Lights in the World - PH39-01

Advanced Bible Doctrine - Philippians 2:14-15

© Berean Memorial Church of Irving, Texas, Inc. (1976)

In Philippians 2:14-16, we're looking at the subject of lights in the world. We have learned from this immediate context that God the Father, has exalted God the Son following the Son's humiliation on the cross. Now, the Father seeks to exalt each of us as individual believers in the same way. This exaltation, we found, is being done through the sanctification of the believer. So we studied basically the doctrine of sanctification. This is a doctrine that you should know backwards and forwards. I trust now since last time that you do. It is one of the most confused and distorted doctrines, and one of Satan's favorite little playgrounds of leading you astray if you do not understand the doctrine of sanctification and its three phases.

I think you will remember now that sanctification, first of all, basically means "setting apart." It is the setting apart of the Christian in three ways: in positional sanctification; in experiential sanctification; and, in ultimate sanctification. These three phases are related to the three tenses of salvation. That is, we have salvation in the past tense, which has to do with positional sanctification--our complete setting apart to eternal life; we have salvation in the present tense, which is experiential sanctification--our day-by-day improvement of controlling the old sin nature; and, then we have salvation in the future tense when we shall be ultimately and completely free of sin--when we are in the presence of Christ, and that has to do with ultimate sanctification.

Many people today confuse ultimate sanctification with experiential sanctification. They are trying to bring about ultimate sanctification now, so they go around with the goofy idea that they can come up to a position where they will have completely overpowered the old sin nature, and they will not sin anymore. That is not true. Therefore, you will go along, and you will discover that you are not completely sanctified. At some point you will obviously sin, and you can see what the accompanying idea will be: I've lost my salvation. You do not tie ultimate sanctification, sinless perfection, and salvation in the present tense together, or you are in a lot of trouble. That's what vast denominations do. That's what the whole charismatic movement does. That's what everyone does who says, "Today I am saved. Tomorrow I am lost. They are trying to apply ultimate sanctification to salvation in the present tense.

A believer who wants to progress in his sanctification must respect the role of God the Holy Spirit in his life, and respond to Him. God the Holy Spirit is moving us along in our experiential sanctification. This is part of the process by which God is exalting us, even as He exalted His Son. Now, in these verses that are before us, the apostle Paul spells out the attitudes and the characteristics of a Christian who is growing in sanctification. So here are some guidelines, some marker points, for our own personal evaluation.

Philippians 2:14

Philippians 2:14, therefore, gives us a pattern for living. First of all, we have a call to action. Paul says, "Do all things." Then he tells us how: "Without murmuring and without disputing." The word "do" is the Greek word "poieo." This refers to the actions of our lives as Christians. These are the actions of our response as we face the leadings of God the Holy Spirit. This ties back to verse 12 which told us to "Work out our salvation (in the present tense) with fear and trembling." That is working out our experiential sanctification with concern and with awe.

We have also been told in verse 13 that it is God the Holy Spirit, who places in us the motivation and the enablement to perform His good pleasure, which is that we move ahead in our presence experiential sanctification. It is the result of positive volition to the guidance of God the Holy Spirit. Since it is He who motivates and enables a Christian in his life, the believer's attitude should be to respond with a cooperative submission. For this reason, this word "do" is in the present tense. That is, this is to be the continual attitude of the Christian. It is active because you, by your positive volition, must make the decision to do what God the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, lays upon your mind to do--the directions that He gives you for your life, and the guidelines that doctrine itself presents to us. It is in the imperative mood which means it is a divine command. This is something that God expects you to do. He expects you to go on in the matter of sanctification as you respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

This covers, he says, "all things." This is the Greek word "pas," and it means all aspects of a Christian's life: all of his service; and, all of his situations. In the Greek sentence, this word "pas" stands first. So you know that if that happens in a Greek sentence, that is the place of emphasis. That is the point of stress upon what that sentence is saying. So he is stressing the fact that there is no facet of your life which is to be excluded from response to the leading of the Spirit of God. This does not mean, therefore, that we can say, "Yes" to God the Holy Spirit on things that are accommodating to our own planes and our own ambitions, and then begin to take an indifference and say, "No" when it begins crossing things that we may want to do. In all things (nothing excluded), we are to have a cooperative submission.

