The world as we know it is in a state of utter chaos. It has embarked on a sickening rampage of self-destruction. Governments around the globe are dedicating themselves to a coercive agenda of humanism and secularism. This move is eroding the foundations of society, and draining its life-blood. Absolute moral devastation is the inevitable result. A shocking characteristic of this phenomenon is that “civilized” Western nations have taken their position at the spearhead of the campaign.

It would be difficult to find a better example of this catastrophe than recent happenings regarding the church of God in Germany. After waiting for five months and two days for a decision from the Regierungspraesidium Stuttgart, Baden Wuerttemberg-Abteilung Schule und Bildung, on an application for government acceptance of our private Christian school, we received on February 9, 2010, a shocking denial of our application. This denial came in spite of the fact that for thirteen years our school had operated very successfully with the tacit agreement of the government. Graduates of our school passed final state examinations with honors and made smooth transitions into the professional world.

Appalling religious discrimination and denegation of religious freedom constituted the main thrust of the letter. It was a blatant attack on the inherent right of children to security and success through the guidance of their parents (to whom they were ultimately entrusted) and the guidance of God–their Creator. From the letter emerges an alarming drive for state control of our children, by a move to forcibly wrench them out of God-ordained parental jurisdiction, and transplant them into a “self-dependence” far beyond their capacity to deal with as children. After all, there is not a single government on earth (however capable and powerful) that was endued with the ability to bear children. Furthermore, there has never been among the billions of this world even one child that was enabled to single-handedly and successfully decide his life’s course. This leads us to the logical and very elementary conclusion that parents were meant to preside over the affairs of their children until they are in a state to do so themselves.

According to the letter of denial from the department of education, requiring obedience of our children inhibits their development of individuality and personal identity. By impregnation of society with this mentality, children are spurred to disrespect their parents, teachers, and fellowmen in general, as well as values and principles that serve as indispensable building blocks of any successful civilization. In fact, obedience is the only preventative measure for anarchy and revolution.

By impeding the free course of biblical belief and practice, government officials are actively promoting ideological coercion. While Germany is a prime example of anti-religious civilization (more properly barbarity), the entire world is falling prey to a move of secularization of society to the exclusion of God from the schools, homes, and lives in general of humanity.

It is utterly ridiculous that education officials mentioned hairstyles and dress of our students (that were normal just a century ago) as argumentation to deny rights to a private school! What underlines the absurdity of this reasoning is that enrollees of German state schools are permitted the most bizarre hairstyles, dyes, and clothing imaginable. Students in public schools are being subjected daily to sexual exploitation through the clothes (or lack of them) of their fellow classmates, the themes and contents of their textbooks, and the overall absence of moral values.

As we retrospect the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, we are awe-struck at the demonstration of absolute control of the masses; we shudder at the inconceivable sway of power and are horrified at the ghastly scenes of atrocity, all of which characterized western Europe. Even Germany itself decries its history of this era. It is of paramount importance to realize that what set the stage for these events was the undermining, and eventual obliteration of religion and religious freedom. It was this that allowed for the persecution of religion and its professors. More precisely said, it was this that paved the way for the creation of death camps like Auschwitz and Dachau. And it is the very same ban of religion, which is allowing for the repetition of history in the same essence of National Socialist thought, only in the Germany of 2010! The accommodation of religion is a prerequisite for the stability of German society in general, as religion is an indispensable and vital component of Germany’s social fabric. The memories of the thirties and forties are to stand as memorials of infamy, the sight of which should forever preclude their re-occurrence.

Whatever happened to the fundamental understanding that diversity of society undergirds national strength? There is grave danger in homogenization of society–the permeation of the public with a single, prevailing, all-pervading frame of mind. The regime of Joseph Stalin and of communist China are examples of the implementation of this ideology. In fact, these infamous regimes are mirrored by the perpetration of the same ideals in present-day Germany.

In this modern society, the state is attempting a coup d’état on God. Atheism and humanism are rampant. The resulting immorality is drowning children and teenagers in a swirling vortex of crime, moral pollution, and acute identity crisis. Schools have turned into every day crime scenes and even massacre sites. Teachers are commonly known to succumb to nervous exhaustion and mental burnout syndrome (if they survive school shootings). An article in the German publication Stern (May 28, 2009), provided shocking coverage under the title “Kampfplatz Hauptschule” (Battlefield Middle School).

With the ideology of relative values, there cannot be anything that is really wrong. The secularized, humanistic state is giving mere children the prerogative to question and criticize anything and everything–even fundamental self-evident truths. Provided all is up for questioning and criticism, there remain no valid grounds to label genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or any other killing of or interfering with human life as wicked or even undesirable. It was the same framework of relativity of values and undermining of biblical principles which so effectively enabled Nazi leaders to practice racial extermination and other heinous crimes, while being adored as honorable leaders of the German nation.

In conclusion, we must realize that we are faced with radically aggressive invasion of basic and vital rights. Religion and the freedom to practice it have received the death sentence. The outlook of the future bespeaks calamity for Christians. However, our confrontation with these anti-religious powers is nothing new. We, as true Christians, have withstood the onslaught of governments and times for centuries and have always prevailed. We will continue to prevail until the end of time itself, for God always leads His people to victory.

Share

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.” Titus 2:11, 12.

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” James 1:27; 4:4.

We see by these scriptures that we are not to be conformed to the world. What we need to know, then, is what conformity to the world is. Far too many people are anxious to tout about what it isn’t. The great need is for those who can tell us what it is.

Paul makes his appeal against worldliness pressing in his letter to Titus. The grace of God teaches us to deny worldly lusts – the same grace that brought us salvation. This grace has appeared to all men, but how – Through preachers:
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14).
But where are the preachers today who are teaching how to abstain from worldly lusts? This is the urgent need of the hour. How can one teach this if they do not have some conception of what worldliness is? If I am to have pure religion by, among other things, keeping myself unspotted from the world, I must needs have some comprehension of what the term “the world” entails. If I am not to love the world, I need to have some understanding of what constitutes “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Obviously, if I do not understand what is involved in worldliness, these scriptures are unintelligible to me.

If my idea of the world takes no specific theological shape, then my concept of worldliness is nebulous and relative. But if, as James says, to be a friend of the world is to be in enmity with God, and to have the love of the world means to be void of the love of God, dare I take the risk by accepting a relative view of worldliness?

There is an attitude among liberal religionists today that the person who dares to preach against certain things, whether dress or actions, is fanatical and out of harmony with the Spirit of Christ. But, as we see by our opening texts, even our apostolic forefathers were very concerned with the subject of worldliness. The liberals, then, are first of all incorrect in their assessment of those who preach against worldliness, and are themselves out of harmony with the Spirit of Christ.

