Category: authority

The Logical Progression Of The Line

Neal Pollard

Suddenly, it has become imperative that bathroom concessions be made for those who are struggling with gender identity issues. The comprehensively consuming coverage it has garnered, the blistering backlash against any opposing of this baffling blurring of the lines, and the preeminent priority this has become for a problem pestering a puny percentage of the population is actually not surprising. At least, it should not be.

The premise behind “transgender rights” is the same as that behind gay rights, but also the “right” to choose abortion, the “right” to become sexually active before marriage, the “right” to divorce and remarry at will—as well as the “right” to commit adultery. Neither does this clamor for rights reserve itself to matters identified in scripture as sexual sins. The watchwords of our culture include “feel,” “want,” “choose,” and the variants of “I,” “me,” and “my.” Self has been enthroned and each call to express, practice, and flaunt each co-opted right is expected to be not just tolerated by everyone else, but wholly embraced by them.

If you think our society lost its collective mind overnight, you have not been paying attention. If you think that this sickening syndrome was born in the 21st Century, you are likewise mistaken. We are seeing the spoiled fruit of sinister seed planted by mankind in every generation since the first generation.  There is a moral ebb and flow in every civilization and generation, but the issue is ever-present. The majority succumb to the temptation to crown our desires and condemn the declarations of Deity.

It was an illuminating moment, looking at Mark 8:34-35 last night during Teens In The Word. Michael Hite pointed out a thread used by Mark that’s summed up in those two verses. Several times, Mark speaks of what individuals “want” or “desire.” Herodias wanted to kill John the Baptist (6:19). Her daughter wanted his head as payment for the dance which pleased Herod so much (6:25). Herod did not want to refuse her (6:26). People did whatever they wished with John the Baptist (9:13). Jesus speaks of those who desire to be first (9:35). James and John wanted a position of prominence (10:35). Jesus warns about those who desire greatness (10:43-44). But, if we desire to come after Jesus—to be His disciple—we must put self to death! This is a radical idea, one completely rejected by the world. Instead, the world says to keep moving the line to wherever you want it. You decide! You’re the boss. Discipleship acknowledges that God and His Word determine where the lines are drawn. We follow Jesus and stay behind His lines.

But Jesus does not ask us to do what He did not do to the greatest degree. Facing His imminent death on the cross, Jesus prayed in the garden, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what you will” (14:36). All these words, variously translated “desire,” “want,” and “will” in Mark’s gospel, are from a single Greek word meaning “to desire to have or experience something; wish to have” (Louw-Nida, BDAG). Jesus followed His Father’s will and denied His own. In essence, He says to us in Mark 8:34-35, if you want My salvation, you must do the same thing. The world doesn’t get that, but we must! This life is not about getting everything we want. It’s about self-denial, murdering self-will, and following Jesus. It’s about staying within His lines when it comes to everything. That’s a message we must gently share with a world bent on a self-destructive, self-guided journey!

line-in-the-sand

“Moral Leadership?”

Neal Pollard
This is how Seth Fiegerman at Mashable summarized new Apple CEO Tim Cook’s recent moves, an array of social activist “statements” that includes an Apple gay pride parade and declaring himself homosexual, calling to attention to perceived environment and climate change, and associated causes. Fiegerman also synonymously dubbed his activism as “moral authority” and “staking out moral ground.”   The evocative title of the article is “Apple’s new moral era begins” (6/8/15). As a happy “Macster” with an iPad and iPhone, I am not a frustrated PC user looking for an opportunity to rage against the Apple machine.  It is what it is.
Whether or not you agree with Cook, he is most certainly assuming definite moral leadership.  Indeed, it is not overstating things to say he is “moralizing,” as vehemently as any preacher, professor, or reformer could.  In his powerful position at one of the most influential companies in the world, Cook is spending his leadership capital in a profound, definite, and specific way.  However, it is not as if he invented moral leadership.  Anyone with any influence in any point in history is wielding moral leadership, staking out moral ground with at least some degree of moral authority.  The defining question is, “Whose morality?”
The Bible defines morality.  As the product of a transcendent, all-powerful authority, the Bible is the only legitimate standard of morality.  It outlines a specific way of living, using words like godliness (see especially 1 Tim. and 2 Pet.), moral excellence (2 Pet. 1:5), detailing a moral lifestyle (cf. Gal. 5:22-23), and the like. It also forbids a specific way of living, using terminology like immoral and immorality.  Its standard is specific.  Consider a few examples:
  • If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality (Lev. 20:14).
  • Divorcing your wife and marrying another woman is adultery, unless your wife is guilty of sexual immorality (Mat. 19:9).
  • A man who had his father’s wife was guilty of immorality (1 Cor. 5:1).
  • Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of gross immorality and going after strange flesh (Jude 7).
  • Along with a covetous, idolatrous, drunk, or swindling person, God says to avoid the immoral (1 Cor. 5:11).
  • Immoral men are placed alongside homosexuals, kidnappers, liars and perjurers as contrary to sound teaching (1 Tim. 1:10).
  • Esau selling his birthright is called immoral (Heb. 12:16).
There are many other examples of Scripture defining morality, often by pointing out its opposite.  People who use their influence to lead people to do the immoral are certainly exerting moral leadership, but it is leadership contrary to the heart and will of God.  There is a vital need for you and me, as those who love and trust God’s Word, to exert true, moral leadership, to exalt His morality.  A saying attributed variously to Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, and Charles Aked, is very familiar to most: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”  May we step forward and exert moral leadership that honors God.

