by Wayne S. Walker

     "Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one" (Psalm 53:3). The basic theme of Psalm 53 is the folly of the godless, and it begins with the familiar words, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good" (verse 1). The modern atheist absolutely hates this statement because he thinks of himself as the epitome of sophisticated wisdom, but the sad record of atheism, at least in the history of western civilization, bears evidence to the truthfulness of the observation.

     It is in this context that David then says, "God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God" (verse 2). Not all people are atheists, but all responsible people live like those who say, "There is no God," at least one time or another because all have sinned, as Paul notes in Romans 3:23. Sin is basically a rejection of God and His way, whether in a single act or in a general lifestyle. In fact, Paul had earlier used Psalm 53:3 (or its parallel passage of Psalm 14:3) in a string of quotations from the Old Testament to give book, chapter, and verse(s) to his assertion. "They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one" (Romans 3:12).

     Of course, these passages do not explain why all have turned aside and become corrupt. The Calvinist argues that it is because we are born with a sinful nature, having inherited "original sin" from Adam, and thus cannot help it. The Bible does not teach this doctrine. Rather, it says, "Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" (James 1:14-15). In other words, sin is something that we choose to do, not something that we just happen to have or get (cf. 1 John 3:4). Thus, because all responsible beings have chosen to sin, there is a sense in which all have turned aside and become corrupt.

     Yes, human beings can do things that are good, even those who are in sin. However, no responsible person can do absolute good in and of himself. Any good the heathen or even the atheist might do in life is the result of whatever aspect of "the image of God" remains in him (Genesis 1:27). Yet, all of us have sinned, and we shall not be saved by our own good works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). However, God's grace offers justification from sin through the blood of Christ to those who trust Him (Romans 3:24-2). Therefore, because of the love and mercy of God, we, who have turned aside and become corrupt, can choose to do good, meet God's conditions for pardon, and receive His blessings.

==============================

by Benjamin M. Shropshire

     My use of the New King James Version in my preaching and teaching was criticized a few years ago on the basis that the phrase "Certainly not!" is used in the place of "God Forbid!" in the old King James Version (see Rom. 3:4,6, etc.). It was alleged that the translators of the NKJV had changed the word of God.

     While we appreciate the respect for God's word that such a charge might indicate, we recognize in it also a case of zeal without knowledge. The writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote, even to the extent of the choice of the words they used. They wrote in the Koine Greek (the common language of the first century). For us to be able to read the New Testament, it had to be translated into the English language, but the process of translating the scriptures was not inspired.

     "God forbid!," as used in the King James Version, is a strong expression that a thing just absolutely cannot be true; it is an idiom expressing that thought. Actually, in the original text, the word "God" is not even in the phrase. The phrases, used in some more recent translations, "Certainly not," "May it never be," and "Not at all" are correct translations and express the thought of the original text as well, if not better, than "God forbid." They do not change the word of God.

========================

by Benjamin M. Shropshire

     "Pope" Benedict recently issued a document which is likely to result in upsetting some Protestant denominations, but he is exactly right in what he said. The document stated, "Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church." I don’t know why anyone should be so unhappy with that statement because it is exactly according to what Jesus said, "I will build My church" (Matt. 16:18). Notice, Jesus promised to build only one church, not many churches!

     He maintains, of course, that the Roman Catholic Church is that one and only church established by Christ on earth, but he’s wrong about that.

     The "Pope" went on to say that churches other than the Catholic church "cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession – the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

     Of course, the Catholic church cannot prove a constant succession of Roman bishops from the present ‘pope" all the way back to the original apostles either, any more than I can trace my lineage back to Alexander the Great!

     They can’t even prove that the apostle Peter, whom they claim was the bishop of the church in Rome and, hence, the first "pope," was ever even in Rome, much less "the bishop" of the church there. The list of so-called successors of Peter is spotty, incomplete and includes some outright frauds. So much for "apostolic succession" proving the Catholic Church is the one and only church established here on earth by Christ.

     The fact of the matter is that there’s not one word in the New Testament about it being necessary to have a continual line of succeeding bishops from the first century until now to prove that a church in the twentieth century is the "only one church" established by Christ here on the earth. That idea originated with the Catholic Church; not in the inspired scriptures.

     That a church today is the "only one church" established by Christ on the earth is proved by looking in the New Testament to determine the identifying characteristics of the first century congregations and then finding a church that has those same identifying characteristics today.

     The Catholic church of today (and for many centuries previously) falls far short of possessing the identifying characteristics of first century congregations. You read nothing in the New Testament about a "pope," "cardinals," "arch-bishops," "the mass," "the rosary," a "diocese," "holy water," etc. Instead, the simplicity and purity of the first century church as described in the New Testament has been changed and corrupted by hundreds of years of human wisdom and tradition.

