Clergy seeking “to bring the Church into the twentieth cen tury” by disregarding the abso luteness of moral law, are taking it more backward than forward. The sins for which God de stroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham are the same sins which bedevil us today. Then, as now, the doctrine of the willful was that social life has no rules; that whatever any adult» wants to do is all right if in doing it he does not physically harm someone else; or, that any two adults may do anything th ey please in private so long as no one is offended in public. The Bible calls this “lawless ness.” There is explicit Bible Law which condemns: A child rebelling against his parents . . . Students rioting to disrupt the work of a university . . . A social agitator encouraging “civil disobedience.” . . . Adopting personal dress and habits wh ich are d ir ty , dis hevelled, repulsive . . . These offenses are not - new; they are specifically defined in the Bible. And the laws against them have not changed. The laws of physics and chem istry and mathematics have not changed. They are the same today as they have always been. So are the laws of right and wrong. What once was right still is. What once was wrong still is. As science must depend on the stability and uniformity of nat ural law, so religion depends upon the stability and uniformity of moral law. It would be as foolish for a na tion to ignore the basic laws of morality as for a chemist to ig nore the laws of violence. And altogether as potentially deadly. Reprinted by permission of Mr. Paul Harvey of Paul Harvey Newst Ameri can Broadcasting Company. HE Having a beer bust . . . Having a sex orgy . . .
BODSLAWS
ION IBEND
'P oju JL UoMwfì
N obody d is p u t e s the fact of our nation’s moral decay, but there is much dispute about what should be done about it. Most every newspaper, broad cast, magazine and law enforce ment bulletin headlines the de generation of the generation. Not everybody wants to call sin, sin. Some call it “mischief,” “delin quency” or “rebellion.” And hardly anybody can agree where we should draw the line. Articles seek to decree ground
rules for necking and petting. Well-intentioned agencies seek to prescribe when indulgence be comes over-indulgence. Our courts are trying in vain to define por nography. Yet moral law is very specific to any reader of God’s Word. You can ignore that Word, or deny it. You can argue it, deride it, poke fun at it. . . . But when you have done your worst, the Word is still there — as old as 20 centuries B.C. and as new as 20 centuries A.D,
JUNE, 1968
15
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online