“To Protect And To Serve”

Neal Pollard

This now famous motto came into the public consciousness as part of a contest run by the Los Angeles Police Department’s internal magazine, BEAT, in 1955. Officer Joseph Dorobek submitted the winning entry with “to protect and to serve.” Nearly 60 years later, it continues to be seen on the side of the department’s patrol cars and serves to “embody the spirit, dedication, and professionalism” of the LAPD’s officers (via joinlapd.com).

With so much animus and distrust of law enforcement in some circles right now, it can be easy to forget their vital role of keeping peace and enforcing the law.  Without them, anarchy and violence would reign, with no one to restrain the lawless from violating and harming those incapable of defending themselves.  While there are unethical, lawless individuals in every profession, many who hear reports against law enforcement never stop to ask whether there is ever bias on the part of the reporters.  Perhaps it is a bias against law, authority, or the perceived power delegated to those wielding a badge.  It is good to remember that God has appointed the governing authorities of each locale (cf. Rom. 13:1ff).

God does not have an official position in His Kingdom for watchdogs or police officers to police the actions of others.  He made us creatures of choice and He allows us to choose good or evil.  While occasionally there are preachers and other members who are self-appointed to such a position, the concept is foreign to Scripture.  However, He did organize the church with elders who protect (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2) and deacons who serve (1 Tim. 3:10,13).  In fact, all members are to be servants of Christ (Gal. 5:13).  Preachers are to preach the word, and when they declare the whole counsel in love (Acts 20:27; Eph. 4:15), they will sometimes convict the hearts of the hearers.  Particularly elders, who are commissioned to protect and serve the flock, deserve our respect and esteem (1 Th. 5:12-13).  Especially is that vital in an age that disdains authority.

It was an honor for me to serve as a reserve police officer in Livingston, Alabama, for a couple of years in the early 1990s.  I was able to see the dedication and sense of honor held by these extraordinary men and women. Let us honor those public servants of God (Rom. 13:6) and those spiritual servants of God (1 Th. 5:13)!

Selling What You Don’t Own

Neal Pollard

One of the more ingenious and amusing entrepreneurial moves I’ve ever heard is the company that offers to sell you a star.  For a price, you can buy a star and name it for a loved one.  The company will send you a gift pack along with registering the star in the name of the one you, the buyer, designate.  I have never been able to figure out how that company earned the right to sell something no one will ever visit, hold, or otherwise show tangible ownership of.

When I think about some of the new, strange religious ideas along with some long held, established ones, it reminds me of the folks selling the stars.  Preachers and whole denominations offer salvation on their own terms, altering and subtracting from the Lord’s established will as if salvation was theirs to offer.  They urge people to pray a prayer or accept Christ in their hearts, guaranteeing them salvation by so doing.  Or they tell a seeker that the Holy Spirit will irresistibly come upon them, filling them and by so doing indicate an experience of grace.  Or they urge parents to sprinkle their babies, saving them from what they call inherited sin.  The problem in all these scenarios is that people are offering what is not theirs to give.  Christ has already established the plan that saves the lost person—hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believing it (Rom. 10:10), repenting of sins (Rom. 2:4; 6:17-18), confessing Christ (Rom. 10:10), and being buried in water in order to enjoy the new life in Christ (Rom. 6:1-4).

