by Mike Benson

I have a close friend who loves his children very much. It's obvious by his words and actions that he cares deeply for his girls. He's especially good at encouraging and rewarding them when they do well.

Some time ago, his daughters brought home their report cards. Both had excelled in their school work; one had also received an outstanding citizenship award. Daddy was understandably proud of their scholastic achievements and so he gave them both a "reward".

Want to guess what it was?

Guess again.

Guess again.

He took them to the local bank and opened a couple of mutual funds on their behalf! They were thrilled. Really!

When I first thought about it, the idea of signing the kids up for mutual funds sounded sort of...well...dare I say it...odd, maybe even silly. (If you're like me, you take your progeny out to Dairy Queen or Krispy Kreme for their good grades).

But the more I pondered this father's gifts, the more I began to see his wisdom and true devotion. You see, instead of teaching them the need for immediate gratification, he instilled within them the importance of waiting and patience. Instead of teaching them to buy and spend, he showed them how to save and invest. Most of all, this Christian Dad rewarded his daughters by bestowing something that all of our children need - the value and importance of stewardship.

Just a thought. Are we teaching our children how to use the money that God has loaned to them?

"Train up a child..." (Prov. 22:6).

by Mike Benson

Bob Lewis relates the story of a Christian woman who owned two prize-winning chickens. One afternoon, the chickens worked their way out of her yard and into her neighbor's garden. The neighbor, known for his hot temper, captured both birds, wrung their necks and then threw their lifeless carcasses across the fence into the Christian's yard.

The woman was understandably hurt and considered giving her neighbor a piece of her mind. Instead, she took the chickens home and prepared two chicken pot pies. Whereupon she took one to her neighbor and then apologized for not being more watchful of her chickens.

The man was speechless. The chicken pot pie coupled with an apology filled him with such a sense of burning shame that his whole life began to change.

The Bible says, "...If your enemy hungers, feed him...for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:20).

Dear reader, when you are hurt by another, which do you bestow - pot pie, or a piece of your mind? Give it some thought.

by Mike Benson

My first tornado was a Technicolor "special effect" on a televised version of the 1939 classic, The Wizard of Oz. The Benson house was still intact, but the movie left me emotionally reeling as a youngster. That dark whirling cloud that flung Dorothy and Toto through the sky haunted my bedtime dreams for years. It just seemed so incredibly real.

Like the heroine of that beloved film, I have often wished that I could "click my heels" and be magically transported back to the more virtuous environment of the early 1960's. Over the past four-plus decades, our nation has been "swept out of Kansas" by the cyclone of moral relativism and summarily dropped into Oz — where nothing makes sense anymore. At least, nothing in terms of moral codes of conduct.

Case in point — homosexual "marriage". Since President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay unions, thousands of same-sex couples have flocked to California and other such states (e.g., New York, Oregon, and New Mexico) in order to pursue legal sanction for their unholy relationships. One of the more notable examples comes from the media princess, Rosie O'Donnell. She and her girl-friend, Kelli Carpenter, recently flew to San Francisco in order to "tie the knot". In an effort to fan the flames of her agenda, O'Donnell commented, "I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president." She continued, "I am stunned and horrified. I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral..."

Immoral?! Immoral?! Did I miss something here? Exactly when did the statute of limitations expire on the wickedness of this form of fornication (cf. Isa. 5:20)? Brethren, while we have a Divine mandate to extend kindness to every fellow citizen, we cannot and must not — under any circumstances — endorse this course of action.

And why not, you may ask? First of all, because homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will (Rom. 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gen. 19:1ff; Matt. 19:4-6). Period. But second, because same-sex unions promote even greater moral evils. For instance, in the event the United States government legally sanctions homosexual "marriage", how can it then deny polygamist marriage too?/1 Think that sounds "out in left field"? Don't believe it for a minute. Study the following excerpt from a Fox News Live broadcast dated February 27, 2004. The discussion was between Family Research Council's Genevieve Wood and radio host "Karel":

WOOD: We discriminate against all sorts of people. We don't let people marry three people, we don't let a man marry two women, or a woman to marry two men and we don't allow group marriages.

KAREL: Polygamy is not on the table here.

WOOD: Yes it will be. My friend, yes it will be...

KAREL: No it will not be. It is an invalid slippery slope argument. That is invalid.