     The one and only church established by Christ here on the earth can be found by looking for a congregation that follows the pattern revealed in the New Testament for what the church today is to be.

==================

by Benjamin M. Shropshire

     The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim, who, according to Jeremiah (39:3) was present in 586 BC when "Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon and all his army came against Jerusalem, and besieged it" (Jere. 39:1).

     The clay tablet relates that Nebo-Sarsekim bestowed a gift of gold on the Temple of Esangila in the city of Babylon. It does not mention that he was with Nebuchadnezzar when he laid siege to the city of Jerusalem and then destroyed it. The cuneiform inscription, therefore, just confirms that Jeremiah was accurate when he reported there was an official (Jeremiah refers to him as a prince of the king of Babylon) of the Babylonian government whose name was Nebo-Sarsekim. The dating of the tablet from 595 BC, which was just nine years prior to the event reported by Jeremiah, demonstrates the likelihood that the tablet and Jeremiah were both referring to the same person.

     This is just another evidence, along with many others, that the Bible is not just a collection of legends, fables and hand-me-down stories, but that it is a historically accurate document. Believing that the Bible was inspired of God, we would expect it to be historically accurate.

by Wayne S. Walker

     "I will praise You forever, because You have done it; and in the presence of Your saints I will wait on Your name, for it is good" (Psalm 52:9). "Forever" is a long time. We basically use the term as a synonym of "eternity." Our English word "eternity" is defined as "continuance without end; infinite time; time without beginning or end." The adjective form "eternal" is defined as "without beginning or end; everlasting; timeless; forever the same; unchangeable." According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word translated "eternal" basically means "without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be" and can refer to something either "without beginning" or "without end, never to cease, everlasting." In many passages, this same word is translated "everlasting," so the two terms are considered synonymous.

     These words describe the nature of God. "The eternal God is your refuge..." (Deuteronomy 33:27). Because God is who He is, He is absolutely eternal, without beginning or end. "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God" (Psalm 90:2). Jesus Christ partakes of the same divine nature as the Father, so He is described prophetically as "...The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2). Also, the Holy Spirit is a part of this Godhead and is referred to as "the eternal Spirit" (Hebrews 9:14). Because we are finite beings, it is difficult for us to grasp this aspect of God's nature, but it is taught in the Scriptures. This same word is used to identify the duration of both the punishment that the wicked will be given and the life that the righteous will receive. "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).

     Unlike the nature of God, this punishment and this life will have a beginning point, but they are eternal or everlasting in that they will continue without end and remain forever the same. Our earthly existence has an end. However, someday you and I will go to a place where we shall continue without end--either in a state of eternal life (fellowship with God) or everlasting punishment (separation from God). The decisions that we make in this life will determine what that state in eternity will be. Therefore, we need to be choosing wisely. "For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: 'I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones'" (Isaiah 57:15). Will you praise God forever? As Elisha A. Hoffman asked, "Where will you spend eternity?"

by Wayne S. Walker

     As I was growing up, I loved to join in the singing of hymns and gospel songs during church services and other occasions where people gathered together to praise God in song, and through the years with my general love of music I have maintained an active interest in the songs that we use in our worship, not only leading singing whenever possible but also extensively studying and writing about hymns. It is no secret to those who have read much of my writing about worship in song that I am not a big fan of the modern "praise and worship song" genre. These songs have become extremely popular in denominational churches which promote "contemporary" and "blended" worship and are rapidly finding their way into churches of Christ. My concern with such songs is not because I object to having, learning, and using new songs. Both while a teenager and during the time of my preaching work I have constantly encouraged brethren to learn hymns with which they are unfamiliar, and, in fact, I have even composed a few "new songs" myself. Sometimes it has been difficult for me to put my finger on what troubles me about many of the modern praise and worship songs, and thus it has not always been easy for me to explain the questions and doubts that I have about them. However, a recent experience has provided me some additional insight.

     Not long ago, we attended the lectures conducted by Florida College in Temple Terrace, FL. During our week in Florida, we attended three church services at two different congregations where nearly all the songs used were of the modern "praise and worship song" variety. However, at the lectures the three nights of singing which preceded the speeches consisted mainly of the grand old hymns and gospel songs of Zion that brethren have known, sung, and loved through the years. The rather stark contrast between the two kinds of songs channeled my thinking again into why I prefer the one and not the other. And let me say right here that I recognize that much of what I have to say is personal preference. I cannot, and therefore will not, say that all who sing the modern "praise and worship songs" are sinning or that Christians must use a particular musical style of religious song (that I happen to like) in worship to be right with God. However, I would also like to think that my preferences have been honed and tuned by years of studying God's word about acceptable worship and my experience in seeking to apply its principles.

