Miscellaneous

Love of Neighbor (Ques. & Answers)

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Religious studies

Lesson: 18-18

Genre: Lecture

Track: 73

Dictation Name: RR147A2

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our Lord and our God, bless us now as we turn to Thy word, and grant us Thy peace. We thank Thee our Father that Thou art our sufficiency. We thank Thee that we can come to Thee casting our every care upon Thee, knowing Thou carest for us. And our Father, we come to Thee. We come to Thee with all our needs, with all our joys and our sorrows. Knowing our Father that Thou carest for us, and will sustain us and bless us, and make the way straight before us. Speak to us our Father now the word that we need, and bless us throughout the week. In Jesus name, amen.

This afternoon we shall interrupt our series in Genesis to deal with the subject one of you suggested that we explore a bit, the biblical doctrine of love. Let us turn therefore to Romans 13:8-10.

Romans 13:8-10

“8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

One of the most abused and misused passages of scripture is precisely this one, thou salt love thy neighbor as thyself. It is extensively used by socialists and communists to justify their particular dogmas. And we are told that truly to love our neighbor, means sharing our property with them, sharing if need be our homes with them, being ready to make them as it were, one family with us. And so, we are told, to obey our Lords commandment, as well as the commandment of Moses, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, means socialism or communism. As a further evidence of this, or ostensible evidence, these people will tell you that the book of Acts in the second chapter gives us evidence that the early church was communistic. Because we are told: “Did not the disciples sell what they had and share all things in common?”

Well, unfortunately for their case, first of all this passage in Acts is the only such reference in all of scripture, and it refers only to the church in Jerusalem. Second, there was no requirement that anyone sell his property, or that he share. Third, the reason why they sold their property in the Jerusalem church was a very simple one, and it had nothing to do with economics, and it had nothing to do with socialism. Our Lord had told the disciples that Jerusalem was to be destroyed, that for their rejection of Him, Jerusalem would be destroyed, and not one stone would be left standing upon another. And he warned his disciples that after His death and resurrection not too many years would pass until His resurrection, and He warned them to take heed of the signs He was going to give them of the fall of Jerusalem, and to flee.

And it is significant, and we have this from historical records, that not one Christian died during the Jewish Roman war, which was the bloodiest, the most ruthless, and the most devastating war in all of History. Not WW1 or WW2 can compare with the Jewish Roman war in its devastation, and in the death toll.

Now, the disciples knew that this was going to take place. As a result there was no point in owning property in a city that was doomed, because they believed it to be doomed since God the Son had so declared it. As a result they liquidated their assets, many of them moved into other areas of the near east, those who remained, remained for missionary purposes. They were there to witness to their friends and relatives that unless they believed in Christ their end was coming, they were to be destroyed in Jerusalem, and in Judea. So that, they shared many of them, their funds in order to further the missionary work of the church, and then the sharing was voluntary. So this text does not stand. It has no reference to anything economic.

Now what about the central verse: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”? We are told that being a good neighbor means sharing. And such things as the U.N. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have been called by our politicians as examples of the good neighbor policy at work. We instituted some years ago a good neighbor policy with South America, and the good neighbor policy simply mean that we were going to guarantee those countries so many millions a year. This was the conception of being a good neighbor. Being a good neighbor means in effect our politicians would tell us, to share what we have with everyone, and loving everybody. Well, I submit that if we are good Christians we cannot love everyone. And the Biblical word for love, and there are several words in Greek alone, let alone Hebrew, for love; does not mean what our English word means. Our English word for love means something that is purely emotional. But the Biblical word has an entirely juridical framework as we shall see, and this is true of many of the words in the Bible. Forgiveness in the Bible for example is entirely a juridical term, and there are two terms for the meaning of the word forgiveness in the Greek. One is: “Charges deferred because satisfaction has been rendered” In other words, restitution has been made, and thereby the debt or the crime is wiped out, so that when we have forgiveness through Jesus Christ it means that through Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice, restitution has been made and our sins are blotted out in the sight of God. The other meaning, and this is used only once in the New Testament in this sense is: ‘Charges deferred for the time being.” And our Lord used it in this sense, when on the cross he said looking on the mob and the Roman soldiers: “Father, forgive them.” In other words, defer the charges for the time being, for they know not what they do.