We have heard and have read a lot of explaining away by people with roots in the Church of God Reformation movement. They dismiss the standards and simplicity of the pioneer brethren as legalism, attributing their conservative views to rural American revivalism, prevalent at that time. Is there a single one of those who advocate such a view that is able to preach against worldliness today? Are they able to define it for us? Do some of the more honest ones not admit that a general drift has pervaded their own movement, and that they are concerned about some things?

In the book As the River Flows, John A. Morrison, first president of Anderson Bible College (now Anderson University), dismisses the earlier views of the pioneer brethren and compares them to Pharisees. He argues that the movement had become fanatical in its interpretations of worldliness and adoption of ascetic principles. Is this a fair comparison? Or is it a misrepresentation of the facts? Let us see Jesus Himself defined what constitutes a Pharisee in Matthew 23. Let us highlight the points. A Pharisee is one who:

1. Does not practice what he preaches (vs. 3).
2. Puts grievous burdens on the shoulders of others, but will not carry them himself (vs. 4).
3. Does his works to be seen of men (vs. 5).
4. Loves to have the most attention and to be praised with honorable titles (vs. 6, 7).
5. Refuses to get true salvation, and shuts up the way for others to get it (vs.13).v 6. Seeks to extort money from those who have none (vs. 14).
7. Makes long prayers to impress those listening (vs. 14).
8. Goes out of his way to win someone over to his own view, but in doing so makes him doubly more the child of hell (vs. 15).
9. Magnifies the worth of money and prosperity more than spiritual things (vs. 16-18).
10. Has a form of godliness, but omits the most important things – judgment, mercy and faith (vs. 23).
11. Outwardly appears righteous, but inwardly is full of iniquity (vs. 25-28).
12. Builds monuments to the prophets whose influence was cut off by his own progenitors, but will not live to that preached by those prophets (vs. 29-30).
13. Is a serpent and a viper (vs. 33).

Now, pray tell, of which of these points were the pioneer brethren guilty? Those who are acquainted with their writings and teachings know positively that they did not overemphasize the outward to the neglect of the inward. Did they extort money from the poor? For all of their high dress standards and morals, were they inwardly full of iniquity? Did they omit judgment, mercy and faith? Did they love the titles and praises of men? Did they shut up the way of salvation against souls?

What the pioneers did endeavor to do was to define the scriptures in language that could be understood and was intelligible to mankind. For this they cannot be faulted. In so doing, they came far closer to the mark of obeying the scriptures than their modern-day progenitors who throw standards to the wind of human whim and individualism, praising the pioneers but not living to what they preached. But the work that the pioneers accomplished bore fruit, and good fruit at that.

Anderson College Press should have been ashamed back then to publish such glaring hypocritical analysis from Mr. Morrison. He was himself originally saved under those radical, anti-worldly pioneers on whom he finds it so easy to apply the Pharisaical epithet. Yet, he was himself a foremost proponent in adopting some of the very things that characterizes a Pharisee, i.e. love of lauding titles (Reverend, Doctor of Divinity), etc. There are many such books as Mr. Morrison’s circulating in Church of God circles these days. Almost without exception they praise the sweeping reform the pioneers set in motion while at the same time decrying what they deem as their narrow-mindedness.

Let us put the matter before the reader plainly. If worldliness is not inherent in certain fashions, customs, practices, and places, then pray tell what it is. Do you condemn as legalists those who preach that the wearing of jewelry embodies worldliness? Whatever do you do with such scriptures as the following:
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” I Tim. 2:9
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.” I Pet. 3:3.
Do you wear gold? Do you wear pearls? Are you concerned with having fine and fashionable clothes? If the answer is yes, you have some very serious explaining to do. It is one thing to criticize those who preach against things that you consider as gray areas, but these scriptures mention things in black and white. If you cannot obey the Word in these littlest things, then you haven’t spiritual discernment enough to know what worldliness isn’t, nor the authority to pass judgment on those who are obeying the little things. The saints of this restoration have taken a lot of criticism for their stand on separation from the world and their interpretation of worldliness. We have been called the “right-wing Church of God” and have been accused of living in the past and putting “time in a bottle.” But we do not dress the way we do or refrain from certain things just because the pioneer brethren did so. We aren’t living in the past. We do, however, see worldliness through the scriptures and seek to define it in present-day terms. We see the fruit separation from the world produced in the Evening Light Reformation, and it is producing the same fruit today.

We dare say that most ministers today aren’t worthy to claim the pioneer brethren as their predecessors. They were brave men and women who preached against sectism and worldliness, at times to the very peril of their lives. Those who claim to follow in the spirit of their footsteps won’t even preach what few convictions they do have today, for fear of offending their congregations or losing their salaried positions. It is wrong to praise the pioneers for their heroic valor and then to decry the very things that inspired that valor.

We exhort all souls claiming their roots in the Evening Light Reformation to take an honest look at themselves and the spiritual conditions of the movement they are in. When is the last time you heard a message on worldliness? Does the term “worldliness” mean anything to you? Do the scriptures quoted above mean something specific to you? Do they stir within your soul a great carefulness in living for God? Do the preachers you sit under define things for you? Does the evangelist’s wife obey the Word in all things, not adorning herself with jewelry and fashionable clothes? And how about the pastor’s wife? Are you a friend of the world? Has your movement tried to marry the things of the world and the things of God? What about that so-called “Christian rock” concert your church recently supported? Or the “country music” karaoke at the recent graduation party? Ah, souls, do not shame the name of God’s church by such adulterant practices!

We have the Word of God in the English language for a reason. Let us read it, obey its precepts, preach it, interpret it with the help of the Holy Ghost, and keep ourselves unspotted from the world. It will produce the same effect that it did for the pioneers. If there is any doubt, we invite all souls to come see what the Lord is doing in this present restoration.

By D. Eichelberger

Share

Consider this report (1820) by William Patton. The term “alcoholic” is not used. He uses the Bible term, “drunkard.” The Bible does not recognize drunkenness as a sickness, but as sin. The drunkard is listed in scripture with thieves, liars, extortioners, murderers, etc., as being in danger of God’s judgment in hell unless he repents. Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10. God will never consign a person to hell for being sick. Therefore the matter of drunkenness, and that which leads to drunkenness, becomes a very serious matter. Here is his report:

I found that all Bible passages where wine or drinking is mentioned, fall under three headings: a) where wine is merely mentioned, b) where it is spoken of as a cause of misery and the emblem of eternal wrath, c) where it is a blessing along with grain.

