News & Views, July 2001 - Edited By E. L. Bynum

Divorce and the Ministry Revisited - By E. L. Bynum

The Blight of Gambling - By Bill Mosley

Regeneration by Water Baptism Refuted - By B. H. Carroll

Nothing About The Gay Lifestyle to Celebrate

Harry Potter Books

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2).

In the May issue of the PBC we published an article titled "Divorce and the Ministry." As we expected, we received some negative reaction to it, but not as much as we expected. We realize that this is a controversial issue, and we are not naive enough to expect to settle this with all people.

There are a considerable number of Baptist pastors who have divorced and remarried, and they are still in the ministry. Frankly, I feel sorry for these people, and I have no solution to their problem other than to get out of the ministry. Most if not all of them would take strong offense to the view that I teach. Let me assure you that I am not trying to cause them more problems, for most of them have already experienced many problems with their situation.

A number of years ago, a BBF Church in Lubbock was without a pastor. A BBF pastor in another Texas city recommended a preacher for that pulpit. In due time they called him as a pastor and him and his family moved on the field. He and his wife had some small children at home. When some older children came to stay with them for the summer, they told the Church that these were cousins of the pastor's children. That worked well, until the children told the secret that they were really the children of a previous marriage.

The Church had been taught against such things by the previous pastor. Having been warned by the previous pastor, the pulpit committee had naturally asked the prospective pastor if he had been married before, and he assured them that he had not. He did not have the honesty to tell them, and the committee did not think to ask him if his wife had been married before. These were her children by a previous marriage. It turned out that it caused a disruption in the Church and the pastor had to resign.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the BBF pastor that recommended him in the first place had not been a deceiver. He had told the prospective pastor that he should keep this problem secret, since it might cause a problem. It turned out that honesty would have been the best policy, as always. Churches need to ask the right questions when interviewing a prospective pastor, and preachers need to be honesty.

Those who object to our stand, usually say that Paul is talking about polygamy when he says, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." Since this command is repeated again in Titus 1:6, it must be important.

We cannot get much help from the commentaries, since they disagree with each other on this Scripture. Well-recognized commentators can be quoted to support both interpretations. One famous preacher put it well when he said, "the Bible sure throws a lot of light on the commentaries." The best method when it comes to doctrinal disagreements, is to compare Scripture with Scripture, and let the Bible interpret itself.

Some godly men in the Old Testament did have more than one wife at a time. At the suggestion of Sarah, Abraham did end up with both Sarah and Hagar. It caused disruption, heartache and sorrow in his family. After thousands of years, the world continues to suffer because of that horrible mistake. Israel and the Arab nations are the result of Abraham's mistake, and the peace of the world has been broken by their wars, and no solution has ever been found.

Isaac the son of Abraham, apparently learned his lesson well, for he never took a second wife. However, Jacob through the trickery of his father-in-law ended up by marrying more than one wife. This brought jealousy, duplicity, division in the family, so that there were problems among the sons, and the tribes which they founded. This caused untold problems until the Babylonian captivity.

David is another classic example of the sorrow that polygamy always brought. In spite of these, and many other examples, there is not one verse of the Bible that sanctions polygamy. God never approved it, nor gave anyone permission to practice it.

When God created a wife for Adam, he did not create two, three or perhaps a dozen, so that Adam could have a harem, or even two at a time. On the other hand, God did not create two or three women, so that if Adam wanted to divorce one of them and marry another one, he could do so. Adam's marriage was designed and arranged by God, and we are sure that if Christians would allow God to arrange their marriage, we could avoid all of the divorces today. Of course that is another subject.

Now we are getting to the issue that this article is dealing with. There is not one Christian in the New Testament that practiced polygamy. Search it out for yourself. The problem did not exist in the churches of the New Testament. If it had, Paul or some of the apostles would have had something to say about. It would have to have been dealt with, since it would have been a big issue. There would have been no men in the churches that practiced polygamy from which a pastor could have been chosen.