Then he says that this quality of submission is to be without something. The word "without" is the Greek word "choris," and it simply means "apart from." It ties back up here to the word "do." It modifies the word "do." We are to do this response to God the Holy Spirit in His leadings without being guilty of two actions which he now mentions.

Here is the first attitude to be forbidden. He says, "We are to respond without murmurings." The word "murmurings" in the Greek is "goggusmos." "Goggusmos" means "mutterings." It's an expression of a sullen, discontented complaining. This is a mental resentment against God that is referred to. In the Greek language, this is used of a group of doves sitting together and cooing so that there is a wave of subdued sound--a murmuring. This is not loud, outspoken grumbling. It's an undertone of resentment, which is there. It's a low mutter of negative volition to God's demands upon our life. It's the sort of thing you do when you resent something that has fallen as your lot in life. You say, "Why has this happened to me? Why me, and not someone else? Why is God treating me like this?" This is the arrogant type who cannot refrain from seeing himself as being unfairly treated in life. When he says that, he means that God is not playing square with him.

What this is implying is that we should take all of life in a relaxed stride with a divine viewpoint perspective. God is not out to be ugly to any of us. Therefore, if we as believers are on the road to being exalted, we are also on the path of experiencing sufferings, and that is to be followed by that exaltation. The things that come into our lives are not things for which we should be having deep-seated resentment. Only you can search your own mind to determine whether such a condition exists. You have a family situation. You resent it. You have a marriage situation. You resent it. You have a business situation. You resent it. You have a social situation. You resent your lot in that. All of these are undercurrents of murmuring, and you are attacking God with them. So the apostle Paul says that if you are to free the Spirit of God to exalt you, you must first of all see to it that you do not have this undercurrent of mental resentment.

Nor are you to have disputings. The word "disputings" is "dialogismos." This refers to a skeptical inward questioning or criticism. It's a mental attitude of doubting God; questioning; and, hesitation toward His leading. It is, in effect, holding a discussion of doubt within yourself concerning what God is doing. It is questioning that God is doing the right thing in His leadings of you. It is not only resenting the thing and murmuring about it, but it is also disputing. It is having a discussion of doubt. If you're going to progress in experiential sanctification, it is necessary that you have a full trust in God's wisdom and concern. We are not to have a discussion within ourselves which casts doubt upon the leading of the Spirit of God.

So what Paul is doing here is calling for a proper divine viewpoint motivation in life. The work of the Holy Spirit is to apply the doctrine that we know to the situations in life that we meet. An attitude of resentment toward divine motivation is reflected in an undertone of complaining, and in mental reservations toward the Lord. We have an undertone of complaining expressed here in murmurings. We have a mental reservation toward the Lord expressed in disputings. Bad motivation will hinder your progress in experiential sanctification, and thus hinder progress in the Lord's exaltation of you. False motivation in living is provided quite readily by Satan. This expresses itself in the murmurings and the disputings.

Philippians 2:15

Verse 15 takes up the pattern of godliness which should characterize (and which will characterize) a person that is not murmuring an undertone of resentment toward his lot in life, and is not having a mental questioning and doubt toward God's leadings. Here are the qualities of godliness. Verse 15 says, "That you may be blameless and harmless, children of God without rebuke." The word "that" is the little Greek word "hina". It introduces the purpose for rejecting the attitudes expressed in verse 14, murmurings and disputings. "May be" is the Greek word "ginomai," and that means to become something which you were not before. This is expressed in the aorist tense which means that it's a point of final attainment of a developed spiritual maturity structure which carries these qualities of godliness. Godliness does not come to an immature believer. It comes in its full-blown expression in the life of a Christian who has developed a spiritual maturity structure. It is in the middle voice. You are to become this, and the middle voice means that you personally will be benefited by attaining these qualities.

