by J. Randal Matheny

First of all, we extend our sympathies to Emmett Smith and his family in the death of his sister Emma. She passed away Thursday at age 43, and her funeral was to be held this afternoon. If you would like to convey your condolences to the family, you may leave a comment below.

That's why you probably won't see an article from Emmett today.

Emmett and his wife Jeanina have been our friends for many years. They are some of the most dedicated Christians I know. Though I did not have the opportunity to know Emmett's parents well, Jeanina's parents, Leo and Betty Yearry, have been a great encouragement to me personally for over 25 years.

I count it a privilege to work with all the columnists of Forthright. Though I don't know all of them personally, I've come to appreciate each one of them and the contributions they make to our understanding of the Sacred Text and to our encouragement to the single commitment to Jesus Christ.

They often work under trying circumstances and great duress, as do we all. And they give freely of themselves, because they have a deep-rooted hope of turning lives toward eternity.

So I ask your prayers for Emmett's family and for all of us here at Forthright.

Blessings,

Randal Matheny Editor

By Michael E. Brooks

“But he gives more grace. Therefore He says, God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. 4:6).

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven…. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matt. 5:3,5-6).

Poverty is alive and well on the planet Earth. Sometimes those of us who have been more materially blessed can lose sight of that fact. Huge numbers of people on every continent go to bed hungry each night. They live in single rooms, or on the streets, wearing the same clothes for months or years at a time. Many only dream of education for themselves or their children. High percentages in the most populous areas are landless and essentially unemployed. Average annual income in some countries is less than the weekly salary of working people in others.

When one visits such conditions it is easy to think in terms of injustice and inequity. How can we say, “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34), when a few seem to have “everything” whereas so many have “nothing”? Such apparent unfairness has caused many to question the very existence or at least the goodness of God.

The Bible’s answer to such charges is simple, yet profound. Material conditions are not the only thing, and certainly they are by far not the most important thing. If fact, God often uses need to prompt us to dependence and thus to faith. To paraphrase Romans 10:14ff, “how will they call upon him whom they do not need?” A healthy person rarely visits a physician. Those who feel prospered seldom cry out in desperation and need.

It is at least in part for this reason that God cannot help the proud. They don’t “need” God nor do they look to him. But the humble are much different. A feeling of inadequacy does much to make one look upwards. The awareness of desperate hungers drives one to search for that which fills. It is no coincidence that evangelism produces great results in Asian and Latin American countries of great poverty, and much slimmer harvest in “developed” Western nations. As Paul observed, “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called” (1 Cor. 1:26).

For this reason it is not at all inappropriate to state, “Blessed are the needy.” It is to the humble that God gives his grace. And more than wealth, power, fame, and pleasure, God’s grace is great blessing. It assures us of his love and care, his forgiveness, and his eternal salvation. Thank God for poverty. May he send it to more of those who stubbornly refuse to recognize their need.

by Mike Benson

I am outraged. My anger is due to an affront from within religious academia against our Savior. Dr. Theodore W. Jennings is an ordained minister with the United Methodist Church. He is also a professor of biblical and constructive theology at Chicago Theological Seminary. /1 This past May, Dr. Jennings published a book entitled, The Man Jesus Loved. /2 The title relates only the very “tip of the iceberg” in terms of what the author affirms. According to Jennings:

. Jesus not only condoned homosexual relationships, but He was actually involved in one with John (cf. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).

. To exclude people from our fellowship on the basis of their sexual practice is to “distort the Bible generally and the traditions concerning Jesus in particular.”

. There is a preponderance of biblical evidence (especially in the gospel accounts) that endorses same-sex relationships.

Permit me to briefly respond to each of the professor’s assertions. Consider:

1. It is blasphemous to insist that our Lord engaged in any form of fornication. Jesus lived under the Mosaic regime (Gal. 4:4; cf. Luke 2:21ff). He revered, endorsed and perfectly obeyed the law in all respects (John 5:46-47; Matt. 5:17-18; 7:12; 22:36ff; 23:23). /3 How then could He engage in that which Mosaic legislation explicitly condemned (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17)?

2. The Bible is distorted when men wrench it from its original context. “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). The Greek word for twist is strebloo (found only here in the NT) /4 and means “to turn from the proper position, to torture, to pervert”. /5 The term refers to a rack that was used by ancients to contort the bodies of prisoners in an excruciating fashion. Jennings has done just that. In order to advance his own immoral agenda (cf. Phil. 3:19), he has violently wrested the Word of God from its original context and forced it to teach things never intended by the sacred writers (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Having fashioned his own hermeneutic, Jennings has taken the Holy One (Mark 1:24; Acts 2:27; 3:14; 13:35; 1 John 2:20) and molded Him into a sexual deviant (cf. Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22).

But there are implications for that which the professor espouses. The instant one accepts this warped view of the Son of God, he immediately forfeits his salvation. For to portray Christ as anything short of perfect (Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19) is to nullify what He did at the cross on his own behalf (1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:12).

3. Jesus sanctioned His Father’s plan for physical union and intimacy.

   And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4).

   The gospel of Matthew reveals that the divine arrangement for sexual union (i.e., one flesh) since the beginning of time has always been one man for one woman (cf. Gen. 1:27). Any other order is not in harmony with the revealed will of God (cf. Gen. 49:4; Matt. 5:32; Heb. 13:4) and invites eternal judgment (Rev. 2:22; 21:8; 1 Cor. 6:19ff; 2 Pet. 2:4ff).