Our Saviour taught on this issue in Mark 10:2-12; Matt. 5:31-32; Matt. 19:3-10; and Luke 16:18. The Jews had introduced divorce and remarriage as all right. Some of them believed in divorce on almost any grounds. When asked about it, Jesus took them back to the beginning and showed them that God never sanctioned such a thing. We could print and discuss all of these Scriptures, but for brevities sake, this will not be done. Let us look at the quotation in Mark. For emphasis, we have placed certain verses in bold face type.

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:2-12).

In another passage the Lord also stated it quite plainly. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18). The point I am trying to make, is that Jesus was very strict on the subject divorce, and he never discussed polygamy here, or anywhere else. Does this mean that Jesus did not object to polygamy? Absolutely not, but he did not discuss it in these passages, because it was not a problem for Christians. There is nothing in the New Testament that would indicate that even the devout Jews believed in polygamy. To say that Paul is talking about polygamy in I Timothy 2, is to insist that polygamy existed in the churches at that time, and we know that this was not so!

In Romans 7, Paul makes a strong case, showing the contrast between law and Grace. He uses marriage, divorce, and remarriage to illustrate his point. "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man" (Rom. 7:2-3). Of course this would make polygamy impossible, but that is not what He is talking about. He is presenting the conditions under which a woman could remarry. He does not give permission because of divorce, but because of death. Since the law and the ordinances were now dead, the believer could be married to Christ by grace.

Corinth was reputed to be the most wicked city in the Roman Empire. Every sin known to man could be found in that city. Some of these sins flowed over into the Church at Corinth, and you can see that as Paul rebuked them. In every chapter of I Corinthians he rebuked them for some doctrinal or moral error that was a problem in the Church. Not once in his two letters to them does he mention the sin of polygamy. Why? There was no such problem in the churches and it did not need to be addressed. Divorce and remarriage was a problem, and he discussed it.

In I Cor. 7, Paul has a lot to say on the subject, but what he says at the end sums up the whole question as to when a married person is free to marry another person. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (I Cor. 7:39). Death severs the marriage union, and that enables a person to remarry. I am well aware of the fact that there are grounds for separation in marriage, but there is no permission given by God for that person to remarry.

Jesus did not deal with polygamy in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and Paul did not discuss it in Romans or Corinthians; how can we possibly make the stretch and say that Paul is talking about polygamy in I Timothy and Titus? "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2). Paul is not talking about polygamy here, but divorce and remarriage, just as he did in Romans 7, and I Corinthians 7. He is on the same subject that Jesus dealt within Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

While it is a very serious sin, with serious consequences, it is not a sin that God cannot forgive. If that be so, then why cannot a divorced and remarried man preach? Simply because he does not meet God's qualifications. God spoke through Paul and said, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...."

My wife is a godly woman, she is saved, her sins are forgiven, and she knows more Bible than some God called preachers. That does not qualify her or any woman to preach, because they cannot be "...the husband of one wife...."

Let me illustrate this truth another way. Here is a young man that grows up with the burning ambition to be a baseball player. From childhood he follows this dream. Finally he makes it to the big time and is recognized as one of the best. Through his own anger and recklessness he is involved in a tragic automobile accident. He wakes up in the hospital several day later and the doctor tells him that he will be paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life. He may repent of his anger and recklessness over and over again, but he will never play baseball again. It is tragically true that he is no longer qualified.

There are good men that made a tragic mistake in life. They have repented of their sin, and God has forgiven them; but they can never preach. Why? They are not qualified. I know some very devout Christians that have gone through divorce and remarriage. They had deeply and thoroughly repented. They serve God will zeal and love, but they are not qualified to hold the office of a pastor or deacon. Some of them strongly support my stand on this issue, but there are some things they cannot do, but there are many other things they can do in service to the Lord. This is no excuse for those who have a very shallow understanding of repentance, and think that it only involves telling God, "I'm sorry." I am talking about real repentance.

If I wanted to be popular, I could do like many preachers do, either leave the subject alone, or whitewash the whole thing. I feel compelled to declare what the Word of God teaches on the subject. If I lose friends and make enemies by so doing, then I am sorry for those results. I do not need to lose any more friends, or make any more enemies.

