Part 19
6. Deals with man's fall. Offers no information.
7. Deals with real cause of death
Offers no information
other than, it's the
course of things
8. Deals with the new birth.
Offers no hope
9. Deals with proper morality
Offers "do your own thing"
10. Deals with a future life.
Offers no afterlife
11. Gives absolutes in morals
Demands no absolutes in
morals
12. Correct and unchanging in state which it was written
Changes with the times and
the writers
13. Man has value before God
Man has only what value he
can find for himself
14. Deals with the creation of man
Deals with the evolution of man
Now, let us move to four improper theories of man's coming into existence:
1. Evolution: Most people today know what evolution is. It is the thought that man evolved from a long process of life getting better and better. The life would be some primordial gluck that decided to become alive. Life then evolved into something intelligent, then into fish, then into animal, then into man and we have been getting better every since. So why are some of us so bald if we are getting better, or is baldness the next best step forward for mankind?
2. Theistic Evolution: Notice that they allow God into this one, ever so slightly. God created, and left it all to evolve with his guidance over the millions of years that it took. He allowed natural processes to bring life into existence and then evolve into man.
3. Progressive Creationism: "Creationism" is included in this title to give an air of respectability to evolution. In this thought God created life, then allowed millions of years to pass between the stages of intervention by Himself. You know, those missing links that the evolution always talks about — God stepped in from time to time to give evolution the needed boost to the next level. This is why there is no link between monkey and man. Evolution got to the monkey, and God stepped in and somehow brought about man.
4. Abiogenesis Or Spontaneous Generation: This thought tells us that man just began to exist — no creator — no creation. Cambron mentions, "...there was no creator of man, but that man simply came into being without a cause and began to exist fulfilling the nursery rhyme, which reads: Where did you come form baby dear? Out of the nowhere, into here." (Cambron, Mark G. D.D.; "Bible Doctrines"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954, p 155)
There is a fifth point if you are a Treky. (A Treky is one that enjoys the Star Trek television series.) In the Star Trek series there is what they call the Genesis Machine. No, You Say? Well, Probably Not.
THE PROPER — BIBLICAL VIEW
Man was brought into existence by God. Genesis 1:27 shows the fact of creation, Genesis 2:7 shows the how of creation, and Matthew 19:4 shows Christ giving validity to that account. Let me list a few other points concerning the creation of man:
1. He Became a living thing (Genesis 1:21). He wasn't living beforehand and then suddenly change form. It was a creation, not an evolution.
2. Paul states that Eve was taken from Adams side. This was a sudden action as well as supernatural, thus probably Adam's own creation was probably sudden and supernatural. (as opposed to thousands of years) 1 Corinthians 11:8.
3. Paul states that there are different kinds of flesh. One for animal and one for man (1 Corinthians 15:39). Man did not come from the fish.
4. God states that man was created, then the woman was created. The theist would have to have all males up to the time of Adam, then have woman. This does not seem logical to have man only in the evolutionary process until a point in time when woman is introduced.
As we move along in our study of man, we might consider whether we can have a complete Psychology of man (psychology is the science that deals with the mind and the behavior that it causes in man) that is derived from the Bible. Anyone that has read the Bible would have to say no. The Bible is complete, and correct in what it says concerning psychology, however it is not, nor was it meant to be a psychological text book.
God did not set the Scriptures down to address man's overall psychology, but to address man's spiritual needs. The next question is this, "Can a psychologist form a practice using principles found in the Word of God?" To a point this is possible. He can use principles from the Bible if the person is a Christian. If the person is lost then the person may, or may not follow the remedy, nor will he have the Holy Spirit to assist him if, indeed he follows the remedy.
There have been men that have practiced in the following manner. They first of all find out if the person is saved. If they are Christians they proceed from a Biblical standpoint to minister to their problems (problems
that are usually related to sin). If the person is not saved they are given the Gospel, and the opportunity to accept Christ. If the response is no, then the treatment is basically the usual secular psychology, with the Word used as much as possible.
Others have noted many "Biblical" principles wrapped up in the "Reality Therapy" of Dr. Glasser. His principles worked well in many patients, even though he was not (to my knowledge) a believer. Biblical principles can work in an unsaved person if they allow them to be applied. Indeed, the fact that some unsaved people live great moral lives, is proof that Biblical principles work, whether the lost or believers follow them.
Today one of the attacks upon the Word is leveled at the fact that not all of it is inspired. Many today now believe that the Word is inspired only in those areas where it is conveying spiritual truth. Where It touches on science, psychology, and what have you, it may contain errors. This is how believers can hold to the quasi evolutionary systems that they believe in. In the area of science (creation) the Bible has errors, so they insert their own philosophy.
How do we answer the charges that the Bible contains errors in the area of science, etc.? We need to understand that the Bible is not written as a science, psychology, or history book. It is written to reveal the answers to man's spiritual problems, and to give them a moral standard to live by. It is, however, in areas where it speaks on these subjects, without error and is true.
For example you can read secular history books and find many examples where the secular world has "found errors in the Bible" because there was no proof of the Word's statement. As the years go by archaeologists have proven over and over that the Bible is the correct version, rather than the secular history.
We, as believers, accept these things by faith, so why not share our faith in Christ and His word with the people around us. Hebrews 11:3 states: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." If we accept it by faith then we should be up front and tell them
that. We should also remind them that they are accepting what they hold on faith as well.
Much of science is still accepted by faith. An example of this is the flow of electrons in a wire to produce an effect such as light or sound. They do not know if it is really electrons in the wire, nor do they know if what ever is flowing, flows from negative too positive, or positive too negative. They have formed the theory that it is the flow of electrons from positive to negative, and they can demonstrate the results yet they cannot prove their theory. Probably, it is true but, they must accept it by faith. Even then they debate about the direction of current flow.
The whole matter of evolution is likewise acceptable only on the basis of faith. There is little proof for the system, and anyone that holds to its teaching must have faith in the teaching, or they could not hold to it.