However, it is in the subjunctive mood, which means that it is potential. It all hinges on your being willing to avoid, first of all, the attitudes expressed in verse 14. If you are a murmurer and you have mental reservations toward God, then you can just forget finding the godly expressions which are described here in verse 15. It is subjunctive. It is a potential position, but it is again up to your decision-making mechanism.

What will those qualities be? First of all, he says that we should become blameless. The Greek word is "amemptos." This comes from two Greek words. The first one is "a," which in Greek is the negative. We may say here it means "without." The second one is "memphomai" which means "to find fault." When we put them together, the idea is that no one can find fault with us. Thus we are not to be people who deserve censure. This is not to say that people will not find fault with us. What he means is that when they do accuse us, their accusations should be groundless. They should not be legitimate. This is working out our salvation. It is working out our experiential sanctification by increasingly living above the appeals of the old sin nature. It is the goal of the Christian life to move along to living the maximum amount of time without deserving censure. People will badmouth us. The issue is that the accusation should not be true, and that you should be consistent with the Word.

So as people accuse you, what will you do? Well, you will take every accusation and you will process the legitimacy of that accusation. You would be a very stupid person to simply pass off anything that anybody ever had to say against you in the way of an accusation or a criticism. Don't be the kind of a person to slough off a criticism until you have processed that criticism through doctrine and through the leading of the Spirit of God to you personally. Then you may determine the legitimacy of criticism, or the fact that it is a censure without ground. The person may actually be telling you something that is true. If you take the attitude that there are no flies on you, you will not be ready to brush off the flies even when they're crawling all over you and we can't even recognize you anymore. Take the censor and process it through doctrine and through the leading of the Spirit of God.

You may have taken an action that gave the appearance of being guilty of the accusation. Sometimes that's the case. Your actions, innocent; foolish; deliberate; or, otherwise, may have given the impression that brought a certain accusation. The thing to do is to correct the action, and then go on from there. If the accusation that a person brings against you is simply something out of bitterness; resentment; or, slanderous contention, then process it through the Word of God. If it's not true, you know it's not true. You know that the spirit of God is leading you in a direction that may be objectionable to people, but is right with God. Just forget it and go on. But you process the criticism. Never get upset by the personal attacks and the accusations that people make toward you. Just see to it that you are blameless of them, and that they are unfounded. That's what this word means. When you progress in experiential sanctification, the result will be that you will not be the kind of a person that people can, in any large degree, bring accusations that are genuine; that are legitimate; and, that are founded upon fact.

Along with this, we are to be harmless. The word "harmless" is the Greek word "akeraios." This comes again from two Greek words. The "a" is the alpha privative as it's called in Greek, or the negative. And the word "kerannumi" means to mix. So it means "not to mix." "Harmless" means to be "unmixed," or "to be pure." This is particularly applied in the Greek to having foreign elements in a metal--that the metal should be unalloyed. Or, that the wine should not be mixed with water. This was the word that they used when they wanted to talk about wine which was not diluted. It was to be "harmless" wine. It was to be unmixed. It was to be pure. It was to be uncut, we would say. Of metals, we speak about being unalloyed. Of liquids, we would say it's not been cut with something else. It has not been mixed.

This is a very critical issue in the life of a person who is progressing in sanctification. He is to be a genuine person that is pure. He is not cut. He is not mixed with a deceit that is diluting what he really is. In Isaiah 1:21, we have an interesting application of this same concept. This is being spoken to the Jews in year 760 B.C., a time when the Jews were experiencing national degeneracy as well as personal degeneracy. In this passage, Isaiah bemoans the fact that Jerusalem was once a center of justice and righteousness, but now it is a haven of spiritual adultery. They are apostate as a people from divine viewpoint. So notice what he says in Isaiah 1:21: "How has the faithful city become a harlot? It was full of justice. Righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers." Once the city of Jerusalem was a place of law and order. You could walk the streets safely. But now murderers run free on the streets, and the victims are in fear. The murderers are treated with kindness, but there is no justice to their victims. This is in 760 B.C. The Jews are on their way out into military captivity under a foreign power because of national apostasy.