Divorce and remarriage is becoming more and more of a problem with the collapse of the home in America. Of course we have heard that the number of divorces has gone down, but that does not reveal the truth. More couples than ever before are living together without the benefit of marriage. Most of these end of living with a number of different people. In the old days they would have been married and would be getting divorces.

This article will not satisfy everyone, and there are other issues on divorce that could be discussed, but nothing in the Bible justifies what is happening today.

When the question of gambling is brought up, there is sure to be two opposite opinions. As in other conflicting discussions there are various explanations for the reason of the opposite convictions. One argument given in support of the many credits(?) of gambling is in the form of the question, "What's wrong with gambling?" Simply saying, "It is wrong," will only initiate the repeat of the first question. It is likely that many will feel any reason given to prove gambling is wrong will carry little more, if any more, weight than the simple answer above.

Society is so geared today as to teach all who grow to physical maturity that whatever the government approves must be right. This seems to hold true even if it is contrary to biblical principles. Everything from local bingo to Las Vegas casinos seems to draw a crowd. Having something attached to it that would persuade the participants that they are not only favored by being permitted to indulge, but would also be helping others through its revenues, as in the case of church sponsored bingo. Organizations under the captions of churches hold bingo games in the name of raising revenues for all sorts of projects. Reasons that appear right never justify a wrong procedure.

To answer the question, "Is gambling wrong?", we first look to the Bible. If this seems to be an old-fashioned approach, remember this is the Book by which all works shall be judged. This is true of both the saved and lost.

Paul in his letter to the Romans covered more than the subject of eating meat offered to idols when he said, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). How tragic that some would dare to jest about such a subject as buying a lottery ticket to say they "had faith they would win." The odds against winning the lottery is astronomical. The simple fact is that gambling is no joke. It is addictive as well as damning. In states where lottery gambling is legal, every quick-stop and many grocery stores, etc. carry lottery tickets. Purchasers of these tickets often stand at the counter and scratch their ticket until their (unlucky) number appears. If they have bought $5 worth of tickets and win $2 they are so excited they will spend another $5 hoping for the same results. That is habitual compulsiveness or addiction in any dictionary.

Not only did the Apostle Paul make the awakening statement quoted above but he also wrote by inspiration these words: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Heb. 11:6). If whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and without faith it is impossible to please God, it seems all concerned with pleasing the Heavenly Father would be careful about all of their activities. Lest any should jest again about having faith when they purchased their lottery or numbers tickets note again what the Bible defines faith as being. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). There is no `substance' in gambling nor `evidence' of winning. It is economically unsound because the chances of any return are practically non-existent. There is not enough zeros in the national debt to place after a fractional decimal to give a proper estimate on lottery returns. It is also morally unclean because of the damage it does for all concerned, from the purse strings to the political structure. It is eternally damning because of it being altogether opposite to the teaching of the Word of God.

Gambling will never bring benefits of value but on the contrary always causes heart-ache in one form or another. Even in those rare cases when someone of a multi-millions chance win(?), there is immediately a loss. First: the so-called winner loses any privacy of life they ever possessed. Second: the ability to think clearly about a future life-style has disappeared in the fog of temporary happiness. "What shall I do?" was the fatal question of the rich man in Luke 12:16-21. Third: it likely never enters the winners mind where the wealth he has now acquired was generated. These winners might never openly rob a baby of much needed milk or food. Nor would they think of taking warm clothing off a cold, slobbering drunk. Yet a great amount of their winnings come from such a source.

The author of such an article as this is placed under severe scrutiny by many. The fact is that the crowd who stands in line to purchase lottery tickets has little concern about what anyone writes or thinks on the subject. Some even who claim the name of Christ have little concern that gambling is a shameless sin against a holy God. They mock all who point out the error of their way. (Prov. 14:9; 2 Tim. 2:19) The only argument many seem to have or need is that it is only done in "fun." Every tactical move of Satan is fueled by the same energy. Anything that desecrates the name of Christ and gives the flesh a charge, will be acceptable with Satan.