WOOD: That is not true. Let me explain to you why. How would you write a law that only limits marriage to two people? Why would it be just two people? You are discriminating against a group of people out there — and believe me, there are people who think polygamy is a good idea, who think group marriage is a good idea. Granted they are a small minority, but they'll come forward and say "we have a right to get married, too. You are discriminating against us."

KAREL: When they come forward you come back on FOX and you go against them. That is not the issue here.

WOOD: No you come back on FOX and tell them why you would discriminate against them. Because you are basing your entire thing on discrimination.

KAREL: The issue here is whether or not a civil institution — marriage - which has nothing to do with religion and the 2,000 rights granted therein are going to be denied to a group of people based on gender. That Massachusetts Supreme Court says, "No".

WOOD: Why would you deny it to polygamists? Why would you deny it to any other group of people who say it is a civil institution?

KAREL: I am not entering that debate with you because it is not on the table.

WOOD: So, you're okay with polygamy too?

KAREL: I am not going to get into an issue that we are not discussing. We are discussing gay and lesbian marriage, not polygamy. If you want to have another segment on polygamy, great.

WOOD: The American people understand that when you go out and think about redefining the institution of marriage, you have to take the long-term view. This is not just something that we are changing for today so that Rosie can make her statement, or for tomorrow. We are talking about how this affects the culture and how it will impact our laws 30 years from now. The argument that you're making in a court of law would have to stand up for polygamists and anybody else who walked in and said they want to come up with a new definition of marriage. Based on what you're saying, there is absolutely no reason those people should be denied rights.

KAREL: These same arguments were used against women's right to vote, were made against slavery, were made against any great social change in this country. They all screamed slippery slope, slippery slope. This is an institution that already exists. It grants 2000 rights to a man and a woman; it excludes monogamous couples that want to enter it based on gender. Those are the facts. If you would like to argue those facts, then do so.

WOODS: I am happy to argue with them. I am happy to argue. Because you are saying that we are discriminating based on gender, and I am saying that you are suggesting that we discriminating based on numbers. And why so? (Family Research Council, Thursday, March 11, 2004, www.frc.org).

While gay-rights activists flood the airwaves with their vile propaganda, what they're not talking about are the repercussions of their policy. As you can see, they steadfastly refuse to address the subject of polygamy. Why? Because they can't. To be consistent, they are incapable of discriminating against polygamists AND THEY KNOW IT. The reason why you're not hearing the homosexual community talk about this is because it opens a veritable "Pandora's Box" for their illicit cause./2 Same-sex unions legitimize other forms of aberrant, amoral conduct; they usher in even more radical and harmful departures from the biblical pattern of marriage./3

Brethren, "we're not in Kansas anymore." The Wizard of Oz was fantasy, but rampant immorality is an all too tragic reality. Our homes are in danger of being tossed (Eph. 4:14) about by the winds of political correctness. Homosexual marriage runs contrary to all that is right and decent and threatens to destroy the traditional family structure. It is long past time that we individually and collectively stand our ground and voice our opposition to this ungodly movement (Ezek. 33:2-11; Jas. 4:17). "There's no place like home..." (Prov. 27:1; Gen. 2:24).

/1 "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician. None of this is well known. Both the media and public spokesmen for the gay marriage movement treat the issue as an unproblematic advance for civil rights..." (Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard, July 26, ‘03, Vol. 8, Issue 45).

/3 "Once [our] society is unsatisfied with and abandons God's absolute standards, then it is only a matter of time until we become victims of our own subjective standards. The door has been cracked open with regard to the definition of marriage in allowing homosexuals to marry, so now a polygamist in Utah, who has five wives, is appealing bigamy convictions brought against him on the basis of this court ruling. This man's lawyer is arguing that the decriminalization of homosexual sex is no different than polygamy" (Steve Higginbotham, "Yesterday's Fringe, Today's Center," South Green Street church of Christ Weekly Newsletter, Vol. 23, No. 2, Jan. 12, 2004).

by Mike Benson

Question: "I am incarcerated. A lot of times I am asked the question, 'What denomination do you follow?' I always say, 'I am just a Christian — a member of the church of Christ.' Then after that it's hard for me to explain. Would you please tell me how I can discuss this and make it clear to others?"

Answer: This can be a sensitive question. It is difficult to talk about the concept of one church with those who are only acquainted with sectarianism and division. No one likes to think of his religious affiliation as anything less than adequate. Everyone who belongs to a church sincerely believes that his faith is just as acceptable to God as his neighbor's.