Man could not have evolved from mud, because he is a personable, rational, moral and religious being. How can anyone believe that man which is personal, rational, moral and religious came from a primordial blob?
If you mentioned to someone that you believed the Genesis account of creation and they said they didn't; that it was only a fable of the Old Testament, how could you answer that person?
Take them to Matthew 19:4,5 and read the account of Christ's answer to the Pharisees, "He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" This puts them at odds with not only the Genesis account of creation, but also at odds with the Son Of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his view. Christ held that the creation account was historical and reliable. At this point let him argue with Jesus Christ. I would like to list some references that view creation as fact: Exodus 20:11; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Psalm 8:3-6; Mark 10:6-7; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 11:9; 15:22; 15:45; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 14.
How do we make this practical? A study of man and his creation. How will you present this to a group and help them live better Christian lives with it?
1. The Extra-Biblical theories which have been set forth are truly revolutionary and breathtaking. It is wonderful that man can know so much about himself with absolutely no scientific evidence.
Intra-Biblical anthropology is a simple statement of fact by the creator of the universe about how He created. Surely He would be the one that knows how He did it.
There are some new theories which attempt to merge the two views, however man always ends up in the drivers seat of these new thoughts.
2. Man is a created being made by a very powerful God. (The ramifications of this are immense.)
3. We are created beings. Not only are we created beings, but we are responsibility to the creator. When you create a cake, it is there for you to do with as you desire. God created us, and we are here for HIS purposes, not our own.
4. We are created in His image. We have a responsibility to know what He is, so that we can become more like Him.
TRUTH FOR LIFE
God took the time to create man and in essence ME so I must assume I have value before Him, else, why would He have bothered. If I have value before Almighty God then I have value to myself — I am worth something. I have no value aside from the creator — thus my creator should be very important to me. If I have value, that value comes from my creator, thus what is my response? I should: Submit to his Word; Serve Him; Share Him; And speak with Him.
I have often wondered if David Brainerd had realized some of these truths, if he would have had a different outlook on life. I would like to quote a short portion of his diary on the day of his commissioning as a missionary.
It shows a man that had very little concept of value before God. True, his negative thoughts were generated by his honest hate of sin within himself, yet I must wonder if he felt that he had any value before His maker. "Spent much time in prayer and supplication: was examined in reference to my Christian experience, my acquaintance with divinity, and some other studies and my qualifications for the important work of evangelizing the heathen, and was made sensible of my great ignorance and unfitness for public service. I had the most abasing thoughts of myself; I felt that I was the worst wretch that ever lived: it pained my very heart, that anybody should show me any respect. Alas. me thought how badly they are deceived in me. how miserably would they be disappointed if they knew my inside. O my heart. And in the depressed condition I was forced to go and preach to a considerable assembly, before some grave and learned ministers; but felt such a pressure from a sense of my vileness, ignorance, and unfitness to appear in public, that I was almost overcome with it; my soul was grieved for the congregation, that they should sit there to hear such a dead dog as I preach, I thought myself infinitely indebted to the people, and longed that God would reward them with the rewards of his grace. I spent much of the evening alone." (Edwards, Jonathan; "The Life And Diary Of David Brainerd"; P 25-26
He had so much of this worthless feeling, yet today most Christian's don't have any of that feeling.
God's Workmanship by G. Campbell Morgan
"We are God's workmanship. That is where the song of hope and comfort begins. I would be frightened of the first, because when I say I am his I am not talking for effect; I am talking out of my life, deeply. Even today I say I belong to him, and I am almost ashamed because I do not feel there is anything worth his possessing in me. But wait a minute -- we are his workmanship" That means he is working on us. There is the suggestion in it of artistic beauty. We are his workmanship, not yet perfected, but in process. The figure of the potter helps me. The wheel is moving swiftly with the aid of the potter's foot on the treadle, and he gives speed or slowness as he wills to the revolving wheel. What is on the wheel? Clay. There is no beauty in it, but it is the stuff the potter wants. And humanity is just the stuff God needs and that is why he created man for an infinite
purpose we have not yet begun to see. Now watch the wheel revolving. The clay is taking form and fashion as the wheel turns. Then he takes it off and puts it into the fire. Then it is taken out and he lays on the colors, puts it in the fire again, and when the potter is done the vessel is for beauty and for use." (Stuber, Stanley I. and Clark, Thomas Curtis; "Treasury Of The Christian Faith"; New York: Association Press, 1949, p 472-473)
May we realize we are clay in God's hands. May we realize any value we have is in His creative and shaping hands? As He molds us — we gain value.
WE ARE A SOCIAL PEOPLE
In this section sociology will be examined, then we will look at sociology as it relates to the believer, the pastor, and the missionary.
SOCIOLOGY EXAMINED
In college sociology, our textbook was "A Sociology Of The Absurd" or something very near that. The purpose of the author was to present a model of sociology that fit the evidence that he was able to observe. I do not know if he ever became famous for his work because I do not know what his name was. His thought went along the line that all of society is made up of different little games people play.
To illustrate his thought I will use the situation I was in as a teacher on the faculty of a Bible Institute. I was a part of the faculty, the students were a part of the student body, the men were part of the men's dorm, the women were part of the women's dorm and the married students were part of the married student's group.
Now to illustrate the games that this author believed in, we would explain the situation thusly: I as part of the faculty am expected to come every morning, and wax eloquent about the subject at hand. I am to act pious and important. I am to have all the answers to all of the questions presented. I am above you "students" and as such should be treated with respect. As long as I play the game and obey the rules, I can remain a part of the game. If I break the rules then I must be removed from the faculty student game and enter the janitor game.
The student on the other hand was expected to act as students act. The student is to be loud, unintelligent, and in general, disgusting. As a married student, you were expected to have all the answers, and you were expected to be the model students. As a married student you were expected to have other married students over and "have fun." You were to talk about all the problems of the school and your immediate, easy remedy for those problems. You then turn your discussion to the faculty members, their problems and how you would solve their problems. You would have them join the ditch digger game, right?