The availability of gambling has circled the globe by Internet. Among the parent states of legal gambling is the state of Nevada. Their state legislature recently passed a law that will make it possible for Las Vegas casinos to offer gambling over the Internet. Although the bill does not exactly legalize online betting, as such, it does set up a procedure to allow for the licensing of casinos that want in on the increasingly lucrative action. Every home with a computer has a potential one-armed bandit accessible to their children.

Internet gambling has become a $1.6 billion industry, with projections that online casino earnings will rise to $6.3 billion by 2003. There are an estimated 1,400 Internet casino sites, based overseas, luring in some 4.5 million American players. Americans reportedly gamble away some $500 billion, legally or illegally, every year. That is 5 with nine zeros. Attorney General John Ashcroft, while a senator from Missouri called the findings of gambling addiction a "fireball in the night, warning America against the terrible effects of gambling." It is little wonder that so many advocacy groups for gambling fought his appointment to the highest law office in the U.S.

Income without input seems to be the goal of millions. It matters little that the income from gambling came from the pockets of losers (in more ways than monetarily). Be assured the casinos are not going to stay in the gambling business without a lucrative return. Winners(?) do not beat the casino, casinos plunder the losing gambler. The best way to explain the perils of gambling is that only the casino wins. And even in winning they lose. They lose the regard for the loser, (and that only of their money) and they lose consideration of the winner(?). No doubt every gambler approaching the cash-in booth receives an overwhelming invitation to return. (Statistics from World, 6/23/01)

"With a click of the mouse, you could lose your house" is not simply an expression, it is a possibility. According to a survey in the mid '90s, nearly 1 in 5 homeless men and women cite gambling as a cause of their situation. Since lawmakers are so seemingly interested in getting Americans off welfare and back in the work force, why is the gambling industry not censured with the same force as tobacco? The survey said that "70% of the men and women in rescue missions believe the prevalence of gambling opportunities, including state lotteries, makes it difficult for them to put their lives back together." Forty percent said they still occasionally gamble though they are homeless. Lotteries are by far the preferred method used because of its availability.

How rapidly did this come about? Statistics reveal between 1976 and 1992, the amount spent on all gambling rose a whopping 1900%. This indicates gambling enslavement is on the rise faster than any other addiction. The three most conspicuous addictions in America, alcohol, tobacco and gambling, can be successfully treated by simply removing the availability of the cause. In passing, the war on drugs is little short of a game between the law and the law-breaker.

Consulting the Bible for guidelines for proper conduct in this area is ignored by most gamblers. Consulting statistics is answered by, "This will never happen to me." Even a casual reflection on the likelihood of winning at gambling should jar the simplest soul. Addiction to gambling could happen to anyone venturing into any area of wagering. Flipping a coin for coffee or a soft drink may seem ever so harmless, but whether admitted or not those involved look forward to the next event with anticipation, hoping to win.

Countless necessary bills are not met because a chronic gambler has spent the family paycheck on lottery tickets or at a bingo parlor. Children go without food and clothing because a parent has fallen into this slimy slough of sin. The amount spent on gambling in any form diminishes the amount available for other family or personal needs.

How many of the 1 in 5 mentioned above who are homeless because of gambling once had a home. No doubt many can remember the meals shared together with their family. Gambling is often the cause of divorce. Where is the once loving wife or husband? Who are they now sharing family life with? Where are the children who have grown into adulthood and now have a family of their own? Who is enjoying the grandchildren that gambling has deprived this 1 in 5 of? Family laughter has long been replaced with friendless loneliness.

Although the statistics may vary, all other addictions can be approached in the same manner. To some degree all results are the same. The addict is robbed of life and love and only reaps loss and loneliness. The gambler like the drunkard may say they are hurting no one but themselves. Yet hearts that hurt spread like the ripples from a rock thrown into a pond. My prayer is that those entrapped by the blight of gambling will not wait for the shores of eternity to stop their ripple. Gambling is a downhill path to follow. Yet how many church members feel there is no harm in purchasing one small lottery ticket? Apart from being a blemish on the Lord's church, and a disgrace to God, you are encouraging others to follow the same course. "Be careful little hands what you do."

(Editor's note: In all the articles that we publish, we make sure that all Scriptures quoted are from the King James Bible.)