I began to wonder if the Bible makes reference to two kinds of wine. Such is indeed the case. I shared my findings with Professor Seixas, an eminent Hebrew teacher. He took my manuscript, and a few days later returned it with the statement, “Your discriminations are just. They denote that there indeed are two kinds of wine.” I have since learned much from others who have come to the same conclusion. I ran into much opposition from those who believe that all mention of wine in the Bible is to intoxicating wine, but here are a few counter-statements:

Dr. Ure, in his Dictionary of Arts, says: “Juice when newly pressed from grapes, and before it has begun to ferment is called must, and in common language new wine.”

Rees’ Cyclopedia: “Sweet wine is that which has not yet worked or fermented.”

Noah Webster: “Wine, the fermented juice of grapes…Must, wine, pressed from the grape, but not fermented.”

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible “The wine was sometimes preserved in its unfermented state and drunk as must…Very likely new wine was preserved in the state of must by placing it in jars or bottles, and then burying it in the earth.”

These authorities make it clear that there were, indeed, among the ancients, two kinds of wine, the fermented and the unfermented.

Fermentation

The laws of fermentation are fixed laws, always operating in the same way, and always and everywhere requiring the same conditions.  Lardner’s Cyclopedia says:

“1. There must be saccharine (sugar) matter and gluten (yeast).

“2. The temperature should not be below 50 degrees nor above 70 or 75 degrees.

“3. The juice must be of a certain consistency. Thick syrup will not undergo vinous fermentation. Too much sugar is not favorable for the process, and on the other hand too little sugar, or, which is the same thing, too much water, will be deficient in the necessary quantity of saccharine matter to produce a liquor that will keep, and for want of more spirit the vinous fermentation will almost surely turn to vinegar.

“4. The quantity of yeast or ferment must also be well regulated. Too much or too little will impede and prevent fermentation.”

Others confirm these statements. The indispensable conditions for vinous fermentation are the right proportions of sugar, of yeast, and of water, with the temperature of the air ranging between 50 and 75 degrees.

We see therefore that the process of fermentation is not a natural one. Chaptal, the eminent French chemist, says, “Nature never forms spirituous liquors; she rots the grape upon the branch; but it is art which converts the juice into (alcoholic) wine.”

Fruits Preserved

[Before there was refrigeration]

As grapes and other fruits were such an important part of the food of the ancients, they would, by necessity, invent methods for preserving them fresh. Josephus, the first century historian, in his Jewish Wars, book VII, ch. VIII, s. 4, makes mention of Herod’s fortress in Israel, called Masada, “For here was laid up grain in large quantities, enough to enable an army to survive for a long time: here was also wine and oil in abundance, with all kinds of herbs, vegetables and dates heaped up together. These products were also fresh and full ripe, and in no way inferior to such fruits newly laid in, although they had been there almost 100 years.”

In a footnote William Whiston, the translator, says: “Pliny (AD 27-79) and others confirm this strange paradox, that provisions laid up against sieges will continue good for 104 years, as Spanheim also notes upon this place.” Such facts regarding long preservation of fruit and other food are confirmed by many other historians.

Swinburn says, “In Spain they also have the secret for preserving grapes sound and juicy from one season to another.”

E. C. Delevon states that when he was in Florence, Italy, “Signor Pippine, one of the largest wine manufacturers, told me that he at that time had in his lofts, for the use of his own table, until the next harvest, a quantity of grapes sufficient to make 100 gallons of wine; that grapes could always be had, at any time of the year, to make any desirable quantity; and that there was nothing in the way of obtaining the fruit of the vine free from fermentation in wine countries at any period. A large basket of grapes was sent to my lodgings, which were as delicious, and looked as fresh, as if recently taken from the vines, though they had been picked for months.”

Fermentation Prevented

Professor Donovan, in his writing on domestic economy, mentions three methods by which all fermentation can be prevented:

“1. Grape juice will not ferment when the air is completely excluded from it.

“2. The juice may be boiled, thereby evaporating the water. The substance thus becomes a syrup, which if very thick will not ferment.

“3. If the juice is filtered and deprived of its gluten; or yeast, the production of alcohol will be impossible.” —Anti-Bacchus, p. 162.

Also, if the juice is kept below 45 degrees (in water or underground) it will not ferment.

Four methods were used by the ancients to keep their new wine from fermenting:

Boiling and Thickening

By this process the water is evaporated, thus leaving so large a portion of sugar that fermentation is prevented. “By boiling, the juice of the richest grape loses all of its aptitude for fermentation, and may afterwards be preserved for years without undergoing any further change.” —Elements of Chemistry, Herman Boerhave.

Liebig says, “The natural law causing organic substances to pass into a state of decay is annihilated in all cases by heating to the boiling point.” The grape juice boils at 212 degrees; but alcohol evaporates at 170 degrees, which is 42 degrees below the boiling point. So then, if any possible portion of alcohol was in the juice, this process would expel it. All yeast, which would cause fermentation, is also destroyed by boiling. The obvious object of boiling the juice was to preserve it sweet and fit for use during the year. The boiling continued for several hours until ¼ to ½ of the water had boiled away. Water was later added to the syrup when the host desired to serve new wine.

Some of the celebrated Opimian wine, mentioned by Pliny had, two centuries after its production, the consistency of honey. Professor Donovan says, “In order to preserve their wines to these ages, the Romans concentrated the must or grape juice, of which they were made, by evaporation, either spontaneous in the air or over a fire, and so much so as to render them thick and syrupy.”

Horace, born 65 BC, says, “There is no wine sweeter to drink than Lesopian. It is like nectar, and resembles ambrosia more than wine. It is perfectly harmless, and will not produce intoxication.” —Anti-Bacchus p. 220.

“The Mishna states that the Jews were in the habit of using boiled wine.” —Kitto, Volume II, p. 477.

W. C. Brown, who traveled extensively in Africa, Egypt, and Syria from AD 1792 to 1798, states, “Most of the wines of Syria are prepared by boiling immediately after they are pressed from the grape, until they are considerably reduced in quantity, when they are put into jars or large bottles and preserved for use.” He adds, “There is reason to believe that this mode of boiling was a general practice among the ancients.”

“It is observable that when sweet juices are boiled down to a thick consistency, they not only do not ferment in that state, but are not easily brought into fermentation even when diluted with as much water as they had lost in the evaporation.” —Caspar Neuman, MD, professor of chemistry.