Within the dorms there are certain rules to the games as well. The boys act like nuts and talk about girls. The girls act very proper and talk about boys.
As this author develops his thoughts he would state that we are all playing the game we have chosen at this point in life, and we are expected to obey the rules of that particular game.
To further illustrate, I as a faculty member was not allowed anger, I was not allowed self indulgence, I was not allowed swearing, I was not allowed fun activities, yet if I were to move out of this game into the game of janitor, I would be expected to have a different set of items as part of my game. I would not dress in a suit for work, I would not be overly friendly with the other people at work, I would clean up the messes of other people, and in general act like a janitor acts.
He believed that we choose a game and lock ourselves into it. The further application of his theory would deal with how the different games interact. Example: How does the faculty/student game interact with the Wyoming ranch worker game? How do I as a right and proper "faculty member" relate to a ranch hand when we are in two different games?
I do not believe what the man said in particular however it is a good way of looking at interpersonal relationships and beginning to understand how society works, how communities work etc.
Sociology, as any field of study is by its very nature limited to one extent, or another. To look at our own system of study, Theology, we know the limits are the study of God, and things relating to God. We break it down into the ten different areas and go to work in that study. Within theology we have the section we are working on now, Anthropology, or the study of man. Within anthropology we will deal with a number of subjects. Sociology is at best, at the outer limits of the study of anthropology, however anthropology and sociology are loosely related.
Within "theology" today we now have many other areas being brought into the picture. Some are not really theology at all. We have books that discuss the theology of missions, and the theology of Christian Education. These are not really theology and should be renamed. We do have the different systems of theology which are valid studies (Valid, in that people
study these subjects in relation to God. Some of them are, however false teaching). Liberation theology, Dominion theology, Biblical theology, Reconstruction theology, Systematic theology etc.
(Alex Inkeles, "What Is Sociology? An Introduction To The Discipline And Profession," Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964, is a good introduction to the subject if you have a desire to do further study.)
Sociology: "1:the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specif: the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings 2: the scientific analysis of a social institution as a functioning whole and as it relates to the rest of society....." (By permission. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1991 by Merriam-Webster Inc., publisher of the Merriam-Webster (registered) Dictionaries.)
Notice that there are two concepts here that will be important to our study of sociology.
a. The study of society in general and how it develops, organizes and interacts.
b. The study of a society in specific and how it relates to the whole social order.
Let me illustrate the first concept: I will take just a small portion of our own history to do this. The USA has always been called the melting pot of the world. We have, from the beginning, brought in anyone that wanted to come, and we melted everyone together into one great society.
As the emigrants came to this country they found work and places to live. The fact that these peoples from many lands congregated into small pockets not only in our cities, but in our land is of interest. In New York city there are black sections, Irish sections, Chinese sections, Latin sections, white sections, etc. Within our country are communities that were started by a particular ethnic group.
We lived in a small town in Nebraska for a while that was founded by Swedes and their business community was so tightly controlled that outsiders could not come in and start a business. One man tried to start a television repair business. Work was very slow for him, yet other shops
were running two and three months behind on their service calls. The newcomer made a deal with one of the established businesses to make their service calls for them and then carry the shop jobs to their shop. The men were excited about the possibility and called some of their customers. The customers would not allow the newcomer to touch their sets. He closed up his business within a few months.
This phenomena of division within the collective is not hard to understand, and indeed it is probably normal. We like to be with people like us, don't we.
Indeed, as believers we tend to do this. Moody Monthly mentioned several years ago that they had a pole that showed that within two years of salvation over 90% of new believers had no non-christian friends. We gather together within our own little circles, because we enjoy one another and have things in common.
Now the second point of the definition. The study of a society in specific and how it relates to the whole social order. This might well relate to the idea that the CHURCH is a society within the collective social order within the USA. We could also say that the American society is a part of the collective world social order.
We divide the world into first world, second world, third world and I think we have other newer divisions as well. All of these are terms and concepts attempting to explain, study and understand the social order in which we live as a world community.
One might wonder what the difference is between Anthropology and sociology. In the first place anthropology deals with man as he came to the earth, whether from creation or evolution. We as believers deal with man as we see him revealed in the Word of God, while the lost often deal with man as he is supposedly revealed in the fossils.
Anthropology usually considers the ancient man, the primitive, while sociology deals with more recent man. Anthropology deals with the makeup of man and how he existed in the primitive state, while sociology deals with how he exists in more recent time. Anthropology deals with the fossils, and archaeological evidence while sociology deals with the history books and visible evidence.
SOCIOLOGY AND THE BELIEVER
Carl Henry calls believers in this age to a balanced view of our own country. We are trying to understand what is going on in our nation with its spiritual decline, yet we really don't know what is going on. The thought of "sociology" in a Bible Institute would horrify many people, yet how can we understand our nation, our world before God, until we understand what is going on in our nation and our world.
Henry mentions the fact that the American people are committed to a twentieth century idol — materialism — while we are boasting that there are forty million evangelicals in the country. The two facts are both true, yet a balance between the two really tells the story of America. (Carl F. H. Henry, "The Christian Mindset In A Secular Society," Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984, p 9-10)
We don't understand our own nation and that lack of understanding comes from a basic lack of knowledge of what is going on in our nation. We need to understand that we may well be part of the problem.
The believer must understand that he or she is an integrated part of the world society, the free world society, the American society, the regional society (east coast, mid-west, west coast), the state society, the county society, the city society, the neighborhood society, the church society, and the family society. If we do not understand these relationships, then we understand not the ministry that God has set before us.
Within all of these different societies, we have responsibilities as part of those societies. If we are part of these societies, and if we are a part of the problem within these societies, then we are also a part of the remedy needed by these societies. Indeed, isn't that what we are all here for, to learn what God has to say to us so that we may in turn teach those societies.. If We Are Not About This Christian, Then We Are Not About Our Fathers Business.
Before we move on, I want to warn you that what I am going to be talking about, may well sound like Secular Humanism, but I assure you that it is not. Secular Humanism has some good points to which we as Christians react negatively because we reject all of their teachings rather than realize that they might have something to say to us.