The words are not emotional thus in their context and in their original meaning, they are juridical. Our modern world has been effected by the enlightenment and by romanticism, and it has eroded all the meanings of these words, and has left only an emotional meaning. Are we to love everybody? Well the answer is, look at some of the people in the world. Look at the (pagans?) for example, of North India, and now mainly North Pakistan. It would be impossible in any mixed company to describe even the elementary facts of pagan society. Among the pagans a man can be called relatively human and normal if he is merely a homosexual, because their conception of real pleasure is bestiality. Their concept of life is so depraved that you don’t find records of the pagans in the libraries or travel logs about them; first no one can get in and out of the pagan culture without serious damage, second it is not printable. Are we to love creatures like that? Or what does the Bible mean when it says: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Now, this appears repeatedly in scripture, but the three main uses of this text are, first in Leviticus 19: In Leviticus 19 we are told that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and we are told then it means the keeping of the law in relationship to him, and the neighbor is defined even as our enemy, and Moses says that his applies to the stranger within your gates, he says, the foreigner. And it applies he says also, to the Egyptian, which meant really their enemy. But it meant the keeping of the law in relationship to all men.

Now our Lord again in Matthew 19 cites this commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And He says that it is the summary of the second table of the law. Thou shalt not commit adultery, kill, steal, bear false witness, and thou shalt not covet. And again here in Romans 13, Paul tells us the same thing: “For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, and thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is very clearly defined for us.

What does it mean to love our neighbor, or as Moses makes clear, our enemy? It means to keep the second table of the law. Now, “thou shalt not kill,” you have to respect you neighbors and your enemies right to life. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” You must respect the integrity of your neighbors and your enemies home. “Thou shalt not steal”, respect the integrity, the God given right of your neighbor to his property. Thou shalt not bear false witness.” You must respect the integrity of your neighbors reputation, and bear no false witness against it. And finally, “Thou shalt not covet.” In other words, you must obey this commandment of God in relationship to your neighbor not only in word and in dead, but in thought as well.

This means therefore that you can think your neighbor is a stinker, but if you respect his life to life, to the integrity of his home, to his property, to his reputation in word, thought, deed, you have kept the commandment, and the commandment does not ask you for more than that. It does not ask you love a man who is evil emotionally. It does not ask you to share your property with him, it asks you to respect his life to property.

This is a vast world away from what these people would tell us what this commandment means. And so it is that we find nothing but a perversion of the Bible, wherever, whether it be from a socialist, out of the pulpit or one in the pulpit. We are told that loving ones neighbor as oneself means the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, and it means sharing our property with our neighbor, or being willing to live with him, this is all nonsense. It is not for a moment envisioned by scripture. We have kept the law, if we have worked no ill to our neighbor, Paul says, in this respect, in keeping the second table of the law, in respecting his right to life, his home, his property, his reputation, in word, thought and deed. But unfortunately, this which is the so obvious meaning of the text once you see it, is not taught in our seminaries. And so even well meaning ministers go out and preach, not knowing how to handle these socialists when they pervert the word of God. When the very obvious meaning of Scripture runs contrary to it.

And make no mistake about it, we are very easily brainwashed into seeing things in the Bible that aren’t there. Ask people how many wise men there were that came to Bethlehem and they will tell you three, because pictures usually portray three, because the song: “We three kings of Orient are.” They decided to have three because they couldn’t have too many verses, with one king having the 1st verse, and a second verse and third verse. Whereas the text of Scripture simply says that wise men came from the East bearing gifts. There were three gifts, or three kinds of gifts, to signify His kingship, His status as the Prophet and as the great High Priest. Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh, but we are not told how many. There could have been a goodly number of them.

And yet, 9 out of 10 people will say there was three. And similarly most people say: “Well, the Bible says to love our neighbor means, I guess to share with them, but I don’t know to square that with being a conservative.” When it doesn’t say anything about sharing.

Thus this statement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” has been historically in our Western Christian culture the foundation of true civil liberty. And our civil liberties were the outgrowth of this requirement. What does the Bill of Rights assure us except this? To recognize the immunity of others and to guarantee to them and to ourselves that we have these immunities, of life of home, of property, and of reputation?