Filtration

By filtration, the gluten or yeast is separated from the juice of the grape. While the juice will pass through the filtering implements, the gluten will not, and, being thus separated, the necessary conditions of fermentation are destroyed. The ancient writers, when speaking of the removal of the vim, vi, vires, that is, the potency or fermentable power of the wine, use the following strong words: eunuchrum, castratum, effaeminatum–thus expressing the thoroughness of the process by which all fermentation was destroyed. Plutarch, born AD 60, in his Symposium, says: “Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink.”

Again, Pliny said, “Wines were rendered old and castrated or deprived of all their vigor by filtering.”

Captain Treat, in 1845, wrote, “When on the south coast of Italy, I inquired particularly about the wines in common use, and found that those esteemed the best were sweet and unintoxicating. The boiled juice of the grape is in common use in Sicily. The Calabrians keep their intoxicating and unintoxicating wines in separate compartments. From inquiries, I found that unfermented wines were esteemed the most. These wines were drunk mixed with water. Great pains were taken in the vintage season to have a good stock of them laid by. The grape juice was filtered two or three times, and then bottled, and some put in casks and buried in the earth–some kept in water (to prevent fermentation).” Dr. Lees’ Works, Vol. II, p. 144.

Subsidence

[Meaning, to sink or fall to the bottom; settle]

The gluten may be so effectually separated from the juice by subsidence as to prevent fermentation. The gluten, being heavier than the juice, will settle to the bottom by its own weight if the must can be kept from fermentation for a limited period. If the juice is kept at a temperature below 45 degrees, it will not ferment. The juice being kept cool, the gluten will settle to the bottom, and the juice when siphoned off, and thus deprived of the gluten, cannot ferment.

“They plunge the casks, immediately after they are filled from the vat, into water, until winter has passed away and the wine has acquired the habit of being cold.” Kitto, II, 955; A.-B. 217; Smith’s Antiquities. Being kept below 45 degrees, the gluten settled to the bottom, and thus fermentation was prevented.

Columella gives a recipe: “That your must may always be as sweet as when it is new, proceed in this way: Before you apply the press to the fruit, take the must that has already flowed from the grapes, put into a new amphora [jar], bung it up, and cover it very carefully with pitch, lest any water should enter; then immerse it in a cistern or pond of pure cold water, and allow no part of the amphora to remain above the surface. After 40 days, take it out, and it will remain sweet for a year.” He no doubt inferred that the pure wine was to be poured off from the gluten that had settled to the bottom. This wine would again be sealed airtight and kept cool in the ground or water until used. These ancients had underground cellars where their wines and other foods were preserved.

Fumigation

Dr. Ure states that fermentation may be stopped by the application or admixture of substances containing sulphur. Adams, in his Roman Antiquities, on the authority of Pliny and others, says, “The Romans fumigated their wines with the fumes of sulphur; they also mixed with the mustum (the newly pressed juice) yokes of eggs and other articles containing sulphur.”

In all these extracts, the writers call the grape juice wine, whether boiled, filtered, subsided or fumigated.

Wine With Water

There is abundance of evidence that the ancients mixed their wines with water. Not because they were so strong with alcohol as to require dilution, but because, being rich syrups, they needed water to prepare them for drinking.

According to Lightfoot, the Passover was celebrated with nonalcoholic wine mixed with water. Each person, man, woman and child drank four cups. After celebrating the Passover with His disciples, Christ took the bread and wine that remained and instituted the Lord’s supper. The wine was, we believe, the rich syrup diluted with water. This kind of wine met all the requirements of the law concerning leaven. The true rendering of matsah, according to Dr. F.R. Lees, means unfermented things. It therefore refers not only to bread.

Classification Of Wines

The careful reader of the Bible will notice that in a number of cases wine is simply mentioned without anything in the context to determine its character. He will notice another class, which unmistakably denotes the bad character of the beverage. There is also a third class, whose character is clearly designated as good.

Bad Wine

This class of texts refers to wine:

1. As the cause of intoxication. This is not disputed.

2. As the cause of violence and woe. Prov. 4:17; 23:29-30.

3. As the cause of self-security and irreligion. Isa. 28:7; 56:12; Hab. 2:5.

4. As poisonous and destructive. Prov. 23:31.

5. As condemning those who are devoted to drink. Isa. 5:22; 1 Cor. 6:10.

6. As the emblem of punishment and of eternal ruin. Psa. 60:3; 75:8; Is 51:17; Jer. 25:15; Rev. 14:10; 16:19.

Good Wine

I turn now to another class of texts which speak with approval of a wine whose character is good, and which is commended as a blessing.

1. To be presented at the altar as an offering to God. Num. 18:12; Neh. 10:37, 39; 13:5, 12.

2. Is classed among the blessings, the comforts, the necessities of life. Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:13; 11:14; Isa. 65:8; Joel 3:18.

3. Is the emblem of spiritual blessings. Isa. 55:1; Psa. 104:15.

4. Is the emblem of the blood of the atonement, by which we receive forgiveness of sins and eternal blessedness. Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 10:16.

In all the passages where good wine is named, there is no indication of warning, nor intimation of danger, no hint of disapproval, but always of decided approval.

How bold and strong is the contrast: The one the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes. The other the occasion of comfort and peace. The one the cause of irreligion and of self-destruction. The other the devout offering of piety on the altar of God. The one the symbol of the divine wrath. The other the symbol of spiritual blessings. The one the emblem of eternal damnation. The other the emblem of eternal salvation.

“The distinction in quality between the good and the bad wine is as clear as between good and bad men, or good and bad spirits; for one is the constant subject of warning, designated poison, both literally and figuratively, while the other is commended as refreshing and innocent, which no alcoholic wine is.” Lees’ Appendix, p. 232.

Can it be that these blessings and curses refer to the same beverage, and that an intoxicating liquor? Dr. Nott says: “Can the same thing, in the same state, be both good and bad; a symbol of wrath, and a symbol of mercy; a thing to be sought after, and a thing to be avoided? Certainly not. And is the Bible, then, inconsistent with itself? Again, certainly not!”

Professor M. Stuart says: “My final conclusion is this: Whenever the scriptures speak of wine as a comfort, a blessing, or a libation to God, and rank it with such articles as grain and oil, they mean, and they can only mean the wines that contained no alcohol that could have a harmful effect; that wherever they denounce it, and connect it with drunkenness and revelling, they can mean only alcoholic or intoxicating wine.”

Share

While the early morning church “turned the world upside down,” we see that mainstream Christianity has been turned upside down by the world.  In an effort to “win the people to Christ” and to “make attractive the way,” the cost of discipleship has been lowered, “equally costly faith” is not so costly anymore, and the narrow way has been comfortably broadened to accommodate those who falter at too much “straitness.”