We tend to reject all that anyone says even if we disagree only with a part of their thought. How many of you support Greenpeace the environmental group? Very few, but they are trying to do something that all of society should be involved in. We reject their message quite often because they act illegally at times, and most of them look like leftovers from the 60's hippie generation.
Let's take a look at all this: Let's look at this section through the eyes of the great commission.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:19-20
In light of the Lord's command we need to view society and all of its subdivisions.
World Society: We are responsible to assist nations that are in need of help. If we neglect that, we neglect the teaching of the Lord in the concept of compassion and love for our neighbor. We as an individual can do little, yet we can do what we can, and that is the responsibility.
Free World Society: We have a responsibility to see to it that the freedoms that we enjoy continue for ourselves, but also for everyone to which we can extend those freedoms. We should also be a part of seeing to it that others do not loose those freedoms.
If the different countries do not remain free, there normally is no Gospel witness. The early church was able to spread so easily to the known world due to the fact that there was freedom of movement and communication of the believers. They could go anywhere they wanted with their message.
American Society: We are responsible to the federal government for obedience, support and participation. We as believers have not been active enough in government in past years. We have assumed that separation of church and state meant no participation in government by believers. That is wrong. Believers are to be a part of their government in more than voting and paying taxes.
We are not to be, as some of the reconstructionists are attempting to do, set up the millennial kingdom here in the USA. We are to be light and salt in whatever walk of life we enter into. If you become a government official, then be a Christian official and be light and salt in your position.
Regional Society: There may not be much to do in this section other than participate in any way that you can. While living in the Northwest in the 70's the economic crunch hit the USA but it translated into fewer homes being built, which translated into less lumber being purchased which translated into disaster for Oregon which had an economy that was based almost totally on lumber. There was little I could do as a believer other than to be supportive of those that were hurting due to the layoffs etc. The church needed to be sensitive to the needs physical of those that were around them.
State Society: Again we deal with the government and the part that the believer ought to be playing in it.
County Society: You might have county government as well as the helping of people in need. You need to be sensitive to the lost people of that area, an area that you personally could easily evangelize yourself.
City Society: There may be city government, PTA etc. that you can get involved in. You certainly have the evangelistic responsibility. You may have business or employee relationships that need to be understood.
Neighborhood Society: You should be involved in peoples lives that are this near to you. Helping them, witnessing to them, being friends to them and all these are answered in being friends.
Church Society: Realize that there is church government and you are responsible before God for how you respond to it. You have your gift/gifts that you should be using within the local church. You should receive the encouragement and strength that you need from this community. You also should be sharing in these areas, as well as the financial area to edify the body of believers, of which you are a part.
So often when I talk to people that have left a church, their reasons are that they are getting nothing from the church. The real question is what have they been doing for the church. If they are totally involved in the
church, and working with their gifts their own needs quite often are met via their involvement. Lack of involvement can often result in lack of the church ministering to the individual.
Family Society: We know that there is a government of types in the family. That structure is important for the proper functioning of the family. There is the caring for, the support of, the encouragement of, and all those things that are a part of the family society.
If you look at the Bible for ideas in society you will find that It presents the family as the basic unit from which all of the other societies develop. Abraham was the foundation for the whole of the Jewish nation and actually was to be the foundation of the whole of society. If the Jews had done their job properly, and if the Christians were doing their job correctly, then the world would be much more toward the society that God envisioned, a society of Godly people. Yes, that is idealistic to say that the world should be Godly, but that was what God had in mind when He gave Adam and Eve the command to go out and be fruitful.
It is man's self-centeredness that has brought the world to where it is today. We all are doing our own thing, rather than the Lord's thing, and many people are dieing in their lost state because of our failure.
SOCIOLOGY AND THE PASTOR
Just how can the concept of sociology help the pastor? Mark Henry in his first chapter has two sentences, which to me, sum up a whole bunch of the problem with our nation, our church, and our families. "Man's lack of commitment to God means his inevitable spiritual enslavement to the world...." (P 10) "The Fact that human liberty is divorced increasingly from supernatural accountability may well become our national undoing." (P 11)
Please Write Those Down. They Are Important For You To Be Able To Understand Our Nation And Our Church And Our Families. If you miss this you will not understand what is going on in your church. We as believers are not committed to God. We as believers are enslaved to the world. We as believers are free to do as we please — we have our rights. We as believers reject the thought that we owe anything to God.
Understand these items and you understand why pastors are moving every 18 months to find better paying churches. I recently picked up a financial statement in a church of about 125 and their pastor was receiving a total of over $31,000 a year. This was in Wyoming. Their pastor is new. The last one only lasted about 16 months.
Understand these items and you understand why missionaries are taking longer to raise their support than to gain their education. Understand these items and you understand why fundamental churches are dead today.
If the pastor does not understand the progression of society then he won't understand the goings on of his church. Example: Cliques. If the rich people begin to gather unto themselves and the middle class and the poor do the same, then there will be natural divisions that will occur in the church. This is not necessarily bad, but it can be very bad.
How do you overcome these growing divisions Pastor? Teaching the principle of equality within the believers. Holding area Bible studies instead of Sunday evening or Wed. evening services, and be sure there is a good mixture of rich, middle, and poor in each group.
As society changes, so changes the church today. We follow along with the changes of society very nicely. This is not a correct view to hold, but it is an observable fact that you need to realize. The truth of the Word, however holds forth a different concept. The Bible seems to show, As The Church Changes, So Changes The Society. As we get our act together, we will affect the society.
That is about the exact opposite of what we see today in most fundamental churches. If a new fad or custom hits the USA, the church will soon have incorporated it into their activities.
The charismatic movement got into the "chorus" craze and the fundamentalists and evangelicals are now right in the middle of it. The world tells our women that they must be beautiful and so the church has spawned aerobics that use the music we condemn in the sanctuary. The church has brought in the color tests to develop your "true" beauty. etc.