Verse 22: "Your silver has become dross; and, your wine mixed with water." "Your silver has become dross" means that they were mixing base metals in with the silver. The Roman Empire, when it fell from its splendid position of being a world power based upon certain moral principles to the point where it as a people were degenerate and it as an empire (as a society) was degenerate, one of the things that the Roman emperors did was begin putting out coins that had a base metal covered with a coating of silver. They were sandwich coins, and they were passing them off on the people as the coin of the realm for doing business. And the stuff was junk. It was no longer worth anything. That's exactly what they did in 760 B.C. God said, "One of the signs of your spiritual adultery; your national degeneracy; and, the fact that you're on your way out is that your very coinage has been debased. When you've debased your coinage, you're going to wreck your economic system, and then disaster will come in because you will be a weak people. A people which is not economically strong is not capable of defending itself against the old sin nature expression from a foreign nation.

As if that wasn't bad enough, he also says, "Your wine was mixed with water" which means that their products were inferior. They were producing things that wouldn't stand up. They were deliberately creating products which would break so that you had to go out and buy another one. I'm talking about 760 B.C. Some of you think I'm talking about the United States of today. As if that wasn't bad enough, he says, "Your princes are rebellious, and the companions of thieves." He says, "Your rulers are rebels." Rebels against what? They're rebels against God's principles. They're rebels against moral principles. The result is that they find it easy to be friends of thieves. Can you imagine politicians who are friends of thieves? Politicians are elected by the people to protect the laws, the order, and the constitution, and their welfare. Can you image people in positions of great power and authority, and they're friends of thieves? Can you imagine a politician who figures out ways to get rich through his office? It's unthinkable.

"Everyone loves bribes." Can you imagine a politician who takes a payoff? Here in 760 B.C. the politicians were loving bribes. "And follows after rewards. They judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come unto them." They had no concern for the poor people who couldn't pay them to make it worthwhile for them to pay any attention to their problems. "And those who were genuinely in their need received no attention from them." I want you to notice particularly that their silver coins were mixed with cheap metal (sandwich money). This, as you know, has been in effect in the United States since 1964. That's when we too went into a debased coin and into sandwich money.

American products have long since had what is called built-in obsolescence. This began under the Roosevelt administration of the New Deal, to build things that had built-in obsolescence. I have a toy that I used as a 6-year-old. It's a little hopping rabbit. It works just as well today as it did when they gave it to me because it was made with quality. And it stood up. You try buying your kids some toy come Christmas time. You're going to be replacing it by February, if you're lucky--if it'll last that long. We have a society which is structured on building things that are diluted and cut--watered wine so that the products are cheap and they will not last.

All of this is under the guise that it's going to help the economy; make things better; and, promote business. Well, a Christian is to be harmless. He is to be uncut. He's not to be mixed. He's to be unalloyed. He's to be genuine in his viewpoint. He is to be free from the guile of Satan's human viewpoint. The horror people of the local church are the people who are mixed with guile. They are the horror people of the local church. They are the troublemakers. They are the opinionated ones. They are the arrogant ones who are so far out of it that they don't even realize how disoriented they are. They think they are serving God. They are the people who are not harmless. They are the people who are not unmixed. They are the people to stay away from.

So Paul says that we are to be blameless, free of any legitimate censure. We are to be harmless, free of guile. It says that we are to be pure and genuine, "children of God." The word "children" here is the Greek word "teknon." "Teknon" means "the one begotten," or "the born one." He is one who has been born into a family. These are qualities that are befitting those who have been actually born in the family of God. That's why you cannot lose your salvation, because you have had a legitimate bonafide spiritual birth. This was not just a declaration of an adoption type of thing that you could undo and say, "OK, you're no longer My son." You have entered the family of God through the birth process. Therefore, you may be the absolute worst kind of Christian imaginable, but one thing God cannot do is shovel you out and get rid of you, and no longer call you His child. You are a born one in the family of God. So these are qualities that are befitting those who are born again spiritually into God's family.