It seems they are intent on paving the smoothest road to heaven that they can, taking out all the “bumps” for those who aren’t fully convinced that the way of the cross is worth leaving the world for anyway.

Intellectual minds have re-evaluated things and concluded that to win the world, you must reach them on their level.  Hence, they evince a brand of “love” which spares all judgment, tolerates sin and error, and will work all manner of compromises to reach the masses in such a way so as not to make them feel that the gospel will place any requirements upon them.  This is a far cry from those radical prophets of old who dared to “cry aloud and spare not,” in order to show the people their transgressions!

Just think, had the martyrs of old such “wisdom” as this, they could have avoided their martydom!  What reproach they could have been spared!  How congenial would have been their path!

Within the clime of the church-world today, the conscience rules and the opinions of man prevail. Methods have been learned and their attendance records convince them, that in this modern day, a new approach to soul-winning is necessary. After all, “he that winneth souls is wise.”

Self-proclaimed prophets of today insist that this is effective evangelism.  They have decided to give the young people three parts volleyball and skating, to one part Bible study, and instead of the old-fashioned way of telling them to separate from worldly music, whether rock n’ roll or rap, they just change the words, but keep the beat.  There will be some “hip” new converts before you know it!  Just tell the people how much Jesus loves them–don’t offend them with specifics concerning conduct or dress.  And please, do not be narrow-minded concerning doctrine, because that would hinder the ecumenical flow.

But what are we going to do about the Bible?  It states, “BE NOT CONFORMED TO THIS WORLD.”  God was the inspiration behind these words.  When did the God who changes not, change?

Under divine inspiration, the apostle went on to say, “be ye TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).  This is a most concerning point, for though their parking lots are getting filled, it is difficult to find in the lives of their adherents, the proof of deep, divine transformation of heart and mind.  Herein lies the separating factor for a true child of God.  Can someone be divinely transformed, a new creature in Christ, and yet remain so interested in the world, so tolerant and “understanding” of its sins, and so shallow when it comes to having real Bible convictions?

The problem is, this exercise of human wisdom has not produced divine results.  It has created a religious breed with no real Holy Ghost power, who are unaquainted with the cross and its attending glory. The world looking on is unconvinced, even mocking.

This “evangelism” will never produce a people of early morning stock. There is no resemblance.

But the hardy brand of Christianity, that which is pure and undefiled, and, do not forget, also “unspotted from the world,” is of no such temper.  It will still make an issue of sin, with very distinct lines, though they be accused of having a harsh spirit.  It never has become a friend to the world, but reproves it.  It is actuated by the Holy Ghost, and all of its loves and hates are borne of Him.

One writer stated, “The men who move the world are the ones who do not let the world move them.”  These, I say, are great men; men who know and fear their God; men who will stand up and say, “Thus saith the Lord!” though the whole world be offended;  men who love souls enough to bear their wrath in an effort to save them from eternal hell.

This “seem right” way is seeming more right to people all the time, but God does not negotiate with the world. He calls it to repentance, and points out the only path to heaven that there is–the one that is still strait and narrow, which only those who have been crucified with Christ can walk upon. &

By Susan Mutch

Share

Quotes beginning shortly after the death of the apostle John, show us that from the days of the early church, truth and holiness were on a collision course with the world. Contrary to our mental picture of modest, long flowing gowns, a study of the ancient “modest” world reveals a picture of worldly attire, immodesty and extravagance.

Early Christians who chose to walk with Christ, chose to “stand out” against the popular, mainstream ideas of their day, presenting no less striking a picture than those who will walk the narrow way today. Thankfully, then as now, true prophets are willing to wield the sword of truth in all its practicalities, dress no exception.

Clement (200 AD): “…For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure, so the whole make of the body is visible to spectators!”

Cyprian (195-258 AD): “Let there be in the woman not the outward adorning of array or gold or apparel, but the adorning of the heart. If you dress your hair sumptuously, and walk so as to draw attention in public and attract the eyes of youth upon you…so that although yourself perish not, yet you cause others to perish, and offer yourself as it were a work of poison to the spectators; you cannot be excused on the pretense that you are chaste and modest in mind. Your shameful dress and immodest ornament accuses you; nor can you be counted now among Christ’s women or girls, since you live in such a manner as to make yourselves objects of desire. If you have painted your face and dyed your hair, you have followed the serpent. As you are adorned in the fashion of your enemy, with him you also shall burn by and by!”

Cyril (315-386 AD): “Let thine apparel be plain, not for adornment but for necessary covering, not to minister to thy vanity but to keep thee warm in winter and to hide the unseemliness of the body, lest under pretense of hiding the unseemliness, thou fall into another kind of unseemliness by extravagant dress.”

Basil (330-379 AD): “As to color, avoid brightness; in material, the soft and delicate; to aim at bright colors in dress is like women’s beautifying when they color cheeks and hair with hues other than their own.”

Chrysostom (347-379 AD): “I beseech you, let us leave ornaments to parades, to theatres, to signs in the shops. But let not the image of God be decked out with these things. Now if for bare necessities, one is not to take anxious thought, what pardon can we deserve who take thought for things expensive and merely ornamental?”

Jerome (342-420 AD): “To be finely dressed and to have the reputation of being so, is to my mind quite as disgraceful as to play the harlot or to plot against a neighbor’s wedlock. (Cosmetics) serve only to inflame young men’s passions; to stimulate lust, and to indicate an unchaste mind. Such adorning is not of the Lord; a mark of this kind belongs to the antichrist.”

John Wesley (1703-1791): “The wearing of gay or costly apparel naturally tends to breed and increase vanity. By vanity here I mean, the love and desire of being admired and praised. Every one of you that is fond of dress has a witness of this in your own bosom. Whether you will confess it before men or no, you are convinced of this before God. You know in your heart, it is with a view to be admired that you thus adorn yourselves, and that you would not be at the pains were none to see you but God and His holy angels…
Let your dress be cheap as well as plain; otherwise you do but trifle with God, me, and your own souls.”

Adam Clarke (1762-1832): “If Paul saw the manner in which Christian women now dress and appear in the ordinances of religion, what would he think? What would he say? How could he ever distinguish the Christian from the infidel?

And if they who are in Christ are new creatures, and the persons who ordinarily appear in religious assemblies are really new creatures (as they profess to be) in Christ, he might reasonably inquire, ‘If these are new creatures, what must have been their appearance when they were old creatures?’”

By Christine Thilmony

Share

Look around you. How did such a sickening mass of religious confusion ever get such a grip upon the face of this earth? Any honest soul can see that something is terribly wrong with mainstream “Christianity.”