     I have decided that my basic trouble with the modern praise and worship song style is that for the most part it tends to be much more subjective than objective. Now, the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in religious songs is sometimes a rather fine line, but I believe that there is a distinct, if not always easily identified, difference. The older style hymns were primarily objective in that they centered upon Deity as the object of our praise and devotion. The gospel songs that developed during the nineteenth century were largely somewhat more subjective in their nature, but even in their subjectivity they focused upon what should be our appropriate response to Deity as taught in His word, so there was still a sense of objectivity about them. However, the impression that I am left with after singing so many of the praise and worship songs is that their main emphasis is on how we feel or what we think about certain aspects of our relationship with God. They remind me of the "touchy-feely" kind of religion that is so popular among the denominations today.

     This observation brings up the subject of emotionalism in worship generally and in singing specifically. Surely, if we love God with all our hearts, that will include our emotions, and singing is one of the ways that we can rightly express our emotions in our worship. "...Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms" (James 5:13). I certainly do not advocate an emotionless kind of worship. Rather, I encourage fervent and wholehearted participation in singing as well as all other acts of worship. However, I am concerned about things becoming too emotional and thus tending toward being emotionalistic. It is a fact that the vast majority of these modern praise and worship songs come from a background of highly emotionalistic worship services and other religious activities. That does not necessarily make them wrong. The old-style Holiness camp meetings often turned the singing of many standard gospel songs into toe-tapping, foot-stomping, hand-clapping hoedowns. Yet, when I hear some of the praise and worship songs, the picture that comes to my mind is of a group of people closing their eyes, holding up their hands, and swaying back and forth in an emotionalistic worship service. It is interesting that at the church services we attended in Florida, the singing of the praise and worship songs (yes, I actually did sing) really did very little for me. Yet when we were singing the older hymns and gospel songs at the lectures I found that I would occasionally have a catch rise in my throat or a tear come to my eye. I have to wonder which kind of song really stirs genuine, godly emotion and which kind is merely emotionalistic.

     Another concern that I have about most praise and worship songs is the nature of their lyrics. We are to "teach and admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Colossians 3:16). Teaching and admonishing, at least in a scriptural sense, requires words. The purpose of words is to say something, but the fact is that the typical praise and worship songs simply do not say very much. Some have referred to them as "7/11" songs--seven words sung eleven times. Aside from their subjective, emotionalistic characteristics, they also tend to be very repetitious. Of course, all repetition is not necessarily wrong, and some is even helpful to the memory. However, we need to be careful about "vain repetitions" (Matthew 6:7). One of the criteria that I use in evaluating a hymn is to read it over as poetry without thinking of the tune (admittedly, this can sometimes be rather difficult). Does it say anything? Does it make sense? Consider this example of an extremely popular praise and worship song. If you are familiar with it, try to read it simply as poetry without thinking of the tune.

1. Father, we love You, we worship and adore You;

Glorify Thy name on all the earth,

Glory Thy name, glorify Thy name,

Glorify Thy name on all the earth.

2. Jesus, we love You, we worship and adore You;

Glorify Thy name on all the earth,

Glorify Thy name, glorify Thy name,

Glorify Thy name on all the earth.

3. Spirit, we love You, we worship and adore You;

Glory Thy name on all the earth,

Glorify Thy name, glorify Thy name,

Glorify Thy name on all the earth.

     It is amazing that something which, purely as poetry, would likely be considered practically as trite doggerel almost magically becomes a "spiritual song" when set to a catchy tune! Yes, it is true that many of the older style gospel songs, and especially some of the earlier twentieth century southern variety, are also rather repetitious. One that was brought to my attention years ago is "The Glory-Land Way." If we sing all three stanzas, we will have sung the phrase "I'm in the glory-land way" (or its equivalent) some fifteen times by the end of the song. Yet compare this to "Glorify Thy Name," again reading it simply as poetry without thinking of the tune.

1. I'm in the way, the bright and shining way, I'm in the glory-land way;

Telling the world that Jesus saves today, Yes, I'm in the glory-land way.

I'm in the glory-land way, I'm in the glory-land way;

Heaven is nearer and the way groweth clearer, For I'm in the glory-land way.

2. List to the call, the gospel call today, Get in the glory-land way;

Wanderers come home, O hasten to obey, For I'm in the glory-land way.