There is another aspect to understanding society that we need to look at briefly in the context of a pastor/pastor's wife. You may not know it, but
within our own country there are many subsocieties and cultures. You may move to a different part of the country to pastor a church. You may wake up the first morning in your new town to find that you don't know anything about the people that have called you to minister to them.
Don't blunder into a new church and think that you know everything about what the people need. You may not. You may run headlong into problems that you have never imagined. One example that might help you understand this. My wife and I went to North Carolina to visit her sister and husband. We noticed tobacco growing everywhere. Almost every property had little patches. We went to church on Sunday morning and found that the Christian society in which we were, saw nothing wrong with tobacco. Most of the people in the church grew it and from the smell of the church most of them used it as well. Tobacco smoke smell was throughout the church building and as people were leaving after the services they were also lighting up.
Now, if you take a Southern Baptist Church to pastor, you may well have many transplanted southerners in your church, even if it is in Oregon. Faith and I attended a Southern Baptist Church in Hawaii and the southerners were the majority. Between Sunday School and church the outside of the church had so much smoke rolling up from the sides that you would think that the building was on fire. You will have to be careful how you deal with the problem of smoking. I am not saying don't deal with the problem, but I am saying be very careful how you attempt to deal with it. You do not want to offend, you do not want to drive away, and you do not want to look for a new church.
SOCIOLOGY AND THE MISSIONARY
I guess the classic story of the missionary that had just arrived in his new country of ministry, and his first visit with church people will suffice to illustrate the importance of understanding the society that you are going to.
A missionary had arrived, and one of the veteran workers was taking the man around to meet the people of the church. As the new arrival would enter a home he would want to talk to the people so he would say something complimentary about their home. He would pick out some item and mention, "Oh that is beautiful." or "That is very nice." When he did
this, the people would give him the item. Finally after several incidents of this sort the new worker became confused. He asked the veteran missionary why the people were giving him gifts, but not giving the older worker gifts. The older man explained that the unknowing arrival had been asking for the gifts. In the society they were in, if someone complimented you on something it is your duty to give that item to them. Understand The Society That You Minister To.
We could invest an entire book on this topic, and how we could improve the church and our personal witness, but we do not have a semester. I trust that this will suffice to interest you in getting to know the society that you are getting involved in.
One final illustration to prove to you that the society that you live in may differ greatly from the one that you want to interact with.
It is quite obvious that males and females are different in social and mental ways. Surveys have been done that prove this. Emory S. Bogardus, "Sociology," New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954, pp 74-74 did a survey of 869 10th, 11th, 12th graders in 1950's. The students were asked to rate items of desirability in their friend of the opposite sex.
The girls desired the boy to be a good conversationalist, but the boys did not care about that point. The girls did not rate looks in their top ten, but the boys rated it number three. Differences exist.
We need to understand that all people are different, both sexes are different, and that the sexes are different in different parts of the world.
To properly minister in your future years you must Understand Those That You Would Minister To.
ORIGIN OF MAN
If you like titles, you might try the following for this section, Origin Of The Originals.
The secular anthropologist has a dim view of man. They view him as only an integrated part of the natural order. He has form, and must obey the same laws of nature as the other animal life. He is like a laboratory where chemicals are processed. He takes in materials for his own use and processes them as do the other animals.
It would seem that our mothers missed the boat when they named us. My name should be S-D Laboratories. If man is nothing but one of the animals and nothing more than a part of the natural order then man is a product of nature, rather than God. We know better because of the knowledge we gain from the Word.
The two major systems of thought today, as to the origin of man are Evolution and Biblical creationism. The evolutionary side is based on speculation, conjecture and assumption and lots of the latter. Biblical creationism is based upon the Revelation of God to man. It is truth in all that it communicates and can be accepted as such.
The evolutionist offers many proofs, but no Proof as such. They have presented many things over the years and Christianity has been kind enough to shoot all of them down. Indeed, evolution had been laid to rest in the religious circles as a false teaching, until a few years ago when Carl Sagan decided to make a bundle of money on the resurrected evolutionary theories of the past. He is a very good communicator and has been able to gain the capital to produce some very fine television shows to push his new, yet old ideas.
Within the evolutionary proponents we have two basic camps. The out and out evolutionist that holds to the Darwinian thinking and the Biblical people that want to allow for the evolutionist in Biblical circles (These are the Theistic evolutionists).
The proponents of evolution usually set forth the following items as basic to their theory.
I will just quote these. I found these comments in Hodge's Systematic Theology page 240. (Gross, Edward N., editor; "Systamatic Theology"/Abridged Edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.)
1. "First, like begets like; this is the law of heredity, according to which the offspring is like the parent through out the vegetable and animal world."
2. "Second, while in all that is essential the offspring is like the parent, it always differs more or less from its progenitor; this is the law of variation. The variations are sometimes deteriorations, sometimes indifferent, sometimes improvements, that is, such as enable the plant or animal more advantageously to exercise its functions." (I was taller than my father, yet just as bald.)
3. "Third, as plants and animals increase in a geometrical ratio, they tend to outrun enormously the means of support, and this of necessity gives rise to a continued and universal struggle for life."
4. "Fourth, we have the Law of Natural Selection. In this struggle the fittest survive; that is, those individuals which have an accidental variation of structure which renders them superior to their fellows in the struggle for existence survive and transmit that peculiarity to their offspring. This is 'natural selection';i.e., nature, without intelligence or purpose, selects the individuals best adapted to continue and to improve the race. It is by the operation of these few principles that in the course of countless ages all the diversified forms of vegetables and animals have been produced."
The theistic evolutionist holds to evolution, but sees God as the prime starter of all these processes. There are variations on this thinking as well.
God, in Genesis one and two, is very clear in what He is trying to communicate to man. He mentions very specifically just how he went about the creation of the universe, as well as man. If we do not accept Genesis one and two as truth, then that record must be held as untruth, or lies. Can you imagine telling God that He is a liar? That is what the evolutionist and Theistic evolutionists are doing. Think about that one for awhile.