And if our neighbors immunities are attacked we have an obligation to defend them, this is the implication. And of course this is the meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan was going down the road, and he saw a Jew who had been robbed and beaten and left unconscious on the side of the road. Now the Samaritans and Jews were not on speaking terms, they didn’t have any use for each other. The Samaritan picked up that unconscious Jew, put him on his ass or horse as the case may have been, took him to an innkeeper, and left money for his care and went on. He did not feel that he was under any obligation to associate with a Jew, he didn’t like them. They disagreed religiously. They had no dealings. But he felt since the Samaritan kept the law, an obligation to help a man who was in need, whose rights to property and life had been violated. He didn’t share anything with the man, he simply extended mercy to him, and his protection where the law had not been able to otherwise.

So the parable does not say the Samaritan or the Jew decided the other was right and they had to have join services thereafter, or that they had to say: “Well perhaps there is some truth in the others position,” no, they went their own way. But they did abide by the law in their dealings one with another. The Good Samaritan was a good neighbor. Thus this commandment requires of us not communism, but a respect for others liberties, and the requirement that through our laws, we bring about a respect for our own immunities and liberties.

Now, one of the reasons why the socialists have been so ready to see love as a cure all, is because they do not see evil as a positive force. For many in their thinking, evil is merely an absence of Good, it is a lack. Now if evil is merely a lack, a mere negation, then the remedy for evil is to supply that lack, in other words to supply the opposite of evil which is love. So that, if there is something wrong with a child, if he is a delinquent, well, love him a little more. And if a criminal is giving you a problem, love him a little more; or some minority group is delinquent, love them a little more. And the answer is more and more love, which means more and more a subsidy to evil. And this is what is destroying our society today, this ungodly, anti-Christian conception of love.

So that if we are unwilling to face a problem and say: “These people are evil, evil is not merely a lack, it is a positive choice of something that is anti God and anti holy, anti good.” And so people cannot call a spade a spade. I was very, very much amused, grimly amused to see in the Peoples World their ridicule of the idea that the Watts situation was a riot. And they remarked on how absurd the news papers were, and unwilling to face up to reality in calling that a riot. They said: “It is an uprising.” A revolution in other words.

And I was very much interested when I was up North this week to speak to learn and to see the bumper stickers which are appearing in San Francisco, throughout the colored areas, stuck on walls, on telephone… [Tape skips]

Something that is wrong. It is a (fault?), which can only be met by the law. And love of neighbor requires the law. And it declares the second table of the law, which requires the protection of home, of life, of property, and of reputation, in word thought and deed must be the standard of a Godly society. And so our present attitude is anti Christian, and our present conception of love as we find in society at large is anti… [Tape skips]

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now that is a significant point. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Now, the Bible tells us two things about the man who is a sinner, a man who is apart from God. First he has an obligation under God before he cane be changed to hate himself, because his self is sinful, it is in rebellion against God; moreover we are told that he does hate himself although he will not admit it. He hates himself not unto repentance but unto death, and our Lord said long ago, speaking as Wisdom in the book of Proverbs: “All they that hate me, love death.”

But when we are regenerated, when we become new creatures in Christ, the new man in us is now Jesus Christ, is He not? So that the old self, the old Adam in us is judicially dead, not completely dead while we are in this life, but judicially in the sight of God, he is dead, and the new man, Jesus Christ is very much alive. And so now, we cannot despise ourselves because we are members of Christ’s body. The Holy Spirit indwells within us, and we are to love our neighbor as our self.

We are to respect ourselves. This is impossible for sinful men. The sinner loves his life, but he hates himself. He hates his own rights, and he hates the rights of other, she is like a profane Esau despising his birthright, having within himself a root of bitterness, and he is perpetually ready to train his birthright, his God given liberties, for a mess of pottage. And so ungodly men are perpetually selling themselves to tyrants and to dictators, in return for a security that man cannot have apart from God. They go to socialism for religious reasons, they want security. But we affirm as a nation years ago that in God we trust. Which meant that we don’t find our security in the state but in God, and under God in our liberty and in our independent care of ourselves. But ungodly men hate themselves. Therefore they cannot love others. They hate their own life, their property, their homes, and they are continually violating the sanctity of their home, they are continually violating their bodies, and they despise their property, so how can they respect the rights of others?