I'm in the glory-land way, I'm in the glory-land way;

Heaven is nearer and the way groweth clearer, For I'm in the glory-land way.

3. Onward I go, rejoicing in His love, I'm in the glory-land way;

Soon I shall see Him in that home above, O I'm in the glory-land way.

I'm in the glory-land way, I'm in the glory-land way;

Heaven is nearer and the way groweth clearer, For I'm in the glory-land way.

It seems to me that this somewhat egregious example of gospel-song repetition at its worst comes across as nearly "classic poetry" when stood side by side with some of the praise and worship songs.

     Still another question that I have about the praise and worship song is the suitability of the music. While it is the words which praise God and teach and admonish one another, God apparently felt that there was some benefit in having the words set to music and sung, or else He would have just told us to recite poetry together in worship. Some have called praise and worship songs "new age church music" because their melodic, harmonic and rhythmic structures do seem to be taken from that genre known as "new age" which appears to be a blend of light jazz, modern folk, and pop styles. Obviously, people are going to differ in their opinion of what constitutes appropriate music for religious expression. Many who held to the eighteenth-century hymn tune decried the bouncier melodies of the nineteenth-century gospel song, and even those who liked the nineteenth-century gospel song often derided the sentimentality of the early twentieth-century southern gospel song music. Yet, through the years, one standard that many have used to determine a truly good religious song is whether it is simple enough for the average congregation to sing it. And, brethren, I must say that while a lot of the praise and worship songs have very catchy tunes, with their highly syncopated rhythms and unconventional harmonies they are not easy to sing at all! Even I, who have had a good deal of musical training, sometimes have trouble figuring them out. And I have been in places where people like the songs and even seem to know them but still appear to have great difficulty in getting them straight too.

     It is for this reason that I ultimately came to object to a large number (though not necessarily all) of the "Stamps-Baxter" type of songs as well. When I was growing up, the congregation where we attended used Christian Hymns No. 1 and then Christian Hymns No. 2. These were good hymnbooks with standard hymns and gospel songs. We first obtained Sacred Selections, with its change of emphasis to more of the country/southern style gospel songs, when I was a teenager, and attending area singings where these songs were sung with gusto, I eagerly jumped into them and tried to introduce them where we worshipped. However, they usually "fell flat" simply because the congregation did not have the ability to follow them with all their special parts and other musical intricacies. I eventually came to understand that such songs were never intended for use in congregational worship services but in country music singing conventions with trained quartets and choruses, which is why they are out of the reach of many congregations. And most of the praise and worship songs were not written for congregational worship services but for "praise bands" and "gospel" concert groups. Admittedly, some of the older hymns, especially the German chorale tunes, can be difficult too, but they still use standard melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic structures common to Western music which can be easily learned. However, while the style of praise and worship songs may be familiar to young people who have grown up on a steady diet of rock and roll, I sometimes find it very difficult to keep up with them.

It is not my desire to make my personal likes and preferences the standard for everyone else. I understand that many of the observations that I have made concern matters of judgment, and not all brethren are going to agree with my judgment. We are not told precisely what style of music the early Christians sang in worship other than it consisted of "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5:19). Within those parameters, each generation of God's people will find its own form of expressing praise to God in song. My intention is not to say that all the modern praise and worship songs are necessarily evil. In fact, I think that some of them are salvageable and can be used for good. However, at the risk of appearing as an "old fogey" who is "out of step with the times" and thought of by some as simply being "born in the objective case and the kickative mood" (which I try not to be), I would just like to warn us that we use discernment in choosing the songs that we sing in worship which will actually praise God (not just say "Praise God, Praise God, Praise God" a dozen times) and edify our minds with teaching and admonishing from God's word. "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer" (Psalm 19:14).

by Stephen Johnson

     [Editor's note: I first read this article back in 2002. The vast majority of the praise and worship songs of modern times comes to us from the Contemporary Christian Music movement. I would not agree with every observation or statement that Mr. Johnson makes, but I thought that his experiences in the CCM movement from which the praise and worship songs arise and his knowledge of its background were very interesting and shed a lot of light on the conclusions that I have reached. WSW.]

     For several years, I played in a praise band. At a previous post I held, we had a knock-down, drag-out, rock and roll revel at 8:30 every Sunday morning. We were good too. All the musicians had some talent. You know, I think some of you here at St. Peter would be surprised at how I can tear up a piano keyboard.

     One of things that used to amuse us in rehearsals was when we were able to connect praise and worship choruses up to secular counter parts. It was not difficult to do. You know "Shine Jesus Shine" is really Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline." We used to use an introduction to that song which was a direct quote from Pat Benetar's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot." The chorus "All Honor" is really Kenny Rodgers, "Lady." "You are my All in All" is like the Bette Midler tune "From a Distance." And the list can go on.

     Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) always defines itself in terms of the pop culture. The pop culture sets the trend and the CCM artists follow along. Almost every Christian group has a secular counterpart. Recently, I was listening to a CCM station in my area and I could swear I was hearing Alanis Morissette singing about how she loves Jesus. Well, it was not she of course, but boy was the likeness uncanny. She had that little girl, breathy quality and the contrasting gutteral abrasive quality; I mean it was all there. She made her voice sort of squeak at the end of phrases just like Alanis does. By the way she sang about him, you would have thought that she and Jesus were romantically involved.

     CCM is the secular culture gone to church. We Christians have compromised with the world on this one. I have heard the claims that CCM is going to "take rock and roll for Jesus," but just the opposite has happened. Not only have we adopted the stylistic approaches of the secular popular culture, we have mirrored it almost to the point of being cheap replications. Replications because we have copied; cheap because it has already been done by more innovative and often more talented musicians than CCM has to offer. Furthermore, what message is it that CCM claims is "taking rock and roll for Jesus?" Unfortunately, our theological categories have been eroded away by our lust for the pop culture. When I listen to CCM I hear hardly any Gospel, and what little I do hear is only a passing reference. There is nothing in CCM about original sin. There is nothing about the atonement. There is nothing about confession, absolution, the sacraments, justification, bearing one's cross or the character of God. Now when I say nothing, there are exceptions. But they are very few and far between. And if a song references any of these things it is likely done with inadequate understanding.

     CCM does not teach as Colossians 3:16 says we are to do with our music. CCM does not preach in the sense of revealing God's Word and Christ to our souls. CCM in no way functions as the Word of Christ dwelling in us richly. Oh, CCM does dwell in us. Very easily so. The melodies are trite and the chord and rhythmic structure simplistic beyond description. The words, vapid of significant truth, focus on the immediately accessible. If fast food is unhealthy as a steady diet, CCM is the McDonalds of church worship. It may taste good and may be quick and easy, but it has very little spiritual nutrition. It is popular because it is so much like the world. Besides, the themes tell us things we want to hear. CCM tells us that God understands our weakness and is our therapy to get over it. It tells us that we can contribute to our salvation and sanctification. It promises self-improvement and that Jesus will help us. It give us an outlet to "express ourselves" to Jesus. But it does not help us understand scripture, nor does it teach us the deep and important truths of our God, or our faith and salvation. It is a diet that erodes our theological sensibilities and makes us fat with an easy unchallenging Christianity that is foreign to the scriptures.

     I would almost rather that young people buy CDs and listen to groups from the popular culture instead of CCM. Because the pop-culture tells us who they are. If they are sadists you know it up front and you can listen as an informed consumer. If the song is about wanton sex, at least they are saying so outright. Our sons and daughters, taught right and wrong in the home, can learn that secular values are wrong, even if they do like certain secular groups. CCM claims to be doing something it is not. It claims to be giving people Christ and it is not. Young people who listen to the therapeutic, moralistic and theologically errant messages present in CCM are apt to adopt a different gospel than the Biblical one. They are apt to be grossly misinformed about themselves and their sin condition as well as their God, and their salvation. Appreciating the styles of certain secular pop-culture musical entities might be far less of a concern than the spiritual damage CCM can cause.

     When Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, nothing will burn up faster than late 20th century popular culture. Yet, many churches lust after it, evidenced by their anxiousness to bring it into their worship services. They say they are trying to convert the culture. But it cannot be converted in this way and time has shown that efforts to do so can actually hurt us. The American church is about as anti-theological and carnal as it can be. Yet, CCM still claims to be conquering secular music in the name of Christ. When are the blinders going to come off?

by Wayne S. Walker

     "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Psalm 51:7). Have you ever been working outside on a hot summer day? Perhaps you were weeding the garden and in addition to being sweaty were covered with dirt. Or maybe you were doing some work on the car and in addition to being sweaty were covered with grease. How wonderful it feels to get in a hot shower, wash thoroughly, and come out clean. The Bible uses this figure of speech to picture the effects of sin on our soul and the need for forgiveness.

     In the Old Testament, the Lord prefigured this picture with the concept of ceremonial uncleanness. Many things could make a person "unclean" for varying periods of time, but one major source of uncleanness was leprosy. This dreaded disease had no known cure, but sometimes people did recover from it, and in order for them to be ceremonially cleansed, the Lord prescribed a ritual. "Then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop" (Numbers 14:5).