Children's Liberation

The point here is that children are under the authority of their parents. Children have the child stage in life in order to learn about life from their parents. Do you know one of the big things that is coming up now in our society? All of you are acquainted with the feminist movement, aren't you? Some of you, perhaps more so than you wish you were. But how many of you know about children's liberation? Since the 1930s, our White House has been conducting conferences on children, and the rights of children. This has now come to the point where there is a full-blown movement now coming into legislation for the rights of children. This has been particularly promoted by a man named Dr. Richard Farson, who is the newly appointed president of the Esalen Institute. Esalen was one of the early hustlers for sensitivity training and the communal lifestyle in Big Sur, California. This is the organization which was actually the base for institutionalized orgies for the gay liberation movement, and as a matter of fact, for the feminist movement. All of these were based upon the concepts of the Esalen Institute.

Dr. Farson says he is a sensitive doctor who is interested in the government guaranteeing the right to children of self-determination; freedom from school; an alternative home environment; freedom from physical punishment; sexual freedom; economic power; and, political power. I'm talking about kids. So if you have a fourth grader or a fifth grader, here's what Dr. Farson wants for your children. He is trying to bring to them certain opportunities which you as parents are now denying your fourth grader. He wants it stopped.

He says, "The first and most difficult job then is to relax our own attitudes about sex, and raise our consciousness on the entire subject. Secondly, the right to sex information would mean eliminating all forms of censorship which keep children ignorant about sex, and giving them access to all of the information to which adults have access. It would also include the right to enter stores and theaters where adult-only films, magazines, and other sexual entertainment is presented. The question of whether or not pornography is harmful is again beside the point. If it is information available to adults, it must also be made available to children.

"Another myth is that adult-child sex usually forces physical violence and sexual activity on an unwilling child. That is not usually true. In many instances, the child is a willing participant. Studies of incest reveal that the dangers have been highly overrated. Sometimes incest occurs because it becomes functional to the preservation of the family: for example, if the wife is an invalid."

This man is leading in your White House counsels on caring for the rights and the rearing of our children.

Dr. Farson also says, "Along with all other prohibitions in children's lives, they are prohibited by law from voting. The liberation of children requires that they be given the right to vote--not just at 18, but at any age. This denial is actually inconsistent with fundamental concepts of democracy and self-government."

Have you consulted with your fourth grader on how you should have voted at the last election? Can you not feel the wisdom that will now permeate the American structure of government?

This is another quote from Dr. Farson: "Although the child cannot choose his parents in the genetic sense, he should be able to choose them in the environmental sense. He should have the opportunity, if he chooses, to avoid their daily influence. He must be provided with alternatives to his parents' home environment. In spite of our romantic myths about natural families, parents are not all that necessary or beneficial for children"

Did you know that? Here's the White House conference report summary. I could read on and on to you. But here's what's in store for you in the children's liberation that you'll be hearing about.

The White House report recommends that the following types of families be legalized so that a child could then choose what kind of a family he wanted to live in:

  1. A commune family--monogamous. This is a household of more than one monogamous couple with children sharing common facilities, resources, and experiences. Socialization of the child is a group activity.

  2. The commune family--group marriage. This is a household of adults and offspring known as one family where all individuals are married to each other, and all are parents to the children. This usually develops a status system with leaders believed to have charisma.

  3. Three: unmarried parent and child family. This is usually a mother and child where marriage is not desired or possible.

  4. Four: the unmarried couple and child family type. This is usually a common law type of marriage with the child either a biological issue or informally adopted.