One of the things that I learned as I worked on my study of Freud and read for years and years extensively on psychiatric literature, was the fact that this is the basic fact about those whom psychiatrists call mentally ill. They hate themselves. And this is carried out in many, many ways. They bring trouble on themselves. They bring sickness upon themselves, they bring judgment upon themselves, and this is not enough, in confinement they do all kinds of things deliberately to defile themselves.

As this one psychiatrist wrote, and he was definitely anti Christian: “It is there purpose to destroy whatever suggests the image of God in themselves.” Man is at war with himself when he is apart from God, he cannot love himself. And if he does not love himself, which means loving his life, his property, his home, his reputation, how can he have any respect for these things in others? Only he who loves God, which means keeping the first table of the law, because to love the Lord our God with our whole heart, mind and being, means keeping the first table of the law, and loving our neighbor as our self means keeping the second table of the law. Only one who loves God can love his neighbor, or himself. And when he loves God, then he also loves God’s creation, and God’s creatures, and he shows respect for the word of God, for the works of God, and for the image of God in himself, and in others.

If any man says that he loves God, and hates his brother, and denies him his immunities and privileges under God, John declares he is a liar. We cannot love God without loving our neighbor and ourselves and respecting our neighbors rights, and our own. Therefore our Lord emphasized and even as the prophets of old the apostles also emphasized the commandments declaring: “Hear ye the Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart mind and being, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is the summary and the summation of the law, and this is therefore, a plain declaration. But to love God we must obey the laws of God, and to love our neighbor we must obey the laws of God. But love is never separated from God, and it is not to be confused with emotionalism or with a toleration of evil. Let us pray.

We thank Thee our God, that Thy word is true. We thank Thee for the plain speaking of Thy word, and we pray our Father that Thou wouldst reestablish us in our society, our country, on Thy truth, Thy law. That gain true civil liberties may flourish, that again a respect for thy word, for life, for property, for home, for reputation, may again flourish in our land. We thank Thee our Father, that Thou hast established us in Jesus Christ, in Thy word and in Thy law. Prosper us therein, grant that day by day we increase and abound unto Thee, and that we become in power and in truth, Thy saving (?) through whom shall be established this Republic, as a Christian and a true order, that we may enjoy the glorious liberty of the Sons of God. Bless us to this purpose, in Jesus name, amen.

Now are there any questions concerning this subject?

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] What?

[Audience Member] Free will …?...

[Rushdoony] Oh, this is the question with respect to free will as against predestination. At a later date we will go into this subject, but briefly this is the answer, it involves some very complicated philosophy to understand it, we are asked to believe it by faith, but it is briefly this: If you deny predestination, you deny free will. Because it is only in the world of the total determination of God that secondary causes can be valid. In other words, the freedom of second causes, and man is a second cause, we are not a first cause, we are not God, the freedom of second causes is only possible as there is the total determination of primary cause. Only if you have a world of law and order.

And this was the thing that destroyed the ancient world, they affirmed total freedom without any divine predestination. But the minute they affirmed freedom without God, and without His total predestination, they ended up immediately in the destruction of man’s freedom, because then man was totally subject to natural forces, environment, heredity, everything. So that, first of all, we are asked by faith to believe, both that we are free and that we are responsible, that when we choose we choose between good and evil, validly, and second, that God from the beginning ordained all things, and as Scripture says: “Known unto God from the beginning of the world” are all of his works, in whom is not merely foreknowledge, for whom he did foreknow He did foredestinate. So both our responsibility and free will of the secondary sort, and Gods total predestination are affirmed by scripture.