It is easy to become uncharitable and appear arrogant in a discussion on the Lord's church (2 Tim. 2:23-25). Our mandate is to lovingly, yet firmly, communicate the truth in this realm (1 Pet. 3:15; Eph. 4:15). While not everyone will be receptive, this should not deter us from our task. Please consider the following:

1. An illustration. You might ask your cell mates to define the word "denomination" and then inquire, "What are some possible divisions of a U.S. $100 bill?" A single $100 bank note could be divided into the equivalent of one hundred dollars with a $50 bill, a $20 bill, two $10 bills, a $5 bill and five $1 bills. Point out that any of these ten bills are but a part of a whole.

2. New Testament teaching. The Lord's church is presented in Scripture as the whole thing. It is "the FULNESS of Him who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23b — emphasis mine, mb). It is never spoken of as a "segment" or "part" of a larger religious entity. In fact, the word "church" is used only in two senses in the Bible: 1) as the UNIVERSAL church over which Christ is Head (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18), and 2) in reference to LOCAL churches [i.e., congregations] in a given geographical area — "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), "the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 1:1), "the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2), and "the churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16; Cf. Acts 14:23; 20:28). "Christians" (Acts 11:26) "were of one heart and one soul..." (Acts 4:32a); they were not denominated or divided (Phil. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:2). They followed "one faith" (Eph. 4:5), they adhered to the same doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3,10; 2 Tim. 1:13) and contended for the [singular] faith (Jude 3).

On the other hand, denominationalism — by its own admission — is composed of more than 1,600 religious groups, often wearing different (man-made) names, teaching conflicting religious doctrines, and endorsing contradictory practices. Note this statement from The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox:

"It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but 'one Lord, ONE FAITH, and one baptism,' AND NO DIFFERING DENOMINATIONS EXISTED, that baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, 'baptism was the door into the church.' NOW, IT IS DIFFERENT..." (p. 22 — emphasis mine, mb).

You might want to ask your peers as to why things are different today. Religious plurality is obviously not in harmony with either the Lord's prayer (John 17:20,21; cf. Matt. 15:1-14), nor the standard practice (Acts 2:42,47; Col. 3:17) of His disciples (John 16:13). In fact, on those few occasions when weak and immature brethren in the first century attempted to denominate and fracture themselves (1 Cor. 1:11-13), they were hastily condemned as "carnal" and "unspiritual" (1 Cor. 3:1ff; cf. Gal. 5:21).

3. Some questions:

. How many churches did Jesus promise to build (Matt. 16:18)?

. How many churches did Peter try to build (Matt. 17:4)? What was he told (v. 5)? How did he and his friends react when they were told to listen only to Christ (v. 6)? How should men react today when they consider building a church not sanctioned by the Father?

. How many different churches or choices of churches can we have today without dividing the body of Christ?

. Can you read of any "hyphenated" Christians in the Bible (1 Pet. 4:16; Acts 11:26)? Was Paul a Southern Baptist-Christian? Was Peter a Methodist-Christian? Was John a Lutheran-Christian? Was James a member of a Jehovah Witness group or any of the other hundreds of religious sects we find today?

. How many approved denominations can you read about in the New Testament?

. Did John, Peter, or Paul ever encourage men to join the church of their choice (Gal. 3:27)?

. Does Jesus desire a $50, a $20, two $10's, a $5, and five $1's, OR does He desire a $100 bill (John 17:20,21; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)?

I appreciate your sincere question, as well as your desire to share the Gospel to your fellow inmates (Rom. 1:16; Matt. 28:19,20). In closing, you might ponder the words of John Wesley, noted Methodist leader of long ago. He wrote, "Would to God that all party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world were forgotten: and that we might all agree to sit down together as humble, loving disciples at the feet of a common Master, to hear His word, imbibe His Spirit, and transcribe His Life in our Own" (Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, p. 7). To that we might add a hearty, "Amen" (1 Cor. 1:10)!

by Mike Benson

Rudolf was the product of a very religious home. As an adult, he was a quiet, mild-mannered family man.

History records that he was also an adept farmer. Much of his success in agriculture was due to a strict emphasis to detail, and not just his prowess with seed and soil. An acquaintance in government took note of Rudolf's proficiency in the field and offered him a position in the current administration. As expected, he proved himself to be a capable leader. In staccato-like fashion, Rudolf enjoyed a rapid series of promotions up the political hierarchy.