The same things occurs with worship.  People claim to stand in the place of Christ and tell others what is and is not acceptable to God.  They propose changes in who can lead in worship (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-12), how worship music is to be done (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and when the Lord’s Supper can be taken (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 20:7).  Some would say that dance, weightlifting, incense-burning, drama, and the like are acts of worship God will accept, though they do so without a scintilla of appeal to the New Testament.

When it comes to the will of God, He has exclusive rights over that.  Christ does not share His authority with anyone (Mat. 28:18).  He makes the rules and determines right and wrong.  Beware of anyone who is selling anything else (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17).

IS TRUTH “OBJECTIVE” OR “SUBJECTIVE”?


Neal Pollard

“You folks believe baptism is essential, but we believe we are saved when we accept Jesus in our hearts by faith.” “Why does the church of Christ think it is wrong to use a piano?”  “You must not like women.  You sure don’t let them use all their ‘gifts’ in your worship and leadership.”  These are just three random examples of statements of perception made by our friends and family concerning “our beliefs.”

How would you answer these?  Even within the Lord’s church, more than one answer is often offered.  Sadly, too often the heat of emotion eclipses the light of scripture in these matters.  How is truth determined?  Is it man’s right to decide what truth is “for him”?  Can I have my truth and you have your own, different truths, and we both are right?  Please understand that I am not speaking of matters of judgment, opinion, matters that must be determined by principles of scripture, scruples, and conscience.  Take the three examples mentioned-baptism, church music, and the role of women.  Are these matters that must be decided by mere human judgment, opinions, and conscience?  Or can we “know the truth” on these things (cf. John 8:32)?

All of this ultimately boils down to our attitude and approach to God’s Word.  Do we accept it at face value and glean from it what it has already said, or do we infuse (insert) into it our predetermined values and desires?  Consider the three examples.

Baptism is connected to salvation in the gospels (Mk. 16:16), the history book of the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 22:16; etc.), and the epistles (Rom. 6:1-6; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.).  Why would we deny it?  Do we really hope to make scripture fit our view by trying to make Bible verses conflict with each other (cf. John 3:16; Acts 16:31)?  If the Bible repeatedly says baptism is necessary for salvation, isn’t that a truth objective and universal?  If not, why not?

Singing is specifically commanded in major worship passages like Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19.  We have no doubt that God wants us to sing.  Now, some say that it is a matter of preference whether you sing with or without instrumental accompaniment.  I find it interesting that a New Testament writer teaching a New Testament principle makes his point with an example from the first covenant.  In Hebrews 7:14, the penman writes, “For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”  Moses did not forbid a man of Judah from serving as a priest.  God simply specified that the tribe of Levi was to be the priestly tribe.  Was priesthood selection a matter of personal preference?  Absolutely not (see 1 Kings 12)!  

Women’s role in the church is discussed in the midst of an epistle the thesis of which is that the church may know how to conduct herself (1 Tim. 3:15).  Part of that conduct regards women’s role in the church (1 Tim. 2:9-15).  The Christian woman is not to teach or have authority over the man (2:11-12).  The reason is not tied to Greek culture, but way back to original design at the beginning of the world (2:13-14).  When some push for an “expanded” role for women, are they letting cultural pressure of heavenly desire drive them?

Certainly, we cannot be callous or altogether dispassionate in studying or discussing these matters.  But, without recognizing a sovereign, divine standard of truth, what are we doing with Scripture?  Whether meaning to or not, we are subjugating God’s stated will to our subjective, ever-shifting will.  John 12:48 reminds us that the latter will ultimately be irrelevant.

GOD HATES SHORTS!



Neal Pollard

 You may be thinking that the title is presumptuous, opinionated, and even out of line.  Let me disclaim what follows by asserting that God does not hate all shorts.  He does, however, hate the following types of shorts.

But not these. 🙂



GOD HATES SHORTCUTS.  At least, He hates humanly devised shortcuts for which He has given no authorization.  Man has devised shortcuts to salvation that cut out divine commands.  He has made shortcuts in ethics and morality to justify and rationalize behavior God condemns.  We should examine such “shortcuts” carefully to make sure they are not detours off of the narrow way.