     David understood that his sin made his soul unclean in the sight of God. Just as the law of Moses prescribed the use of hyssop as part of the ceremonial cleansing after a person was healed from leprosy, so David asks the Lord to purge him from his sin as with hyssop, so that he would be clean, washed, and whiter than snow. While we may or may not have sinned in the same way that David did, "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23). Therefore, our sins need to be purged so that we can be clean. We must be washed so that we can be whiter than snow. David prayed a few verses later, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me" (verse 10).

     How can we be washed so that our souls may be clean? Of course, the cleansing agent that washes away our sins is the blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5). But there are things that God expects us to do that our sins might be washed in Christ's blood. Saul of Tarsus was told, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). However, even after we are baptized, washed from sin, and become Christians, we still sin. Yet, if Christians confess their sins, God will forgive them as the blood of Jesus cleanses them from all sin (1 John 1:7, 9). "Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power, Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?" (Elisha A. Hoffman).

by Wayne S. Walker

     "For the redemption of their souls is costly, and it shall cease forever" (Psalm 49:8). This Psalm by the Sons of Korah opens with a call for everyone to listen to wisdom (verses 1-4). Then the Psalmist asks, "Why should I fear in the days of evil, when the iniquity at my heels surrounds me?" (verse 5). Evidently what made the days of evil was "those who trust in their wealth and boast in the multitude of their riches" (verse 6). While such people may do much iniquity, there is no reason to fear them because "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (verse 7). The fact of the matter is that the redemption of the soul is so costly that no one can redeem even himself let alone anyone else.

     Yet, everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23). In so doing, we have made ourselves slaves to sin (Romans 6:16). And the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). This refers to eternal punishment in hell as a result of sin. Therefore, to escape this eternal punishment, we definitely need to be redeemed or bought back by God from slavery to sin. If we cannot be redeemed by ourselves or other mortals, how can we be redeemed? The answer is that the God who made us and loves us in spite of our sins has acted to provide redemption. "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Galatians 4:4-5).

     However, redemption requires the paying of a price. What was the price that the Lord paid for our redemption? Paul said of Christ, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Truly, as the songwriter tells us, "Jesus paid it all! All to Him I owe! Sin hath left a crison stain; He washed it white as snow" (Elvina M. Hall). No, I cannot redeem you nor you me; in fact, neither of us can redeem himself. But God has provided redemption through the blood of Christ which He shed as an atonement or ransom for our sins when He died on the cross. This is what Paul was talking about when he wrote, "...by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:5).

by Wayne S. Walker

     Over the past five years, I have written about gospel preachers, godly elders, and other faithful Christians whom I have known, including some whom I have styled, "Mothers in Israel." Very few of the latter have ever been known much outside of the area in which they lived, and many of them hardly outside of the congregation where they were members. However quiet, unassuming, and humble they have been, they have still had a great influence on my family and on many others. Marie Fugate Johnson was born around 1929 in Manifee, KY. Her parents were Simon and Dovie Fugate. She married Charles W. Johnson, and they became members of the Haynes St. church of Christ in Dayton, OH, in 1957. They also had a son named Darrell. Retiring from Inland Manufacturing, a division of General Motors Corporation, in 1985, Marie was affectionately known by all her friends as "Cookie," and she loved her little granddaughter Rachel.

     I moved to work with the Haynes St. church in 1987. Charles and Cookie were still members of the congregation, faithful in attendance at all services and active in the work. They took their regular turn in cleaning the church building, and I can remember Charles as he helped another brother put up a ceiling fan in the preachers' house next door where we lived. Sometime later, Charles had a serious heart attack (I think while putting up fans in their son's house) and never regained consciousness. He was in the hospital for a long time and was then transferred to a nursing facility where he died shortly afterwards. Cookie continued faithful in her attendance at all church services, although she was now dependent on others for a ride since she did not drive herself. On Sunday mornings, she rode with her good friend Lillie Spivey, who had also lost her husband, but at other times she usually rode with Eloise Hicks because Lillie did not like to drive that far after dark.

     Cookie also continued to do her share of cleaning the church building, sometimes even walking from her house to do so when the weather was fit, or taking a city bus. When our boys came along, she was one of a quartet of wonderful older ladies in the congregation, including Lillie, Bobbie Kendrick who has also now passed on, and Bea Harris, who would watch first Mark and then Jeremy whenever we would need to attend some function where children were not permitted or just wanted to go out for a night by ourselves. At first, we always offered each of them money for babysitting, but they all refused so consistently that we finally quit asking them if they would take payment. Cookie loved to buy things at thrift stores and give to the boys.