The apostle Paul said, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” II Cor. 11:3, 4. The apostle feared that some would be beguiled and thereby “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” His grief would be untold if he saw how far that corruption is now running. Another gospel has been preached, presenting another Jesus, and another spirit has been received. Such the apostles and early morning saints would not bear with. By taking such a stand of intolerance, the early church remained pure and triumphant, filled with the grace of God. And by taking such a stand, the early church also received much persecution. Here is the key to Satan’s masterplan which is in action today–he has convinced the modern religious mind that they are to bear with things.

Hence we see that the Catholics are bearing with the Protestants, and the Protestants are bearing with the Catholics. Further yet, both are bearing with that old, revived dragon of paganism, dressed in its New Age clothes. So zealous have these all become in their forbearance and tolerance for one another, that they are falling in love with each other! Just like Herod and Pilate when it came to sentencing Jesus, their long-standing enmity was dropped, and they became friends.

Apparently, social analysts describe the change with wonder. What has turned the old hostility between Catholics and Protestants to friendliness? Catholics have even rehabilitated Protestants from being heretics to brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, members of other world religions are now treated with openness and respect.

It is said that part of Pope John Paul’s popularity is the teaching that non-Catholics who live according to their consciences may find salvation outside the Roman church. This is a far cry from the torture chambers of the inquisition where Protestant blood freely flowed because they would not bow to popish rule. Now delegates and leaders from “Christian” and non-Christian religions are getting invitations to the Holy See. It is no wonder that I have heard John Paul referred to as the first “New Age” pope.

Then we have America’s sweetheart, Mr. Billy Graham, saying, “As an American, I respect other paths to God.” He has been noted for his willingness to work with leaders of different religions, stating that “We are all brothers and sisters in our hearts.” But has heaven revised the Word of God? It teaches that Jesus is the only way, not just one of many paths to God.

It would seem that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is also motivated by the same ecumenical spirit. He was even one of the signers of the “Covenant of Mutual Respect,” along with Catholic and Jewish leaders.

So what do we have here? Have Catholics, Protestants and New Agers all learned to see eye to eye? Has the light of God broken upon them, reconciling them to the Word of God, and bringing them together on that foundation? Is this a gathering ordained by God? No! but rather, the devil has convinced them through the spirit of “another gospel” to bear with things.

This hell-inspired allegiance has gone “out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city . . .” Rev. 20:8, 9.

Many a soul has been swept away by the deception of this ecumenical spirit, little realizing that this union is one which is actually doing battle against the true church–”the camp of the saints,” “the beloved city.”

Rev. 16:13-16 speaks of this battle in more detail. “And I saw [Do you see it too?] three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon [paganism], and out of the mouth of the beast [papalism], and out of the mouth of the false prophet [Protestantism]. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles [it looks so convincing!], which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty . . . And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.” This is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

Oh, the extreme subtilty of Satan! While Truth is being trampled in their streets, this ecumenical triad is busy “deceiving, and being deceived” (II Tim. 3:13). Another Jesus reigns here, convincing the multitudes that this fleshly blending of error is being promoted by the love of God. But God will never have His people to sell the truth (Prov. 23:23) for any reason.

You see, to ride this ecumenical band wagon, one must throw Truth overboard. Any true child of God will love the Word of God too much to do that. There is not one ecumenical bone in the body of Christ. To agree with ecumenism is to agree to confusion. God is not the author of confusion. He is Truth. There is no error in Him, and He calls no one to preach a mixture, or to join with it.

These spirits have worked their trickeries even among holiness groups, and they are calling to the church to join hand in hand with them. But the church is armed with the javelin of Phinehas and will thrust through any bold, imposing spirit to keep the camp clean. Many a plea is made to work together, when the fact is that they just are not willing to leave their sinking, compromising sect and whatever reputation they hold there, when God is calling them to come out. These ecumenical spirits have some holiness people fraternizing with devilish modern “tongues” spirits, spiritual deadness and decline, compromise, adultery and other unscriptural practices. As much as we love each soul, and as sincere as some may seem, there are some things the church just cannot fellowship. Fellowship is of the Spirit. It is a pure fellowship, a divine unity (not an “anything goes” union), and is wrought by God.

If you want to be popular, be ecumenical, but I would rather embrace the pure gospel of Jesus Christ in its self-destroying, world-hating fullness, and have Jesus as my Friend, than to have the smiles of ten thousand friends in error.

So here we stand, “encompassed.” The battle lines are drawn and the last battle of the ages against right and wrong, truth and error, purity and uncleanness, is waxing hot. The bride of Christ is being pressured to bow down and “blend,” but she will not allow her purity to be tainted by accepting anything less than the unadulterated Word of God, no matter how “seem-right” it may appear. Her eyes are open and she can see the enemy for what he is. Ecumenical spirits are deceiving souls by the thousands. The slain are many, but the church is still standing on the Rock, faithful to the Word and the Spirit.

“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Eph. 5:11.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? . . .

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” II Cor. 6:14-17.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” I Jn. 4:1.

By Susan Mutch

Share

LEVITY – This word is written across the face of our generation. Few things are taken seriously. Little is said or done “in dead earnest.” Life itself is a joke. Popular religion even appears to find the chief end of man in looking happy. Its gospel is, Be good, be kind, be cheerful, and smile without ceasing; for this is the law and the prophets! Even gray hairs are expected to wear “the cap and bells.” Repentance? Sorrow for sin? No, that is “bad medicine” for a generation that is supposed only to be amused and entertained.
Putting their “philosophy” into their own frivolous language and its truth, it would read something like this: “If some event should sober you and start you to thinking, ditch it with a joke! If the thunders of the law should reverberate in the conscience of some friend, jolly him out of it! If he wears a sane expression on his face for a change, slap him on the back and tell him to forget it…”
This laughing at everything and everybody sounds too much like the crackling of a burning house.
Our Lord did not win our salvation by telling amusing stories, nor by going through the world laughing. None of the apostles was noted as a humorist, and Paul was not a signal success as a jester.
Oh, for a serious, sane face among these grinning comedy-masks! God has given us our faces to express something better than a continual leer.
If you are amused, a laugh that bubbles up out of the heart will do yourself and others no harm. A smile of loving-kindness is possible even when the heart is sick. But why inhale laughing-gas incessantly? Is it to deaden pain? Or to conceal some gnawing secret within?
Humor is a precious gift of the Creator to humankind. It is the seasoning of our daily life, but spices make a poor substitute for food. Eaten in quantities, they bring on nausea. God pity those who never laugh! But may He save us from the living death of those who can never be serious nor take their life in earnest!
There are a number of sermons, or parts of sermons recorded in the Bible (Matt.5:6-7, Acts 2:14-36, Acts 17:22-31), but in none of them do we find any jokes or any evidence of light-mindedness. If Christ and the apostles did not use jokes in their sermons, it is safe to follow their example. Moreover, we note that their sermons had results which cannot be said of many modern sermons that are full of jokes.
The excuse is sometimes given that the minister has to tell some amusing anecdote to arouse the interest of his hearers and to keep the people awake. But that is not necessary. If the minister is Spirit-filled and preaches the old-time gospel in the power and demonstration of the Spirit, the people will be interested and they will not go to sleep. There are ministers today who can hold an audience spell-bound for an hour by preaching full salvation without any jokes or anything that savors of light-mindedness. When you have to resort to funny stories and amusing incidents in your sermons, it is a confession on your part that you have lost the fire of the Holy Ghost and are trying to find a substitute.
Where there is so much joking and levity, it drives away the Spirit of conviction, and souls have to leave the meeting without the spiritual nourishment which they so much need in order to grow in grace.