  5. Five: the homosexual couple and child family type. The child is informally or legally adopted."
This is coming out of a place called Washington, DC. This is coming out of a place which has sponsored a conference on the needs of children. Here is the report of that White House conference on children and what is in store--the plans that are afoot. The upshot of all this is that the communist and socialist countries have long since recognized that the problem that they have with trying to convert societies into their beastly system is that the parents are teaching their children. So the whole point of this is to tear children away from parents in this country. This is so the parent's spiritual influence will not be setting the ideals, the tastes, and the patterns of the children. This is so that the state can take over, and they can train them in a socialistic outlook. That is the whole point and the whole purpose of this.

One authority writes, concerning child care as follows: "In the United States, we ordinarily think of this responsibility as centered in the family, with the parents playing the decisive part as the agents of child rearing (which, incidentally, is biblical, as you know), and other persons or groups outside the family serving at most in secondary or supplementary roles. Not so in the USSR. Nor is the family the sole or even the principal delegate of the society for the upbringing of children. Such primary responsibility is vested in still another social structure, the children's collective. This is defined as a group of children united in common goal-oriented activity, and the community organization of this activity. As we shall see, such collectives constitute the basic structural units in all Soviet programs designed for the care or education of children."

You know that every totalitarian, tyrannical government that has ever existed has followed exactly this pattern. Nazi Germany did it in a fantastically splendid way as they ripped children away from their parents and actually turned children, as instruments of the state, against their parents. Soviet Russia again did a marvelous job of tearing up the family unit. This is happening in China. This is happening in Cuba. This is happening all along the line. They're proud in China that they can even prescribe the time and whose turn it is to have children. If you come up with a pregnancy, when it doesn't happen to be your time on the schedule, you're getting a lot of trouble in communist China.

We're talking about freedom. The Word of God is telling us to be something in the way of learners. Learners from whom? As children, we don't know what spiritual things are all about. As children, we're going to learn these things from God. What you have here (right here in the United States of America) is the grossest form of satanic human viewpoint. Children's liberation is something you're going to hear more and more about, and something that you may have to live with in a very painful way. You may suddenly discover that your children have authority over you, and that your children have a commanding position over you.

What is this for? In order to destroy the national life, the family life, and the society that we know so as to impose a collectivist system. Never forget that that is what the communist conspiracy (and there is a communist conspiracy) is out to do. It is out to do it by tearing apart that which are the bulwarks of resistance to the godlessness of communism. The first thing to do is to remove our children from our influence. Christians are God's children. He teaches them. That's why we have a local church. That's why we have pastor-teachers. Vast numbers of God's children are permitted to act as animals, unfortunately, because their pastor-teachers are not teaching them the Word of God.

The point of this, God says, as God's children, is for you to be without rebuke: "That you may be blameless and harmless, children of God without rebuke. The word "without rebuke" is "amomos." This again comes from "a" which means "no," and "momos" which means blame. It means "so that you are without blame." This has to do with moral values--that you are without a moral blemish. No moral blemish can be pointed out in you as a Christian. This will be true of you if you are progressing in experiencing sanctification. A Christian who is obedient to divine standards of morality is responsible to his society, and he is responsible to God.

Situation Ethics

The liberal theologians reject the absolute guidelines of morality. The divine standards of morality are viewed by the unregenerate mind as hindrances to freedom. Moral guidelines that tell you not to do certain things are viewed as an encroachment upon personal freedom. So the Scriptures have been challenged in our day with something which is called the "new morality," or "situation ethics." It took a preacher to come up with this. It was an Episcopal minister that came up with the concept of what is known today as the "new morality." His name is Professor Joseph Fletcher. It is interesting to observe that Dr. Fletcher has been a supporter of communist causes. He has affiliations with over 80 communist and communist-front organizations, and he has acted repeatedly in defense of the Communist Party. He is on the board of directors of a communist training school. His name appears frequently as the notorious advocate of the new morality, which, as someone has pointed out, is the old immorality.