Now, as I’ve indicated I will go into that much later, some time in the spring when we take up Romans, and consider this and other of some of the basic aspects of our faith. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] No, a very good question. Many people have said that the concluding portions of Matthew 5 require pacifism of us. That if a man compel thee to go 1 mile go with him twain, if he smite thee on the one cheek turn the other cheek, and so on. So that, we are told by many that pacifism is obligatory upon Christians. Now this is not the meaning of this famous passage in Matthew 5. What does it say? Well, the word that is used there in Matthew 5, in each instance is a situation of compulsion, and the word translated: “If they compel thee to go 1 mile” is the word for the required and obligatory draft which the Roman government could place upon anyone, it could draft you on a moment’s notice, all it needed was a legionnaire or some other official of like status, in any emergency, to put his hand upon you and say: “We are drafting you for this particular job. Immediately.” This is not entirely gone in our culture, by the way. I’ve lived in the arid mountain area, where they had under Federal law, federal requirements in a case of a forest fire, and I have on occasion been told immediately, and anyone passing through an area where there is a fire, the car is stopped and you are told that there is a forest fire, grab a shovel and get going. And you are liable to prison o a very severe sentence if you continue. Now this was required in the Roman empire, and the Judeans were fighting this tooth and nail. Well, the obvious reaction of the Romans was, when they put their hands on Jews shoulder and said: ‘Alright, do this.” And he resisted, was to compel him not to go the one mile, but to go ten. And so Jesus was counseling realism there. And He said you are far better off if you go the second mile, readily. Don’t be a fool in this situation. If he is going to strike you on the one cheek, then turn the other, there is no point in resisting, if you are cooperative you will get further. If he is going to take your coat, give him your cloak also. He can take everything, and if you are cooperative with these people you can do better.

Now, this is social realism, and our Lord went on to say: “Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” And he also said: “The children of darkness are wiser than the children of light.” In other words, they are practical. So, be practical without sacrificing your principals. But there are people who try to make our faith into something that is as unpractical and unrealistic as they can, and they feel that the more impractical you get the holier you are. That is nonsense.

Now, what are we to do in the way of resistance? What kind of resistance is Godly? We are told we cannot resist evil in any ungodly way. First of all, this matter was gone over by the way at great length during the period of the Reformation as well as before, and the classic book on it (Vindiciai Contos Aronus?) And although this book is practically unheard of, it was the most read book at the time of the American War of Independence. John Adams said that it was the book that had brought about the War of Independence. And yet you never hear about it, you hear about Tom Paine’s Common Sense and you are told that that book caused the War of Independence, and nobody tells you the obvious fact that when Tom Paine came to this country the first Continental Congress had been sitting for four months, and the break was already underway, so that he got here after things were already underway. He had nothing to do with starting it. And he left in disgust before it was over.

Now what did (Vindiciai Contos Aronus?) declare? That obedience to tyrants could be disobedience to God. To obey that which was contrary to God could be disobedience to God, and therefore it was more important to obey God then to obey men. Now, we are under covenant to God, through the church. Which means we must keep His commandments with respect to worship. We are under covenant to God in the civil order, the state, whose purpose is to establish law and order, and we are to obey as far as humanly possible, unless it is against the laws of God. Now, we are in covenant with God, in marriage also. Marriage is a covenant, and most of the marriage forms that exist today involve in the vow taken by bride and groom, that “I do vow and covenant before God and these witnesses, to take thee,” and so on. What did the word covenant mean? Well, here is an order under God, and under His law. Now supposing the point comes in your life when there is a conflict between which set of laws and which covenant you are going to obey. You have a covenant with God, the church, you have a covenant with the state, God’s order for law, and you have a covenant with your family. But supposing the state requires something from you that is going to be the destruction of your family? Which covenant are you going to obey?

Well that which requires of you that which is faithful to God. So if the state comes in and wants to take away your children, it would be a sin to disobey the state because you would be disobeying God, you would be faithless to your covenant vow. And you have then a Godly requirement to resist.

So that, the trouble with some of these people who are pacifists is, that they say: “There is only one law we should keep, the law of the state.” Your obligation to state, and they forget about your obligation to the church, and to your family, and to every other sphere of life. And they make that the only law that is fixed.