Author Unknown
Taken from the Voice of the Nazarene
July – Aug. 2003

Share

Someone has said that a Christian’s “gosh” is as strong as the miner’s oath. A preacher’s “pshaw” or “phooey” are as strong as the drunkard’s “damn.” May the Almighty help us to realize these truths and endeavour henceforth to be careful in our speech. Amen.

Some wonder why they cannot use goodness and gracious. These are attributes of God and would therefore be a violation of the third commandment. Millions of Christians are guilty, never having given this a thought, but will be willing to walk in the light.

The term reverend belongs to God and man has no right to use it in either the short or long form. “Reverend and holy is his name.” Psa. 111:9. There are those who would shun the original form of profanity as they do dirt, debt, disease and the devil, yet with no compunction of conscience use the milder forms.

The use of “slanguage” in any form certainly does not become a Christian, nor is it conducive to a high plane of living. What a sad indictment this is against those who have forgotten the language of God and are resorting to the language of the street. Present day speech has fallen far below the standard which Christ set for His disciples as the New Testament pattern for all His followers. Careless and useless speech in this common use of “slanguage” will certainly weaken one’s testimony and dull his spiritual effectiveness. It is impossible to convince our fellow men that we are citizens of heaven, when we indulge in the language of the sinner.

Jesus said in Matt. 5:34-37, “Swear not at all . . . let your conversation be “Yea, yea, or nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” This last clause suggests the use of an exclamation which is defined as something added merely as a filling. How awesome are the words of Christ in Matt. 12:36, 37, “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment . . . for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

James says that man’s religion is vain, if he cannot bride his own tongue (Jms. 1:26). “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.” Jms. 3:10. “. . . Let your yea be yea . . . lest ye fall into condemnation.” Jms. 5:12.

“For the Word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb. 4:12.

An excellent motto for the Christians should be “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, Oh, Lord, my strength and my redeemer.” Psa. 19:14.

By C. H. Mooshian

Editor’s Note:
Slang words come into common usage, but such should not infiltrate the vocabulary of the child of God, who is not of this world. Let not these terms or any such be found upon our lips– “cool,” “awesome,” “hey, man,” or “cool, man.” Nor let us follow the pattern of the world by referring to our children as baby goats–“kids.”

Share

The New Testament church also is built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods are divinely given. From God’s revealed plan we depart at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the immediate and the remote. The immediate touches the individual and those close to him. The remote extends into the future to unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence for evil the whole church of God on earth.

The temptation to introduce “new” things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist. The church has suffered untold injury at the hands of misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God’s work than Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would not suffice to haul away the religious rubbish which has been brought into the service of the church with the hope of improving on the original pattern. These things have been positive hindrances to the progress of the truth, and have so altered the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted.

Our Lord while on earth cleansed the temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure to have its ambitious amateur come up with some shiny gadget which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar. That the scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in the very name of orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then, of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the truth itself. This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God can be taken in by it.

Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish.

Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge. Or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the church but to the world. Some have thrown their mantle over it and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.

I refer, of course, to the religious movie.

The “service” where such a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service until time for the message from the Word of God. Then the lights would be put out and the picture turned on. The “message” would consist of this movie. What followed the picture would vary with the circumstances, but often an invitation song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to return to God.

Now, what is wrong with all this? Why should any man object to this or go out of his way to oppose its use in the house of God? Here is my answer:

It violates the scriptural law of hearing.

It is significant that when God gave to mankind His great redemptive revelation He couched it in words. “And God spake all these words” very well sums up the Bible’s own account of how it got here. “Thus saith the Lord” is the constant refrain of the prophets. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” said our Lord to His hearers. Again He said, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.” Paul made words and faith to be inseparable: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” He also said, “How shall they hear without a preacher?”

Surely it requires no genius to see that the Bible rules out dramatics as media for bringing faith and life to the human soul.

God addresses His message to the hearing ear. “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.” Here, and not somewhere else, is the New Testament pattern, and no human being, and no angel from heaven has any right to alter that pattern.

It embodies the mischievous notion that religion can be made a form of entertainment.

This notion has come upon us lately like a tidal wave and is either openly taught or tacitly assumed by increasing numbers of people. The idea that religion should be entertaining has made some radical changes in the evangelical picture within this generation. It has given us not only the “gospel” movie but a new type of religious journalism as well. It has created a new kind of magazine for church people, which can be read from cover to cover without effort, without thought–and without profit.

That religion and amusement are forever opposed to each other by their very essential natures is apparently not known to this new school of religious entertainers. Their effort to slip up on the reader and administer a quick shot of saving truth while his mind is on something else is not only futile, it is, in fact, not too far short of being plain dishonest. The hope that they can convert a man while he is occupied with the doings of some imaginary hero reminds one of the story of the Catholic missionary who used to sneak up on sick people and children and splash a little holy water on them to guarantee their passage to the city of gold.

Any effort to teach spiritual truth through entertainment is at best futile and at worst positively injurious to the soul. Religious movies, by appealing directly to the shallowest stratum of our minds, cannot but create bad mental habits which unfit the soul for the reception of genuine spiritual impressions.