The greatest modern advocate of the theory of baptismal regeneration is Alexander Campbell, and a short history of his contention is this: He came over from Scotland and settled in Virginia. He had a certain quasi connection with a Baptist church. Anyhow, he was present at Baptist Associations, and named his first paper The Christian Baptist. But he says, "When I began my debate on the act of baptism, with McCall, who was a Presbyterian, while studying for that debate I found out that baptism, unless it was intended to secure the remission of sins, was as empty as a blasted nut."

That was the germ of the idea in his mind, according to his own statement; hence Mr. Campbell from that time on, began to publish things that the Baptists did not believe, and soon he brought out a new paper, which he called the Millennial Harbinger. In other words, he considered himself to be the harbinger, the forerunner, the "John the Baptist" of the millennium, and that it was this new theory of his that was bringing about the millennium.

In that Millennial Harbinger was an "extra" on the remission of sins. It was a little too long to go into his little paper. In this Extra, which was the first general and formal announcement of his proposition, he took the position of baptismal regeneration, baptismal remission, or baptismal salvation--that wherever you find "purifying" or "sanctifying" it means baptism. In other words, he made it mean the whole thing.

When he brought out that extra, the "fur began to fly." All over the land the Baptists rose up and said, "This man does not belong to us," and their leaders began to reply to his extra, among whom were the celebrated Andrew Broadus, the elder J. B. Jeter, both of Virginia; also Carr, pastor of one of the great Richmond churches. Whereupon everybody knew there would be a war at the next meeting of that association.* The association met and a committee was appointed to consider the state of the churches. That committee, of which Carr was chairman, found that the churches were being wrecked by a new doctrine, set forth in the extra of the Millennial Harbinger. So the committee recommended that the churches withdraw fellowship from the preachers who advocated that doctrine, and from the members who accepted it. The churches acted instantly, all over Virginia. And since they drew that line of cleavage, Campbellism has no longer hurt the Baptists.

This heresy passed into Kentucky. There it divided the associations and the churches. Wherever it went a fire arose. Where there are two horses going in opposite directions, no man had better try to ride both at the same time. Where two are not agreed they ought not to try to walk together. Then Mr. Campbell organized his own denomination. In the meantime, he held debates with quite a number of people on the subject.

The antecedent arguments opposing Campbell's theory are as follows:

1. The plan of salvation from the book of Genesis to Revelation is one plan. Whatever has been essential as a requirement is always essential, just as much so in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, and yet baptism and the Lord's Supper were not parts of the Old Testament. And all must admit that some Old Testament people were saved. If so, according to their theory, they were saved by compliance with terms that we do not have to observe, and we are saved by compliance with terms that they did not have to observe; therefore, the plan was changed in the essential terms of salvation.

2. But the model case of Abraham, the model case of salvation by faith as in Abraham, utterly nullifies any change in the plan: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness," or justification, and Paul says, "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also." When we believe in Christ it is imputed unto us for righteousness, and we must follow in the steps of our father, Abraham, showing that the plan of salvation was the same.

3. Another antecedent argument is the testimony of the prophets. Peter said to Cornelius, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Here is remission of sins conditioned upon faith, and all the prophets bore witness to the fact that a man who believed on Him received the remission of sins, and there was no baptism at the time that the prophets bore that testimony.

4. Acts 16:30 is the only place in the Bible where the express question is put, "What must I do to be saved?" and the express answer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

5. In many instances in the life of Christ He said to men and women, "Thy faith hath saved thee," and that where there was no baptism at all.

6. A certain passage in Hebrews goes to the heart of the matter. Talking about the ritual of the Old Testament it says, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Why?

Because there was no intrinsic merit in the blood of bulls and goats. Apply that principle: It is not possible that baptism in water shall take away sin. There is no intrinsic merit in it.

"The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." The Old Testament ritual did not do it, and the New Testament ritual does not do it.

7. If we make some external act to be performed by another party essential to our salvation, then the promise of salvation can never be made sure to us, and yet the Scriptures teach that God made salvation by faith that it might be made sure.