He was a man bound by habit. Each morning began with breakfast with his wife and five children. On his way to work, he would stop momentarily and enjoy the sweet fragrance of the blooms in his well-tended flower garden. He followed a strict work ethic; his days were filled with a routine of staff meetings, decisions, gathering information and issuing directives to his subordinates. At the close of his shift, Rudolf would return home to the warm embrace of his adoring helpmate. His children happily greeted him upon his arrival, because he often brought them little gifts from work.

His loyalty and dedication earned him the trust of the highest ranking official in the party. In 1940, he was assigned to a post 37 miles west of Krakow at the largest factory of its kind in southern Poland. Despite the relentless demands of his employer, Rudolf was able to meet his daily quota of ten thousand "units". In fact, he performed his job so well that he was commended in a report that called him "a true pioneer...because of his new ideas and educational methods."

From the bedroom window of his cozy home in the country, Rudolf could see the smoke stacks where he worked. The dark plumes that filled the air day in and day out served as silent testimony to his efficiency and diligence as a plant manager. Under his watchful eye (and the incessant prodding of his boss — Adolph Hitler), the Auschwitz death camp systematically exterminated somewhere in upwards of 2.5—3 million lives.

That's right. Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess - "Death Dealer". The hard-working "business" manager. The loving husband. The gracious father who tucked his kids into bed each night. The man whose father had brought him up to be a Catholic priest. And the chief architect and SS Commandant of the largest killing center ever perpetrated against mankind.

In May 1941, SS Commander Heinrich Himmler informed Hoess that the Fuhrer had given orders for "the final solution to the Jewish question". 1/ Hoess understood and installed huge gas chambers and a crematoria. Within a short time, mass murder was conducted on an industrial scale. Hundreds of thousands were poisoned with cyanide gas Zyklon B. Hundreds of thousands were tortured, shot, or burned to death. A half million or more died from starvation and disease. Still others, including children, were handed over to so-called camp doctors. "Patients" were forced into pressure chambers, injected with experimental drugs, castrated, frozen to death and exposed to hosts of other agonizing traumas.

How could Hoess not see the blatant inconsistencies in his life? How could he overlook the glaring moral contradictions? How could he count mountains of ghastly corpses, and then go home to the tender affections of his wife and five children? How could he be so incredibly brutal one moment, and yet so genteel the next?

The answer to these questions is profound. Are you ready for this…? Rudolf Hoess "compartmentalized" his soul (Jas. 1:8; cf. Prov. 19:1). He separated his home life from his "vocational" life. He mentally differentiated between the inferno of Auschwitz and the quiet refuge of his residence in the country. He somehow embraced the intellectual dogmas of his religious upbringing as well as the rabid inhumanity of Nazism. In short, Rudolf Hoess lacked integrity.

Dear brethren, we cannot sub-divide our souls. We cannot and must not partition our inner beings. Christian men are the same in every circumstance. We are authentic in either darkness or light. Whether under the discriminating eye of our family and peers, or alone in a quiet room, our actions are consistent, uniform and submissive to the revealed will of God. We harbor no duplicity within. There is no hypocrisy (1 Kgs. 9:4; Job 2:3, 9; 27:5; 31:6; Ps. 7:8; 26:1, 11; Prov. 10:9; Tit. 2:7):

We can't condemn beverage alcohol and then "join in" with our business associates at a local restaurant over dinner.

We can't sing "Purer in heart, O God, help me to be" and then surf the internet to indulge in lustful fantasy.

We can't appear cool and collected in the office and then be volatile and explosive in front of our family.

We can't tell our children to be fair and honest, and then cheat on our own income taxes.

We can't offer a warm handshake to our brethren before worship and then verbally berate our spouses on the way home in the car.

We can't speak caring tones on Sunday and then fire off a string of profanity on Monday.

We can't support elders and preachers in public prayer and then verbally pick them apart when they are out of earshot.

We can't talk about the need for zeal and spiritual direction in the church, but then fail to offer long-term, legitimate effort on behalf of the church ourselves.

The Bible says,

"The righteous man walks in his integrity…" (Prov. 20:7).

Think for just a moment..., what are you really like "behind the scenes" (Ps. 139:23)? Are you sincere (1 Tim. 1:5; Phil. 1:10; cf. Phil. 1:16; 2:20; 2 Cor. 6:6)? Are you genuine?

1/ www.fordham.edu.