Not only does the Scripture tells us very dramatically in Genesis of the creation, but the Bible also goes on to mention the creation many times more in other portions of the Word. This is very emphatic that the Lord created.
Not only do the doubters call the Lord a liar, but they also are casting insults toward Him. The next time you talk to an evolutionist you might ask him if he really wants to be part of a system that makes God out a liar.
If we leave God out of the creation then we have a lack of many things. We do not have any direction for the universe and ourselves, other than what man might dream up. We have no reason to be moral people. We are products of the goo of past ages so why should we be moral.
Indeed, this is why the movies and the television shows are going totally down hill. They have no standards. The standards have basically been lifted, and all is go.
The illegitimate birth rate is soaring and why? No standards in our society. It is strictly okay to have a baby and raise it as a single parent, so many are doing just that.
Divorce rates are terribly high. Why? No standards of marriage. Marriage is a try it, and if you like it keep it, situation in our society today.
Abortion is rampant in our country. Why? There is no standard for life. The law says that these children do not exist as life thus they have no value.
If there is no standard then every person is his own standard. I recently saw an interview of a man that had killed another man in the process of a robbery. He was convicted and put away for life. His reaction was one of total indignation. He had done nothing wrong. He had shot a gun, but the dumb person that died was at fault. He ran in front of the gun. His philosophy was that he had done no wrong, and that he had no responsibility.
That is the end result of evolution and humanism. On the other hand the Bible and creation demands much higher of man. Since we are told that we are created in His image then it is also somewhat indicated that we should
act in His image as well. You might jot down 1 Peter 1:16; Matthew 5:48 for future reference as well.
We are to be conformed to the image of Christ. We can only do that as we conform to the dictates of the Scriptures. This is where our morals will come from.
Chafer states that if we leave the Bible and God out of the origin of man that we can look to tadpoles for moral standards. If God and the Bible are left out then man is left to dream up his own theologies, and that he does. That is why we have so many cults and isms around today.
Many have realized that the Genesis one and two accounts of the creation are different, yet very similar. This is explainable as follows. Some feel that chapter one is an introduction, and that chapter two fills in the gaps of one. This is the method of some Hebrew writings. They are like the modern day speaker that tells em what he's going to say, then he tells em what he wants to say, and then he tells em what he has just said in the hope that they heard what he said.
Some suggest that one is mankind in general and that two is speaking specifically of Adam. Chafer suggests the term Cosmical in relation to it being mankind and the term physiological in relation to Adam specifically.
No matter how this similarity is explained, the final result must be that both relate to the creation of the heavens and the earth by the supreme Being, God.
Genesis 1:27 seems to speak quite specifically about the subject of creation. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Since God mentions it three times in one verse it might be indicated that God believes that He is the creator. God did it, He said it, we believe it because faith allows it (Heb 11:3).
Within man's abilities of observation, there are things which tend to confuse us. The evolutionist on the one hand says that we descend from the monkey. As we observe the monkey, we can see that we are similar. On the other hand God tells us that He created the animals, and then another order, man. We may see similarity to ourselves in the monkey, yet
we know from the Word that there is a major difference. We can respond to the Creator and the monkey can only respond to his surrounding and needs.
We, as man, have many similarities with the animal world. If you have ever been to the zoo and watched the monkeys you can certainly see some remarkable similarities. We went to the Colorado Springs Zoo years ago and I was especially taken by one large monkey that was sitting on a shelf in the top of his cage all slouched down like I do to watch TV. He wasn't watching TV, but he was sure observing the foolish creatures that were passing by him. His actions, and facial expressions made me feel like he was about to get up and come over to me for a long conversation.
Man may have many similarities however we have one very prominent and distinct dissimilarity. Man Has A Spiritual Nature And There Is No Animal That Has This. We Are Formed In The Divine Image.
Genesis does not allow for an evolution for Adam. He was created complete and mature. The fact that Adam was created mature is indicated by the following: 1. No pacifier, formula or diapers are mentioned. 2. He was told to tend the garden. This would require mature motor skills to operate in such a manner. 3. He spoke with God, thus he had speech skills. By the way how do you suppose he felt the moment that he became conscious? Did God create him with memories? Did Adam have a knowledge of God built in? Did he come with completed memory banks concerning gardening and family life?
God created Adam as an adult, and as a complete being in all respects. There were no recalls on the defective model.
One question that has come to many minds is, "When did God create?" There are many theories and ideas. Mark Usher has a system of dating that appears in some Bibles, but most feel that he is probably quite a way off.
We don't really know when creation took place. There is a feeling that is fairly general today that creation would have been four to 6,000 years before Christ.
Usher used the genealogies of the Old Testament to figure out his dating system. Part of the problem of using the genealogies in the Old Testament
is that there may be several generations between names of which we are not aware. There is indication, according to those that study genealogies that the term begat in the Old Testament may well refer to decent of families rather than a direct offspring.
Even in the time of the prophets there is some guess work involved in assembling a chronology and set of dates. Some of the kings dates are given in different ways and authorities differ some on dates even in that period.
There is no real way of dating the creation. Indeed, I see little value in knowing, for the evolutionist would not believe it even if we could prove that it was Feb. 29th 5500 B.C.
When it comes to creation there are some that believe there was a long period of time between creation and the time of the Patriarchs, because of the vast number of cultures and civilizations that we have in history. This is not necessarily so. If we remember at the Tower of Babel, things were a bit disturbed. The nations would have come from the language problem which God created. The cultures also would have come from the people scattering and beginning again.
It is easy to see that man of all cultures and civilizations are descended from one source, and that source Noah, or ultimately Adam. In fact in the late 80's scientists decided that all of mankind was descended from a woman they called EVE. This common ancestry of man is called the unity of man.
Pardington has a section on the unity of man that I would like to adapt for you (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 140141). He views the unity of the race from four aspects:
From History: History seems to indicate that there was a common ancestry for all races, centered in Central Asia.
From Language: There is evidence that all major languages come from one original language. The lesser languages could certainly flow from that one original language as well.
