Home Message Forum Islam Muhammad Christianity Comparison
Columns E-MAIL Qur'an Qur'an Miracles Bible Links

IGNORED TEACHINGS

 

It seems that Christianity can be a religion of convenience.  Most Christians seem to choose which commands of the Bible to follow.  It's not, never was, and never meant to be that way.  If it's written in the Bible, there's a reason.  Below are commands that Christians should begin to honor if they choose to be obedient to God.

From:  http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Ignored Teachings --For hundreds of years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament morals. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preaching, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.

First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial church mouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:

Imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Rex Humbard, Robert Schuller, Herbert W. Armstrong and thousands of other wealthy religious leaders heeding such pronouncements! It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. Paul said, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8). The lavish personal wealth of these men and many others bears witness to their avoidance of these teachings, as well as Luke 3:11, which says, "who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do like-wise." One can only speculate as to the number of coats they have in their closets. Jesus said, "Give to him who asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42). Asking any of the previously-mentioned individuals or any Christian denomination for a sizable portion of his or its wealth would be an exercise in futility. How many Biblicists attempt to obey the biblical precept which says, "and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:29-30 RSV)? They avoid Matt. 5:40, which says, "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him also have thy cloak." Apologists don't mind quoting the prior verse (Matt. 5:39) about turning the other cheek, because it concerns attitudes and is not concrete; no direct physical denial is involved. Turning one's cheek is far less painful and tangible than turning in dollars. The former is more nebulous and subject to interpretation. Jesus commissioned his twelve disciples to, "provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, not yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matt. 10:9-10). If these were the morally right procedures for the disciples of Christ 2,000 years ago, then they should have some relevance to his disciples of today. But the entourage and wealth accompanying any well-known evangelist on his periodic journeys highlights the inconsistency involved.

Early Christian groups even practiced a form of communal ownership of property. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45, also note Acts 4:34-37). Yet, except for a few isolated communities, today's Biblicists preach the opposite.

In summary, it's not enough to avoid the accumulation of wealth; one must actively seek to eliminate whatever property may come into one's possession. (See also: Acts 20:35, Rom. 12:13, Col. 3:2, Matt. 6:24). In so far as wealth and property are concerned, Christian monks, ascetics, and some factions of the Amish, for example, are far closer to biblical teachings than any of the well-known clergymen or denominations of today. While engaged in dialogue with a minister several years ago, I noted that his Lincoln Continental parked nearby was wholly inconsistent with biblical tenets. After offering the usual apologetic rationalizations (e.g., I live a frugal life and the Bible does not require me to give away what I own), he denounced my motives and left. Neither of his excuses was accurate.

Second, current attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. In one of his comments on the manner in which one should pray, Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet-Ed.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...." (Matt. 6:5-6 RSV). Biblicists violate this on a regular basis and have no intention of correcting their behavior.

It's interesting to note that Paul's maxim that men should pray with their heads uncovered is generally followed because removing one's hat isn't particularly inconvenient. It is easy to follow. "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head,...."(1 Cor. 11:4 RSV). On the other hand, Paul's tenet that women must keep their heads covered with a veil during prayer is quite inconvenient and, for this reason, has either been rationalized away or ignored, although it is no less binding than any other moral law in the New Testament: "...but any woman who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head.... For if a woman will not veil herself, then we should cut off her hair: but if it be disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.... Judge for yourself; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?" (1 Cor. 11:5-13 RSV)?

 

 

The first category involves those tenets which many liberals ignore. One forbids men to have long hair ("Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"--1 Cor. 11:14). Long-haired individuals are usually of a more liberal persuasion, although exceptions exist. One can't but wonder at the pictures and statues depicting Jesus as long-haired. Another tenet clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church ("Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak"--1 Cor.14:34). It's difficult to see how Paul could support the current movement to ordain women. And a third tenet prohibits men and women from wearing each other's clothing ("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"--Deut. 22:5). Until recent years pants were generally viewed in this country as a man's garment. One can debate what is long hair or man's clothing, but every group of Christians has had a definition, and liberals have nearly always been the first to deviate.

A second category involves those maxims which conservatives and fundamentalists are often the first to shun. Rightists are usually stronger advocates of military involvement and capital punishment than liberals and, thus, the first to ignore 1 Cor. 3:16-17, which says, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him." Conservatives also practice repetitious and monotonous praying in violation of Matt. 6:7, which says, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

A final category encompasses those instructions which are ignored by liberals and conservatives alike: (a) Christians are not supposed to take their disputes before non-Christian courts or judges ("If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"--1 Cor. 6:1 NIV); (b) Christian women are supposed to dress discreetly ("...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire"--1 Tim. 2:9 RSV; and "Let not yours be the outward adorning of braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing"--1 Peter 3:3). Violations of these rules are too numerous to mention. Within the final category lie several teachings which are not routinely violated by all concerned but would be difficult to follow in any event.