GOD HATES SHORTCHANGES.  In Malachi 3:8-10, God condemns His people for “robbing Him” in their giving.  They did not give with appropriate gratitude and generosity.  Those who fail to put Him first (cf. Matt. 6:33) are shortchanging God of the time, talents, resources, and service He deserves.  

GOD HATES SHORTSIGHTEDNESS.  When we make decisions based on instant gratification or immediate benefits without giving thought to longterm implications, we often make a mess of our lives.  This is true of church plans, the person we choose to marry, unbiblical changes to the church and teaching to attract the unchurched, and the like.  Certainly, one can be too deliberate and methodical to the point of lethargy and apathy.  Yet, neither is it proper to leap before adequately looking.

GOD HATES SHORTCOMINGS.  God’s hatred for sin is so great that He sent Christ to the cross as payment for it.  Sin is falling short of God’s mark.  The sobering thing is that all of us come short of God’s glory as the result of our sin (Rom. 3:23).  The great news is that while God hates shortcomings, He deeply loves shortcomers.  That’s also why He sent Jesus to die for us.

God hates these shorts, but He has provided an alternative regarding all of them.  By full and trusting obedience, we avoid shortcuts.  By recognizing our debt and feeling heartfelt gratitude to God for paying it, we avoid shortchanging Him.  By growing in wisdom and Christlikeness, we avoid shortsightedness.  By walking in the light as children of God, we avoid the eternal ramifications of our shortcomings.  That’s because God loves us!

SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Neal Pollard

Pythagoras is said to have been the earliest outside of Scripture (Isa. 40:22) to contend that the earth is round. He did not make the earth round with his assertions, but identified what already was.  Sir Isaac Newton certainly did not create gravity, but he is credited for our modern understanding of it.  Likewise, the term “sola scriptura” is not found in scripture (similar to terms like “trinity” and “omniscience”), but it was coined during the “Reformation Movement” as part of Martin Luther’s protests against perceived corruptions of the Catholic Church.  It was a “Latin phrase (literally ‘by Scripture alone’) describing the Protestant theological principle that Scripture is the final norm in all judgments of faith and practice. Church traditions and customs, pronouncements of church officials, civil law or any other purely human source, including human reason, must yield to clear scriptural pronouncements” (Reid, Daniel G., et al.  Dictionary of Christianity in America, 1990: n.p.).  Did the Protestant Reformers, who, incidentally, got unfortunately got so many things wrong, originate that idea?  Because they were wrong on many doctrinal conclusions, does that automatically make the idea of “sola Scriptura” incorrect? It seems to me that at least three questions are in order regarding this subject.

What does “by Scripture alone” mean?

It means that the Bible does not share authority with anyone or anything else.  One author says it meant “’the freedom of Scripture to rule as God’s word in the church, disentangled from papal and ecclesiastical magisterium and tradition.’ It viewed the Word as supreme over tradition and the sacraments” (McArthur, John. Expository Preaching, 1992. Dallas: Word Pub., 47). A creed book, discipline, or annual church conference may vote and decide about what a religious group’s view on a matter should be.  They may even change their view from a previously held, correct view.  Or, a religious group may claim to have received latter day revelation and may produce a book they claim to be co-authoritative with the Bible.  Or, they may say “the church” and “church tradition” is co-authoritative.  The idea of “by Scripture alone” rejects competing or co-authoritative standards.

It does not eliminate the need to “handle aright” or involve hermeneutics (the science of interpretation).  That is a cognitive necessity.  You cannot read even the simplest of instructions or follow the most basic of tasks without employing logic, reason, and deduction.  That is not the same thing as a person, group, or book that claims to rival or co-authorize with Scripture.

What is the alternative?

That question has really already been answered.  The alternative is to suggest that Scripture alone is insufficient or inadequate, that is not the sole authority on matters of truth and right.  Some would even call the idea of following only Scripture as destructive heresy. Yet, the alternative to Scripture alone is Scripture along with something else, whether a man, group, council, church, or governing body.

Why is it so important?

This is the crux of the matter.  Scripture is God-breathed, making one spiritually complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  If Scripture is sufficient, what need is there for anything beyond it?  On what basis would we accept anything more or less than or different from the Bible?  How could fallible man be equal to or co-authorize with the perfect law of the Lord?  Let us accept no substitute or rival to the Bible!

The reader is encouraged to consider some excellent thoughts on this subject from here: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/557-what-is-sola-scriptura