From Psychology: There is a commonness to all races in the mind games that we play. We all have a concept of right and wrong, though it varies
from race to race. The mental capacities are similar to all races, at the same level of maturation. Many of the myths of the races indicate a common origin as well.
From Physiology: Man, no matter the race has a similar physiology. The heart rate is similar, any race can mate with any other, and the average temperature is similar. All races are susceptible to all diseases.
The Bible tells us what happened and we can by faith accept it. Man on the other hand, in his lost state, does not want to accept anything that the Bible has to say, so usually allows himself to create new and better theories that are based on very little evidence, truth or knowledge.
I trust that if you have any doubts in the area of the creation, that you will simply accept, by faith, the Scriptural account. I have always said, that it would take more faith to hold to evolution, that it does to accept creationism.
MATERIAL MAN
I would like to look at some introductory information before we move into the makeup of material man. Before we look at man, we need to consider his creation.
There are many theories of the creation, indeed most civilizations seem to have their own view of the creation. They vary from a struggle between earth and water producing creation, to the struggle of good and evil producing creation. One account even involves a cow. One of the oriental theories of creation involved a being diving into the waters and bringing forth a blob of mud and producing things. A look at an encyclopedia will produce some of these accounts.
Creation according to the Scripture was an act of God. It is a simple statement of what He did. God did not attempt to prove His involvement in creation, He just stated the facts as they are. I will list a few texts that relate to the creation. (Genesis 1:1ff; Matthew 19:4; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; 1 Timothy 2:13.)
The when of creation is another question. Many believe that there is need of millions of years between now and the original creation.
The philologist [one who studies literature or language] believes that it takes ages to develop languages into the forms that we have and would call for more time. They reject the thought however, that Adam communicated with God immediately in the garden. They also reject the Genesis account of the languages stemming from the tower of Babel. (Genesis 11)
Polygenism holds that each distinct species of man came about from separate creations. I suspicion that the Arian nation movement would believe in this. Some of them believe that they were a creation of God that was separate from all other races, and that they were the superior "God blessed" nation.
Pre-adamitism holds that man existed before Adam. Adam was the head of only a specific group of peoples. This allows for the giants of David's time and of Moses time.
Bishop Ussher set down and worked through the Old Testament genealogies and arrived at a dating system for the Old Testament. His system appeared in the margin of many Bibles in the past. His dating system is not widely held today. Chafer deals quite well with the information concerning Bishop Ussher's dating. (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, Vol. II)
Many feel that there should be several thousand years added to the date of Bishop Ussher. The extra one to three thousand years set forth by some today allows for some of the scientific facts and is not detrimental to the Biblical records.
It doesn't really matter how old the earth is as long as it's only a few thousand years. The problem arises when it is asked that the creative act be set millions of years in the past.
There are some scientists which demand millions of years for the formation of parts of the earth however they forget that Adam was created a mature man — with age. Is it not also likely that God would create a mature earth? That is, an earth that appears to have age. This would include the fossils etc.
The theory of evolution was laid to rest many years ago by Biblical scholars. Mark Carl Sagan decided to make some dollars and dug up all the old ideas and brushed them off, made them presentable, and now we are covering the same territory. Many good books on the subject are available.
Why didn't God specify the year in which He created Adam? He gives great detail in other areas of history — Ezra and Nehemiah kept good records — the genealogies of the patriarchs and prior men of God. Why not "In the beginning, in the year of Adam 6031 BC, in the 7th month, and the 2nd day, God created."? Well, maybe we should make that the 1st month and 1st day. Why didn't God let us in on the date? We don't really know.
If both Evolution and Creationism have to be accepted by faith then why not accept by faith, the Word of a God that promises to do wonderful things for you, rather than to accept by faith the word of a theory that is going to make you the knee jerk response of nature?
How do we use this in everyday life? Almighty God was DIRECTLY involved in making mankind. If God was interested enough to create man then He must have a very high level of interest in mankind.
God's interest is illustrated by Allan Knight Chalmers. "There is a striking word picture in Middleton Murry's 'Jesus Man of Genius'. It pictures the lonely God at the end of a long corridor behind a great curtain waiting for man to come near enough so that God could speak to him. In beautiful prose the author makes you feel the awful tension of man's footsteps sounding hollowly on the bare floor of the echoing corridor as man dares a little further toward the deepening gloom of the coridor's end. Time and again God's aching heart longed for man to pass the curtain that the Word might be spoken, but always there was fear before the end and the sound of retreating footsteps until Jesus came. He, daring to pass the veil, let the lonely heart of God find rest." (Stuber, Stanley I. and Clark, Thomas Curtis; "Treasury Of The Christian Faith"; New York: Association Press, 1949, p 318)
A God so vitally interested in mankind that He created, that He sent His only Son — That Is A God That Is Worth Communicating With...
I have to wonder if the Lord isn't still in this straight of waiting and waiting for his children to come to talk? He removed the fear, for we can go boldly before Him, yet many so seldom do. Hebrews 4:16, "Let us, therefore, come boldly unto the throne of grace. . . ." Prayer is so rich — free — yet we fail to do it. It is free, it causes no rash, it has no calories, it won't tarnish or rust, it causes no stains, and yet we won't meet with God.
One final line of thinking. In Genesis 2:8 it mentions "man whom he had formed." God formed man. No one would argue that the birds are considerably less impressive than man, as life forms go. (Matthew 6:26 agrees that man is more important. God tells us the birds are fed by Him. Matthew 10:31 states we are "of more value than many sparrows." Verse 28 tells us not to fear those that do ill to us. God knows when a sparrow falls, 10:29.) If God is interested in the birds, then He must have a much greater interest in man. God must care for man greatly — He cares more for us than sparrows, yet feeds and keeps track of the birds. We have a great value before Him.
We have heard of self-worth, of self-image etc. Our only value is not in what we see in us, or what others see in us, but in the value that we have before God. Many today are in trouble because they look to others for value, when they ought to be looking to their creator.