REVIEWS

Apologist Carl Johnson also attempted to alter some previously-mentioned biblical commands that are regularly ignored by Christians. He reconciled the prohibition on judging others (Matt. 7:1) by saying, "the judging that is forbidden by Jesus is unlawful judging of others, which judges presumptuously, hypocritically, hastily, unjustly, unfairly, and unmercifully. We are not to pass judgment on the motives of others" (So the Bible Is Full of Contradictions, p. 62). In truth, the verse says nothing about "unlawful" judging or judging hastily, unjustly, unfairly, and unmercifully. By what rational Johnson feels justified in adding these qualifiers, one can only surmise. The "motives of others" aren't even implied. And yet, apologists such as Johnson accuse critics of interpreting as they see fit. Johnson's explanation for Luke 14:26 (Hate thy father and mother, and wife and children) is that,

The word 'hate' is sometimes used in the Bible to mean to love less. In the Old Testament it was said of Jacob, 'he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him (Laban--Ed.) yet seven other years (Gen. 29:30.' The next verse says, 'Leah was hated' which meant that Leah was loved less than Rachel. Christ certainly was not telling us to hate our families in the sense of detesting and loathing them (Ibid.p. 77).

The weakness in Johnson's analysis lies in the fact that when Gen. 29:30 says, "he loved also Rachel more than Leah," it does not necessarily mean he loved Leah at all. Nowhere does this verse say that he had any love whatever for Leah. Love less could easily mean no love whatever, in other words, hate. If I say I love Tom more than Ed, why must that I have some love for Ed? Even more importantly, if Leah was hated by Jacob, then how could he have had any degree of love for her? If he loved her at all, then he didn't really hate her. Johnson wants to have it both ways.

Apologists M.R. DeHaan's explanation for the prohibition in Matt. 23:9 (Call no man your father) is quite simple and direct. "In regard to Matt 23:9, the reference here is definitely to religious life, and I do not believe that applies to family life. To call anyone else father in the spiritual sense is to deny the spiritual Fatherhood of God. For this reason the Catholic Church is in error" (508 Answers to Bible Questions, p. 115). Where does the verse restrict itself to religious affairs? "I do not believe that it applies to family life" is no proof whatever. "I believe" is merely an opinion. One could just as easily say, "I believe it only applies to family life."

 

One of the clearest expressions of selective morality by Biblicists is shown in their approach to the Old Testament. They leap in and out of the Old Law like a porpoise in a ship's wake. If they like it, they quote it; if they don't, they won't. Among the scores of verses they enjoy and employ are those which teach the following:

Biblicists also quote other parts of the Old Law, such as the Ten Commandments and scores of teachings outside the Pentateuch. They employ verses at will and even go so far as to twist some into saying that which is desired. For example, fundamentalists and evangelicals vigorously oppose abortion, but have been hard-pressed to find a biblical statement to corroborate their position. In their determination they have been forced to rely upon an exceedingly weak section stating that if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman in the process, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted on her, not the fetus. "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth...."--Ex. 21:22-24

But despite all the above, the crucial question remains lingering in the background. What about the O.T. laws that are conveniently ignored, but of equal weight? Biblicists act as if many did not exist. The following examples are typical:

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and rules against infanticide, for example, while ignoring other tenets? A believer's obligations to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. As was stated at the end of last month's Commentary on Ignored Teachings, Jesus said the Old Law would stand until heaven and earth passed away. Not one jot or tittle was to be changed until all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Paul disagreed, but, then, this is not the only topic upon which they clashed.

Apologist have also tended to ignore or minimize the Old Law's support for slavery and the subordination of women (See: Aug. 1983 Commentary) and failed to follow the Sabbath. Except for some sabbatarian groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Biblicists don't go to church on the correct day. Saturday, not Sunday is the Sabbath. There is no substantive biblical support for calling Sunday--the first day of the week--the Sabbath. As the text says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex. 20:8-10, Deut. 5:12-14). Moreover, the prohibition against labor on the Sabbath is regularly violated since work occurs on every day of the week. With respect to labor, it wouldn't matter what day was the Sabbath. Apologist Gleason Archer stated in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (p. 116-121) that several facts seem to teach that Sunday replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. He sought to justify the change by alleging:

Problems accompany each explanation.

When all is said and done, the basic question remains. Where does the Bible specifically and clearly change the Sabbath to Sunday?

And finally, if Biblicists are going to quote Old Law with respect to executing murderers, then why don't they quote verses which prescribe the death penalty for a wide variety of acts other than murder? All of the following warrant execution:

In summary, Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with many OT morals, but are not adverse to selectivity using that which suits their interests. If they like an OT verse, they expound it; if they don't, they say that's from the Old Law and we aren't under the Old Law anymore. But aren't the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law? Yes, they say, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT (Matt. 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19, and Luke 18:18-22). People who assert as much should note that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commandments. But even if they had been present, we would still be under all the Old Law, including the Decalogue, according to Christ ("And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail"--Luke 16:17, see also Matt. 5:18-19). If "sin is transgression of the law", as 1 John 3:4 says, then we should be following all of the Old Law.

 

 

 
Home Message Forum Islam Muhammad Christianity Comparison
Columns E-MAIL Qur'an Qur'an Miracles Bible Links