     When we moved from Dayton to St. Louis, MO, in 2002, Cookie was still doing fine. However, sometime after that, she began having heart problems and suffered several bouts of congestive heart failure. She always was a rather small woman, but with her heart condition, she became even thinner. When we would visit in Dayton, sometimes she would be doing better and we would see her at church services, but at other times she was unable to be present. There were even times when she was not able to be out and we called to see if we could stop by her house but she was just too weak to have visitors. Eventually, her condition worsened and she passed away on Tues., Jan. 8, 2008, at the age of 79. I do not recall from whom I borrowed the term "mothers in Israel" (it comes from Judges 5:7), but just as there were godly mothers in ancient Israel, such as Deborah, as recorded in the pages of God's word, there have been mothers among God's people in our day whom the world may never recognize, but they are written in the Lamb's book of life, and many, like Cookie Johnson, are also written indelibly on the pages of my memory.

by Garreth L. Clair

     To know God and to understand God’s Book are paramount in human development for all. Is there any hope for those who will not acknowledge God’s superiority in the universe? Can a person be saved who will not accept the God of the Bible?

     The three questions that we pose at the beginning of this study address a problem with most people of every class and in every nation, this is the question of accepting God and heeding His instruction. Too many people have a knowledge of some supreme presence, some unspeakable greatness in the scheme of things but will not acknowledge the true God --- revealed to humankind via the Holy Scriptures [i.e. the Written Word of God – the Bible]. WHY IS THAT SO?

     Many people in America are skeptical when questioned about their belief in the God of the Bible. Many will say that there is no evidence that God is as religious people insist, but will deny any proof or evidence of God’s existence. Is this a rational position for anyone to take? Of course rationality is not considered when one brings up the subject of religion or of any peripheral object of Biblical religious thought.

     The basis for true understanding of God, the Bible, and religious thought in general must emanate from within the person’s seat of intellect. Intellect is conditioned through or by whatever a person imbibes through the eyes [i.e. sight] and through the ears [i.e. hearing], no one is born with the capability to believe or reject God because everyone is born with the ability to choose between good or bad with regard to any given choice as they mature. Therefore, whenever one reaches a point in growth [i.e. age and mental input] he or she will be able to know, accept, or reject whatever evidence has been imbibed into the seat of intellect [i.e. the mind – the brain]. For this cause children accept the parent or guardian that raise them to a certain point [i.e. during development stage all infants are dependant on parents or guardians for their mental and physical growth. Since the previous statement is obvious, it stands to reason that whoever is in charge of the infant’s upbringing will be influential with regard to the development of their mental state as well as their spiritual state [i.e. understanding of God, etc. – cf. Ephesians 6:1-4, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" ] ASV.

     Let us recognize that we are all responsible for how we react to God and to His Book [i.e. the Bible], whether we acknowledge God and the Bible as God’s Book or not will rest entirely on our mind’s acceptance or rejection of them. Therefore we ought to be very careful what we allow our mind to imbibe. Remember this, whatever goes into our mind will corrupt or enlighten and whatever we allow our infants to embed while they have yet to reach accountable age may Cause them to possess a corrupt understanding of God and the Bible. Parents, you must be careful what you expose your infant and young children to; it could be bad for their mental development and their eternal destiny.

     (---June 11, 2007; glclair@aol.com ; web magazine: considermagazine.com . Garreth labors with the Lord's church in Hilliard, OH.)

by Wayne S. Walker

     "For this is our God, our God forever and ever; He will be our guide even to death" (Psalm 48:14). We have visited a lot of historical sites over the years. Some of them are designed for people to stop and look at on their own, while others offer and sometimes even require a guided tour. Personally, I have found those where we have had a guide to be more enjoyable. A lot of people try to make it through this life on their own, but it is so much more helpful, and if we want to go to heaven, even necessary to have a guide. The Psalmist says that God is our guide.

     God is our guide to salvation. All of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). The wages of sin is death or eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23). However, God sent Jesus Christ to die for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). As a result, He offers redemption through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7). In this way, eternal salvation is offered to all who obey the Lord (Hebrews 5:8-9). This word or message has been revealed to mankind in the gospel (1 Peter 1:25). Because salvation began with God, only He can guide us to it.

     God is our guide in life. There is a wide gate leading to a broad way which will result in eternal punishment, and a strait gate leading to a narrow way which will result in eternal life, and Jesus said that few will find that narrow way (Matthew 7:13-14). God sent Jesus not only to die for our sins but also to be "the way, the truth, and the life" so that we might be able to come to the Father (John 14:6). Jesus has revealed God's way in the scriptures which will thoroughly furnish us unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). When we follow the teaching of scripture, God is guiding us in our lives.