At the same time God the Son was helping in the creation of man He knew, He one day would have to go through the agony of the cross for Adam and his seed. That is love, to create the cause of your future agony. God the Father knew of the cost to Himself in giving His son for a race of sinners.
One must know that the purposes of God in creating man were of supreme importance — else why submit to the cost involved? Then to top it off He has to seek and save the lost, because man turned against Him. Even after He has saved them, He must then use the tools of conviction, chastisement etc. to keep the believer on an even walk with Him. Why does He do it? LOVE.
MATERIAL MAN EXAMINED
Man's body houses his soul and spirit while alive. When his body dies and is planted in the ground it becomes the seed for his glorified — eternal body. No, I can't explain it, but we need to consider some of the possible questions related to man's material make up.
Genesis 2:7 tells us, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Man was created from the dust of the earth; there was something missing. God completed the work by breathing in the breath of life.
When God breathed in the breath of life was the life for an endless existence? From all indications there was some idea in God's mind of Adam continuing on indefinitely. This is not the same as the eternal life that is provided now.
The life Adam had would have continued on with, had he not sinned, would have resulted in his not having to go through death. We are not told the details of what his existence would have been like had he not sinned.
We since the fall, must go through death to come to eternal life (unless the Lord comes first).
Our existence seems to show that God had a purpose in creating man. That purpose is seen in the fact that we are unique from the animals in a number of ways. Speech, soul and spirit. We must however, by His creative act depend upon His creation for continued life. We must consume of the fruit of the dust of the earth to live. ("In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:19)
I read a story some time ago about a parent that had explained this passage to a little child. A few days later the child hollered at the parent and said, "Hey Mom. There is a pile of dust under my bed. I'm not sure if they are coming or going."
We Will Return To The Earth From Which We Came. You can accumulate all the cash and homes and toys that you want, but you are still going to return to dust.
Chafer mentions that there is a unity between the body and soul — that there is no sense of distinction between the two. Can we agree with that? True the soul is linked to the body, in that the soul is basically contained in the brain, a physical part of the body. I know what he is saying and I'm not sure that I disagree, however I believe that there may be a small sense of a division between the soul and body as people age.
I have read of old people that tell that they are 20 year olds trapped in a worn out body that won't function any more. I have the same sensation at times. I look in the mirror some mornings and can't believe that old man in the mirror is I. I'm still about 20 years old and going fine on the inside, yet the outside is slowing down. I find that my eyes will not see as well as I remember them working. I find that my fingers are not as good at working with small pieces as they used to. My mind knows how the fingers should function, but the fingers will not function as my mind instructs. I feel that as we age, there may be a sense of division between the soul and body. Indeed, for the believer there seems to be an anticipation of a final division so that the soul can function as it desires without the limitations of the body. Eternity will be great.
Man's body and soul are separable by death, yet we must rejoice in the fact that they will be reunited one day with some minor changes. The new body will be a much improved model that won't wear out. 2 Corinthians 4:16 may sum up what I've been trying to say. "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." The outward is perishing while the inward is continuing.
Adam's material body seems to have been subject to death on the long term basis, otherwise there would have been no need for the tree of life. The tree of life will be in the eternal state as well, which brings some to think that the glorified body will be similar to Adams pre-fall body. (Revelation 22:2 mentions the tree of life in the eternal state.) We will look at this a little later in this section.
By the nature of our bodies they are constantly rejuvenating. They add new cells as the old are lost. There is some indication that this process of rejuvenation is slowed and hindered by the ageing process.
The Fact We Must Face Is That Death Is Always The Winner In The Conflict in this fallen state of man. The glory is that every person's body will be raised one day. Both the lost and the saved have eternal existence from the point of conception. (John 5:26-29; Acts 24:15.)
We are told a little about the believers glorified body but we are not told of the lost persons eternal condition. We know that they will be in torment and much of that sort of thing, but not much of the physical make up of things. It may be that the lost person's eternal body will be similar in nature to the glorified body of the believer. We do not know.
The old body as we have mentioned is a seed for the new body. As the grain of seed goes into the soil to rot and spring forth in new life, so our body is planted and rots to spring forth one day unto new form.
A question that often arises in this context is this, "Is it wrong for a believer to be cremated?" There are some that believe that it is, and that the Old Testament shows this to be true. They base this on the idea that destruction and judgment in the Old Testament are often by fire.
The problem with this is the fact that believers have died in house fires. Believers have been dismembered with limbs left in foreign countries etc.
Sailors are buried at sea and their bodies are completely assimilated by the ocean. If cremation is wrong then there are many that are in trouble with their Lord because of circumstances beyond their control. (Those being burned to death in house fires, etc.)
God can bring forth ALL bodies no matter where they are, no matter how badly they have decayed, or no matter how they were buried.
MATERIAL MAN AND REDEMPTION
The body soul and spirit are all involved in the wonderful redemption that God has provided for us. 1 Corinthians 15:42 and following mentions the following contrast in relation to our bodies.
SOWN IN CORRUPTION
RAISED IN INCORRUPTION
SOWN IN DISHONOR RAISED IN GLORY
SOWN IN WEAKNESS RAISED IN POWER
SOWN A NATURAL
RAISED A SPIRITUAL
BODY
BODY
Sown as Paul uses it has to do with burial, yet is better than the term bury for bury has a finality to it that sown does not have. Sown has the idea carried with it of new life coming forth, while buried seems to have the idea of finality.
Another term that the New Testament mentions in relation to death is sleep. This again shows an idea of something that is non permanent. The sleeping, awaken. When believers die they are not permanently out of business. We will again have existence, indeed we never cease to exist, only change plains of existence.
The rapture is the changing point for the believer. If he is dead the Lord will resurrect his body and unite body, soul and spirit. If the believer is
alive then they will be changed. The how of that change is unknown to us. Whether there is just an instant change of the body or whether the person dies and is instantly changed is not clear. I personally would opt for just an instant change, and not passing through death.
Chafer seems to hold to this view as well, as he mentions that the living at the rapture will have immortality. He is very specific that only those living at the rapture will have this quality.