Not so long ago, any attacks against Christ—but especially like those leveled by Jennings—would have prompted a unanimous outcry from “Christianity” at large. Men would have rushed to the Lord’s defense and upheld His moral integrity by virtue of the revelation of Scripture (cf. Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Jude 7). Today, many religionists are not only deafly silent, but in some instances, actually supportive of this so-called “scholarly inquiry into the Bible.” Dear Christian, we simply cannot be so-inclined (Isa. 5:20a; Ezek. 33:1ff). Too much is at stake (2 Pet. 2:2).

/1 www.ctschicago.edu; Chicago Theological is associated with the United Church of Christ.
/2 Subtitled Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament; ISBN 082981535X /3 Jennings admits that the Old Testament and the apostle Paul condemned homosexuality. /4 Robertson, “The Second Epistle of Peter,” Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. VI, 179. /5 Woods, “Second Peter,” A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, 191.

by Barry Newton

I do not remember exactly how long ago it was that for the first time I just sat and shuddered at the implications of verses like Zephaniah 1:5 and 1 Kings 11:4. "... those who bow down and swear to the LORD and yet swear by Molech." "... when Solomon became old, his wives turned away his heart to follow other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God."

As the implications cascaded through my mind, my naiveté was shattered. Previously I had assumed there were only two possibilities. Either a person worshiped God or idols. But here was a disturbing third possibility. An Israelite could attempt to worship idols alongside of God. And if this was possible for them, could not a Christian sing praises to the Lord while also engaging in idolatry? And if so, what might this look like in an American context?

The Many Faces of Idolatry

For the most part, Americans are not confronted with the carved stone and wooden variety of idolatry which plagued ancient Israel. Yet the underlying dynamics of secular idolatry is identical to that age-old scourge. In the ancient Near East, people were tempted to serve various gods because they believed those gods could provide for them. In America, people can be tempted to serve many different vehicles (wealth, social contacts, work, power, possessions, knowledge. etc.) because they believe these paths will protect and provide for them.

In a secular context, gods do not take the form of wood and stone; instead the type of pernicious adoration which might try to sneak under our radar will probably be more in line with Paul's warning in Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5. Greed amounts to idolatry. And there are many forms of greed (Luke 12:15). All forms of greed constitute serving something other than God because of what it is believed to provide.

Baal is the Hebrew word for master. Whether someone's master is a power represented by a stone image or a secular recipe for success, both sets of beliefs lead to serving one's baal in place of the Creator.

Monotheistic & Polytheistic Christians?

Biblical monotheism involves the worldview that the Lord is our ultimate Source for everything we need. Polytheism either cuts up the pie allowing many ultimate sources or it at least involves the practice of hedging one's bets. A polytheistic worldview can always make room for one more god to ensure my well-being.

If a Christian were polytheistic, what might this look like? Perhaps on Sunday he or she would gather with the saints to serve God. The motive to worship might be to praise God for salvation or it might be to ensure salvation. Then from Monday through Friday, life would serve those forces which provide for prosperity and well-being. Because God is not really believed to be the Provider, he or she would perhaps live under the weight and worry of being responsible for where the buck stops. When financial blessings flow, they might be viewed as "all mine" since he or she was responsible for them. Except for perhaps a token contribution on Sunday, resources might be used with a self-centered mentality.

The monotheistic Christian as described in Scripture also worships on Sunday and goes to work, but it is an entirely different week. God is praised for providing salvation and one's resources. Since God enables the means to make wealth, the fruits of one's labor are viewed as God's blessings. Ideally, the work itself would be done to serve the Lord and not just for a human boss. The goal is more than just making money; it also involves representing God and His ways in the workplace. When financial resources flow, this is understood as God's gracious outpouring. God's generosity is used both for sustenance as well as to generously honor the Giver and further the Supplier's purposes in this world.

Zephaniah 1:5 says, "... those who bow down and swear to the LORD and yet swear by Molech." Is it not naive to think that just because people worship on Sunday, this guarantees they are not also idolaters? Considering how the threat of idolatry was a continual problem throughout Israel's history, would it not be naive to think this greatest of dragons has simply vanished?

Gaining a firm understanding of this danger, the necessity to believe and adopt a biblical monotheistic worldview should be clear. Recognizing our Creator for who He truly is, instead of living under the virtually impotent and boxed-in variety of a god, empowers all of the difference.

by Mitchell Skelton

Have you ever noticed how easy being mad at someone is when they are not in your presence and how hard it is to stay mad at them once you come face to face? How many of us have spent countless minutes even hours rehearsing the perfect line that expresses our anger, only to toss is into the “scrap pile” when we finally get the opportunity to deliver?

Perhaps this is why the Hebrew writer encourages us not to “give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another” (Heb. 10:25). Even more, he gives us the charge to “consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:24). Staying mad at someone is hard as you are simultaneously trying to encourage them. When we practice true fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ, we also begin to learn more about them. During this learning process we gain valuable knowledge about their conduct and moods. In essence, “We know where they’re coming from.” We are not often too critical of people for irrational or abnormal behavior when they have good reason to act in such a manner.

Imagine a group of fish swimming together in a school. All of them are moving in the same direction with comparable style when suddenly one of them starts destroying the unity. He begins to twist and swerve from side to side with precarious moves. The older fish are annoyed with the nonconformity of this immature adolescent. They show their disapproval while voicing disgust, “We don’t swim like that around here.” Turning to their offspring, they declare, “That type of behavior is totally unacceptable.” Before they can take action against the renegade fish, his thrashing tail disappears at the surface of the lake. A hook in his mouth rather than rebellion in his heart was the cause of all his distasteful activity.1

Sometimes it is hard to accept the actions of another person especially when what they are doing “just isn’t done.” If we follow the advice of the Hebrew writer then we will not have to question the persons’ motives, we will already know about the hook in their mouth.

1 Illustration from “And God Wants People,” Mary Lou Lacy, 1962, p. 35