     God is our guide through death. Physical death was the sentence passed to all mankind because Adam and Eve brought sin into the world (Genesis 3:19). However, death is not the end of our existence. At death, the body returns to the dust but the soul to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7). People can kill the body but not the soul (Matthew 10:28). We must all die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). If we will let Him, God will guide us even through death. It should always be my desire to say, "Guide me, O Thou great Jehovah, Pilgrim through this barren land. I am weak, but Thou art mighty; Hold me with Thy powerful hand" (William Williams).

by Joe R. Barnett

by Wayne S. Walker

     "For the LORD Most High is awesome; He is a great King over all the earth" (Psalm 47:2). Over the past few years, when a young person has seen or heard of something amazing or stupendous, he might reply, "Awesome!" Our English word "awesome" means "inspiring awe" or "feeling awe." This is the first word that came to my mind when I saw the Grand Canyon. The word "awe" is defined as, "a mixed feeling of reverence, fear, and wonder, caused by something sublime." The King James Version has the word "terrible" which can mean "causing terror; fearful; dreadful" but is used more often in the colloquial sense of "very bad, unpleasant, or disagreeable." Hence, the more positive sounding "awesome" is found in the newer versions.

     God is awesome because He created the entire universe, including the earth on which we live and everything in it. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Each of us can "create" something of whatever it is we do--a cake, a car, a sermon. However, we simply take things that already exist and then use them to make something different. God created everything that exists out of absolutely nothing. "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" (Psalm 33:6-9). Imagine a human being going into a dark cave, saying "Let there be light," and actually causing light to occur! We simply cannot do that. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).

     Also, God is awesome because He has made salvation from sin possible. The fact is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). That is bad news, but there is even worse: "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23). Because every single responsible human being has transgressed the Creator's law, which was given for our good, we deserve to suffer eternal death or separation from God in hell. However, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Timothy 1:15). Through His love for us God paid the price to make atonement for our sins so that He can offer salvation from sin to mankind. All He asks us to do is to obey Him. "Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:8-9). There are many things in this life, including the Grand Canyon, which might be described as "awesome." However, our God, who loved us enough to provide redemption, is the most "awesome" of all.

“Wholesome Adultery?”

by Sherman Wilson, Owensboro, KY

    In the Saturday, June 24, 1995 issue of the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, our local daily newspaper, the entertainment section contained a capsule review of the movies currently showing in our city. I quote from the review of The Bridges of Madison County: “From Clint Eastwood comes a wholesome romance about adultery.”

   Now I ask, “How CAN adultery EVER be ‘wholesome’?” For those who believe the Bible, please read Galatians 5:19-21. There are 17 specific sins listed, one of which is adultery. While the sins are not listed alphabetically, adultery is the very first one mentioned. It is listed right along with murder among the 17 and Paul ends by saying, “They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Can “murder” ever be described as “wholesome”? God appears to feel that adultery is just as bad as murder! This appears to be unreasonable in the eyes of most humans, including this writer. Frankly, it seems to me that taking someone’s life would have to be the most vile sin of all. After all, the murdered person may not have obeyed the gospel and, if he had lived, there was always the chance that he would have eventually obeyed and had a promise of eternal life. While the sin of murder can be forgiven if the murderer truly repents, it is the only one of the 17 sins that is permanent as restitution for the life of the murder victim is, of course, is impossible. However, even though it is hard to accept that adultery is just as bad as murder, we must never lose sight of the fact that God does not view things as we humans view them. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” This is a truth that most people have never learned (or accepted).

   To those who have committed adultery, or are “thinking about it,” what about the “Golden Rule” as set forth by Jesus (Matt. 7:12)? It says we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us (paraphrase -SW). Well, would you want YOUR spouse to commit adultery against you?

   I have heard people justify adultery by saying, “But am I not entitled to happiness?” Will your adultery make him/her happy? Remember your wedding vows — “As long as we both shall LIVE” not “As long as we both shall LOVE” — as the T.V. character “Rhoda” was asked by the preacher to vow in her famous wedding scene several years ago.

   The recent T.V. movie of Elizabeth Taylor’s life pointed out that she had been married eight times, including twice to Richard Burton. In one scene, she is depicted as saying, “Don’t I have the right to be happy?” To that I ask, what about the husbands she left for other men over the years? Weren’t THEY entitled to happiness? What about Eddie Fisher and Richard Burton’s wives? Didn’t Debbie Reynolds Fisher and Sybil Burton have a right to happiness? Didn’t their children have a right to be raised by BOTH of their natural parents?