Religious movies are mistakenly thought by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many come away from them with moist eyes. If this is a proof of God’s blessing, then we might as well go the whole way and assert that every show that brings tears is of God. Those who attend the theater know how often the audiences are moved to tears by the joys and sorrows of the highly paid entertainers who kiss and emote and murder and die for the purpose of exciting the spectators to a high pitch of emotional excitement. Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed to death may nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors and be not one bit the better for it. The emotions have had a beautiful time, but the will is left untouched. The religious movie is sure to draw together a goodly number of persons who cannot distinguish the twinges of vicarious sympathy from the true operations of the Holy Ghost.

They who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done.

The church goes along in Bible ways and can give a scriptural reason for its conduct. Its members meet at stated times to pray together: This has biblical authority back of it. They gather to hear the Word of God expounded: this goes back in almost unbroken continuity to Moses. They sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs: so they are commanded by the apostle. They lay up their gifts and bring them at stated times to the church or chapel to be used in the Lord’s work: this also follows the scriptural pattern. They teach and train and instruct; they appoint teachers and pastors and missionaries and send them out to do the work for which the Spirit has gifted them: all this has plain scriptural authority behind it.

Now, for the religious movie where is the authority? For such a serious departure from the ancient pattern, where is the authority? For introducing into the church the pagan art of acting, where is the authority? The best they can do is to appeal to the world’s psychology or repeat brightly that “modern times call for modern methods.”

The whole preach-the gospel-with-movies idea is founded upon the same basic assumptions as Modernism, namely, that the Word of God is not final, and that we of this day have a perfect right to add to it or alter it wherever we think we can improve it.

It is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the scriptures and contrary to true godliness.

To harmonize the spirit of the religious movie with the spirit of the sacred scriptures is impossible. Try to imagine Elijah appearing before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine Peter standing up at Pentecost and saying, “Let’s have the lights out, please.” When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy on the plea that he was not a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, “I have put my words in thy mouth.” Perhaps Jeremiah could have gotten on well enough without the divine touch if he had had a good film.

Let a man dare to compare his religious movie show with the spirit of the Book of Acts. If he cannot see the difference in kind, then he is too blind to be trusted with leadership in the church of the living God. The only thing that he can do appropriate to the circumstances is to drop to his knees and cry with poor Bartimaeus, “Lord, that I might receive my sight.”

The harmful effect.

It identifies religion with the theatrical world. I have seen recently in a Fundamentalist magazine an advertisement of a religious film which would be altogether at home on the theatrical page on any city newspaper. Illustrated with the usual sex-bate picture of a young man and young woman in tender embrace, and spangled with such words as “feature-length, drama, pathos, romance,” it reeked of Hollywood and the cheap movie house. By such business we are selling out our Christian separation.

The taste for drama which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer. Our young people will demand the real thing, and what can we reply when they ask why they should not patronize the regular movie house?

The rising generation will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior, form of amusement. The present generation has done this to an alarming extent already, and the gospel movie feeds the notion by fusing religion and fun in the name of orthodoxy. It takes no great insight to see that the religious movie must become increasingly more thrilling as the tastes of the spectators become more and more stimulated.

The religious movie is the lazy preacher’s friend. If the present vogue continues to spread it will not be long before any man with enough ability to make an audible prayer, and mentality enough to focus a projector, will be able to pass for a prophet of the Most High God. The man of God can play around all week long and come up to the Lord’s Day without a care. He has only to set up the screen and lower the lights, and the rest follows painlessly.

Wherever the movie is used the prophet is displaced by the projector. The least that such displaced prophets can do is to admit that they are technicians and not preachers. Let them admit that they are not God-sent men, ordained of God for a sacred work. Let them put away their pretense.

In conclusion

One thing may bother some earnest souls: why so many good people approve the religious movie. If it is an evil, why have not these denounced it?

The answer is, lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited the work of the Holy Spirit. They have apologized for the Spirit and so hedged Him in by their unbelief that it has amounted to an out-and-out repudiation. The light has gone out and good men are forced to stumble around in the darkness of the human intellect.

The religious movie seems about to swarm over the churches like a cloud of locusts out of the earth. The figure is accurate–they are coming from below, not from above. The whole modern psychology has been prepared for this invasion of insects. The Fundamentalists have become weary of manna and are longing for red flesh. What they are getting is a sorry substitute for the lusty and uninhibited pleasures of the world, and it saves face by pretending to be spiritual.

Let us not for the sake of peace keep still while men without spiritual insight dictate the diet upon which God’s children shall feed. Unity among professing Christians is to be desired, but not at the expense of righteousness.

If God has given wisdom to see the error of religious shows we owe it to the church to oppose them openly. We dare not take refuge in “guilty silence.” Error is not silent. It is highly vocal and amazingly aggressive. We dare not be less so.

By A.W. Tozer

Share

There was a time, not so many years ago, when even secular society believed in fully covering their bodies. Now we are living in a decadent society and with their plunging morality, they have become grossly immodest in their dress. The religious sector has gone hand in hand along with this trend, despite the apostle Paul’s warning:  “Be not conformed to this world…” Romans 12:2. In all areas of our lives, including our attire, there are some things that are “are not of the Father, but are of the world..”

The Bible says to “…glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (I Corinthians 6:20).  “…I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I Thessalonians 5:23.

The Bible also gives some specific instructions concerning dress–

Our dress is to be unadorned, plain and modest:

I Timothy 2:9-10

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.   But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

F.G. Smith said, “Women must be arrayed in ‘modest apparel…not with gold, or pearls, or costly array.’ These articles of adornment, then, are not modest apparel. The wearing of them is prompted, not by feelings of humility and modesty, but by pride in the heart. It is plain from this scripture that such things do not ‘become women professing godliness.’ Reader, are you a woman ‘professing godliness?’ Are you adorned with these things? If so, then they do not become your profession, and you are not arrayed in modest apparel.

“These principles apply with equal force to the male sex. Do not deceive yourself, reader, in the belief that you can continue to wear things which the Word of God forbids, and still be a spiritual person, filled with the grace of God. It is impossible. God’s children are to be ‘obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance. But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation’ (I Peter 1:14-15).”

I Peter 3:3-4

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

(In ancient times, women would “plait” or elaborately weave things into their hair producing complex hairstyles. The apostle warns against this fad and instructs the saints to wear their hair plain and simply without unnecessary items in it. No doubt Peter would have much to say to professing women today if he saw their immodesty and worldliness!)

I Corinthians 11:14-15

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

God designed that men and women should dress and look differently:

Deuteronomy 22:5

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Apparently Moses and Peter and Paul felt it was their ministerial duty to address outward things! I would like to know how professing people today think they have the liberty to disregard these scriptures which were given by the inspiration of God, and continue in the prideful and immodest fashions of this world. Jesus says, “If a man love me, he will keep my words” (John 14:23). “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Share