This Episcopal minister came up with this concept. He said that what is right and what is wrong depends on the situation at the moment. Let me read from one of our children's textbooks in Texas. This is what your children are reading in the public schools, which is a subtle way of teaching them Dr. Fletcher's view of morality. Following a story of a boy who stole a penny are these questions in the child's reader: "Most people think that cheating is wrong, even if it is only to get a penny, which is what Sean did. Do you think there was ever a time when it might be right?"

How is that for a subtle question? You and I could think of many times when we feel that a situation would be right. Your baby is going to die if you don't steal the money to get the medicine. There is a situation when it surely must be right to steal so you can get the medicine. That's what the child is being geared to think--that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. The child is being taught that you cannot take a code like the Ten Commandments and say, "This absolutely expresses what God says that you shall not do if you are to preserve your freedom." The truth of the matter is that there might be a time when it would be necessary for you to do something that might be wrong. But it is still wrong when you do it.

I remember a television program in which a group of army officers were going to take over the command of the United States. One man discovered the plot. And when it dawned on him what had been put together, he had to make a call to the Pentagon to alert the general staff of what was going to take place. He was a civilian, and next to him was an army officer. He turned to the officer and he told them what was happening. He said, "We have to call the Pentagon." They turned to the phone, a public phone, and he said, "Give me a dime." The officer said, "I don't have a dime." The civilian looked around and there was a Coke machine. He said, "Shoot the machine open and get a dime out of it." The officer sat up straight and said, "That's private property."

Now, who's right and who's wrong? Should they have shot the machine open and busted up the Coke machine to take a dime that didn't belong to them to call the Pentagon to save the nation? This is the kind of stuff that Fletcher goes crazy over here--something that really proves his point. Well, the truth of the matter is that it was private property. The dime did belong to the Coke company. And if they broke up the machine, they were destroying private property. That was wrong. When they took the dime out to make the phone call, they were stealing the dime. But all of that under those conditions, indeed, one would see we would do. Then we would go to the Coke company and say, "We blew up your machine. Here's your dime back." And the Coke company might just say, "That's alright. We have lots of other machines. We're glad you did it. If you hadn't done it, we wouldn't even own our machines anymore." But you don't say that doing something wrong now becomes right because of the situation. There are situations when you might be doing something wrong, but it is still wrong, and you deal with the wrong as a wrong. That's the point.

So our little child's reader goes on and says, "Do you think there is ever a time when it might be right (that is, to steal a penny)? Tell when it is. Tell why you think it is right." A teacher who is geared to situation ethics can really make an impact on a child's mind with questions like this. Then the second series of questions: "Have you ever cheated or stolen something?" This is encroaching into the child's personal life and privacy, and drawing out what goes on in his family. "What happened? How did you feel when you did it?" He might have felt guilty, but a teacher geared to situation ethics can help this child to see: "That was all right for you to steal. You wanted to buy a sucker to share with your little brother. He could take a lick on one side and you could take a lick on the other side. That was so kind of you to do." A teacher can gear a child to feeling, "Well, it is all right to steal if I'm going to do a nice thing with it." "So how did you feel after this? Guilty? Don't feel guilty. Did you get caught? That was bad. If so, how about this, too."

This is Texas. These things are in your textbooks. This is the kind of thing that we're up against. We are living in a society which is teaching our children how to be immoral, and how to get around the moral absolutes of the Word of God. The man who really kicked this thing into its high gear was, again another preacher. This this time it was an English bishop named John A.T. Robinson. He wrote a book called Honest to God. It was such a success, He followed up with a book called The New Reformation. Professor Robinson takes this concept of the new morality. He is supposed to be a preacher of righteousness, the Word of God says, "Teach people to be without moral guilt." Instead, he's going to show them how they can bypass the very thing that he is supposed to be training them--to seek to avoid a moral blemish.

Dr. John E. Danish, 1973

Back to the Advanced Bible Doctrine (Philippians) index

Back to the Bible Questions index