That penitent thief, for instance, was up there dying, hanging on his cross. Suppose baptism is an essential condition to salvation; he is lost, for he could not come down. But Jesus looked at him who had complied with no ritual, and said, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

I discuss this subject at length because I want to solemnly impress upon the mind the way these two theories fight, have been fighting, and will continue to fight until the end of the world.

8. I will assume a perpendicular line as upon a blackboard. Write on one side of it, "Lovers of God," and on the other side, "Haters of God." One side are believers; on the other side unbelievers. Now, from which of these two sides will you take the subjects for baptism--people who love God, and believe in Jesus Christ, or haters of God and unbelievers? A follower of Campbell will say, "Take lovers of God and believers in Jesus Christ." Then I say, "Every one that loveth is born of God," and "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," and "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." They may wrestle with that perpendicular line as much as they please--they can never break it.

9. Paul says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Cor. 1:14,17).

If baptism were one of the terms of salvation, Paul was thanking God that he had refused to perform one of the things essential to salvation.

Does he not make a distinction there between the essence of the gospel that saves, and baptism? No man can deny it if he carefully studies the passage.

10. The repeated declarations in the Bible, for example, take this one: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," and "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." So the Scriptures might be multiplied, but I must stop here.

I would never go and look for the remission of sins in a pool of water.

The Baptist Examiner, 10-10-64

*B. H. Carroll was a Southern Baptist at a time when Southern Baptist churches were largely still standing faithful to the Bible. He was instrumental in the founding of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, a Southern Baptist school.

"The story is told that one day, during Dr. Carroll's last illness, he looked into the face of his young colleague and said, `Lee, keep the Seminary lashed to the cross. If heresy ever comes in the teaching, take it to the faculty. If they will not hear you and take prompt action, take it to the trustees of the Seminary. If they will not hear you, take it to the Convention that appoints the Board of Trustees, and if they will not hear you, take it to the great common people of our churches. You will not fail to get a hearing then.'"1

In spite of Dr. Carroll's deathbed plea, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, along with the other Convention schools, has succumbed to compromise, modernism and unbelief.

We, as Bible believing Baptists, hold that associations, fellowships and conventions are the unscriptural creations of men, and we contend "that a true church cannot scripturally join anything nor become affiliated with any outside religious organization.

"Churches may work together in the work of Christ, but should beware of entangling alliances which bring them under the domination of boards and denominational secretaries."2

1W. W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954), p. 209.

2E. L. Bynum, What We Believe (Tract # C-406 )

TO ALL: The following is a letter to the editor, which ran in the Daily Oklahoman on June 24th, in response to the decision to make note of Gay Pride by hanging celebratory banners along the street. It is, I think, one of the best letters on the truth behind the Gay Pride promotions which is not realized by many who feel obliged to be tolerant and supportive. It should not offend anyone, yet it should make them stop and think about where they are being led as this agenda snowballs. As the writers of the letter indicated they are affiliated with known groups, I think they will have no objection to having their letter circulated further. Below is the letter. Joan Battey, Daily Oklahoman 6/24/01

TO THE EDITOR;

Literally raising the banner of "gay pride" is a serious mistake, because there is nothing about the gay lifestyle to celebrate. By installing banners along Classen Boulevard, we lead impressionable adults and children to make these assumptions:

Homosexuality is wide spread. Fact: the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that only 2.3 percent of sexually active men aged 20 to 39 have had any same-sex sexual activity in the past 10 years; only 1.1 per cent of the men were exclusively homosexual.

Homosexuals are born gay. Fact: Despite all the noise, there is still no scientific evidence that supports the claim that a person can be born homosexual.

Gay relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. Fact: 58 percent of gay men have had over 250 sexual partners; 26 percent have had over 1,000. In the straight world, this is called sexual addiction. The gay lifestyle is not normal.

Homosexuals are normal, healthy, everyday people. Fact: People who engage in homosexual behavior shouldn't be hated or despised. On a psychological level, these people are usually just looking to find the love and acceptance they missed out on from fathers who failed them. Sadly, in cities where homosexuality is most accepted, the so-called "gay lifestyle" often rewards their search with a short life of promiscuity, drug abuse, suicide and HIV.