Any other questions?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] A very good point, I have been asked to relate, first what is (Faith?) to the communists today. To join the communist party is a very serious matter. Not lightly to be done. You simply don’t go up and sign a card and say you want to be a communist. To be a member of the party, you pledge first of all, a percentage of your income, and you are subject to special assessments as occasion and need require. So that, you give and you give heavily. Very heavily. It has not been unusual for some Communists to find that it is necessary for their wives to go to work in order to support them in their membership. These people are dedicated. Second, you must study. This means that you are given certain books of Marx and Lenin to read, and you go to a class, and you are drilled on these things, and you take examinations on them, and you’ve got to know the answers. You’ve got to know them so thoroughly that they come out just like that, you don’t have to think about it. Those answers are a part of your being. And I have seen books of Marx and Lenin that were owned by ex-members of the party. It is very interesting. Some of these owned by simple working men who have very, very limited intelligence. And yet those writings were very involved ones, that graduate students read in universities. But those men, whether they were Negro longshoremen, or whatever they were, (?) had to sit down and spend hours and hours. Night after night, studying those books. Getting the answers down pat. And if they didn’t have them, they weren’t told: “Well, we’ll let you by because you’ve been active for quite a few months now night after night.’ No, they had to go home and be drilled on it further, until they got the answers. That is why it is so exceedingly difficult for a communist to leave the party. He has been drilled in these answers until they are a part of his being, they are second nature to him. And he has been drilled in giving sacrificially, in putting his whole life into this, so that it is a deep wrench for him to break away from it, it is almost like dying, some of them have said.

Now contrast that with what it takes to be a church member these days. All you have to do is to indicate you are interested, and they are begging you to come in, and in fact if you are not interested they are begging you to come in in many instances, and you don’t have to believe anything, in fact I know one pastor of whom I have a very low opinion, who preached a sermon, and it was on the Tower of Babel, and he said the Tower of Babel stood for confusion, but he also said it stood for the unity of everyone, and unity was a good thing. So even though they were confused and it meant confusion, still this unity was a marvelous thing, and he said: “Now in this church, we have a lot of confused people. and most of us don’t know what to believe, and a good deal of the time I don’t know what I believe.” So he said; “Those of you out there who aren’t members yet and are very confused and don’t know what to believe, this is the church for you.”

Well, I think that’s describes most churches today. And if anyone is miffed with something in the woman’s association, and they feel they have to lay the law down to the pastor, they have to leave the church, and they leave for trifling reasons continually. But, it is a sin in the sight of God, to join a church apart from the faith, or to leave it for any other reason than that it is faithless to the word of God. And when it begins to be faithless, and to tolerate anything else, then we have an obligation to leave. We cannot be a party to something that is anti Christian. So, this is the difference. Now, this is why the communists are so effective. They can be a fraction of one percent, but because they have the dedication, they can accomplish a great deal. But we have in this country at least 30 million, and it could be 40 million people who are members of churches that claim to believe the Bible from cover to cover, and what have they accomplished/ Nothing. And we are losing the country, because theirs is a faith without works, which means that it is dead.

We must believe the word of God, and live it. And then we will begin to see things happen. And that is why I believe, what we do as we gather together in groups such as this, and there are such groups across the country, because we take Gods word seriously, and we know it is the foundation of liberty, it is more important than what is going on in all the big churches and among the millions. I think we in the sight of God, will be blessed, and shall be the (?) in terms of which He instructs this country. I think we have time for one more question?

Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] I question it. Sooner or later they are going to face a show down. And I have seen several churches where this (?) has come, and it has been appalling to see how these people who claim to be Christian feel that their membership in a church that gives them a little prestige, or a woman’s circle that they want to be members of, means more to them than the faith. One church in Northern California in the (?) area, a very large church, which has maintained from its conception the façade from being genuinely evangelical, now is has come out recently very openly and obviously, the Assistant pastor who was new was thoroughly backed up by the pastor, was teaching the high school and college age students the new morality. Anything was legitimate, he said, whether it was adultery or fornication or homosexuality, if it was done in love. This was quite open. And a young mother whom we know very well and who left the church, went to this assistant pastor, with one of her neighbors and one of her closest friends, who also had children under this assistant pastors ministry, and confronted this man with it, he not only admitted it, but defended this teaching. Very vigorously. The only thing (?) was he had written up a letter in the course of the discussion they had had, upon analyzing a book, and he had stated these opinions openly in writing, he asked for the letter back. But even then, they made copies of the letter, it was interesting that the young mother to whom he made these statements did not leave the church. And most of the people remained. And when this friend of ours confronted them with this fact, and said: “This is what you are condoning as a teaching to your children.” Their excuse was: “Well, he is young, he’ll outgrow these ideas.” But they knew the man had been backed by the pastor.

Now this is nothing but an evasion, and you can only conclude these people are not Christian. They couldn’t be and tolerate that.

Well, our time for dismissal has come, so we will meet here next Sunday at 2:30.