First, the “gays” are pushing for public acceptance of their conduct. They want to teach in public schools, etc. Do parents have any rights? As a parent I have the right to expect that my children will receive their education from reasonably moral people. Should those who champion incest and bestiality be denied their “rights” to teach children?