Homosexuality is unchangeable. Fact: Freedom is available to those who seek it. Nationally, many therapists and faith-based groups - including local groups like First Stone Ministries - report stories of people who have successfully left the lies of homosexuality. A first step out of sin's grip starts with the search.

In the name of compassion and truth, let's not make the mistake of so many other cities. Emerging from the past hurts we've endured, Oklahoma City has a vibrant, growing future ahead. Why would we want to endanger it by encouraging our citizens to make choices that will only result in more human tragedy?

We don't need the siren's songs of joy and acceptance that are falsely promised by mistaken notions of "gay pride."

(Signed)

Michael Jestes, David Dunn, Stephen Black

"Jesus died because He was weak and stupid"; This is a quote from 6 year old Jessica Lehman of Easley, SC, after reading the HARRY POTTER BOOKS! "Hermione is my favorite, because she's smart and has a kitty,"

The following is an email sent from the American Family Association, which is VERY disturbing, to say the least.

"Dear Christian, This is the most evil thing I have laid my eyes on in 10 years ... and no one seems to understand its threat. The Harry Potter books are THE NUMBER ONE selling children's books in Barnes & Noble or Waldenbooks storefront. Go to Amazon.com and read the reviews.

Hear the touting by educators and even Christian teachers about how "It's great to see the youth so eagerly embracing the reading experience!" Harry Potter is the creation of a former UK English teacher who promotes witchcraft and Satanism. Harry is a 13 year old `wizard.' Her creation openly blasphemes Jesus and God and promotes sorcery, seeking revenge upon anyone who upsets them by giving you examples (even the sources with authors and titles) of spells, rituals, and demonic powers.

I think the problem is that parents have not reviewed the material. The name seems harmless enough... Harry Potter. But that is where it all ends. Let me give you a few quotes from some of the influenced readers themselves: "The Harry Potter books are cool, `cause they teach you all about magic and how you can use it to control people and get revenge on your enemies" said Hartland, WI, 10-year old Craig Nowell, a recent convert to the New Satanic Order Of The Black Circle. "I want to learn the Cruciatus Curse, to make my muggle science teacher suffer for giving me a D." (A `muggle' is an unbeliever of magic.)

Or how about the REALLY young and innocent impressionable mind of a 6 year old when asked about her favorite character. And here is dear Ashley, a 9 year old, the typical average age reader of Harry Potter: "I used to believe in what they taught us at Sunday School," said Ashley, conjuring up an ancient spell to summon Cerebus, the three-headed hound of hell. "But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but Boring lies."

DOES THIS GET YOUR ATTENTION? If not, how about a quote from a High Priest of Satanism: "Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause," said High Priest Egan of the First Church Of Satan in Salem, MA. An organization like ours thrives on new blood, no pun intended, and we've had more applicants than we can handle lately. And, of course, practically all of them are virgins, which is gravy."

(Since 1995, open applicants to Satan worship has increased from around 100,000 to now... 20 MILLION children and young adults!) It makes me physically ill, people! But, I think I can offer you an explanation of why this is happening. Children have been bombarded with action, adventure, thrills and scares to the point Hollywood can produce nothing new to give them the next `high.' Parents have neglected to see what their children are reading and doing, and simply seem satisfied that `Little Johnny is interested in reading.' AND... educators and the NEA are PUSHING this with NO WARNING as to the effects or the contents. Still not convinced? I will leave you with something to let you make up your own mind. And finally, a quote from the author herself, J. K. Rowling, describing the objections of Christian reviewers to her writings: "I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling told a London Times reporter in a July 17 interview. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son Of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes ... while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."

My hope is that you will see fit to become involved in getting the word out about this garbage. Please forward to every pastor, teacher, and parent you know. This author has now published FOUR BOOKS in less than two years of this `encyclopedia of Satanism' and is surely going to write more. I also ask all Christians to please pray for this lost woman's soul.

Pray also for the Holy Spirit to work in the young minds of those who are reading this garbage that they may be delivered from its harm.

Lastly, pray for all parents to grow closer to their children, and that a bond of sharing thoughts and spiritual intimacy will grow between them."