Evangelicals And Abortion

The lamest thing I recall Mr. Bush saying a few years ago during the stem cell debate was some mush about "the sanctity of life." That means what exactly? Sanctity is a church word. I think it means something transcendent. (Now, don't be fooled, Mr. Bush is opposed by a fellow who advocates federal funding of abortions and who has voted in favor of partial-birth abortions.) The reason Mr. Bush was lame to speak of the sanctity of life in a political context is that it sounds like a religious justification.

Mr. Kerry has professed that he is a Roman Catholic (how much he lets this affect his lifestyle is open to question) but he has said it does not affect his politics. He then frames the pro-life vs pro-choice conflict in purely religious terms, denying his right to impose religious opinion.

If my opposition to abortion rests upon religious criteria alone, then anyone who does not subscribe to that religion has a legitimate complaint when we oppose abortion in a civil context.

Therefore Evangelicals must make the case in the public square against abortion with our bibles kept firmly closed. This rhetoric of sanctity of life is an anchor around the neck of the pro-life movement.

When Roe v Wade occured, I was pro-choice. Back then Evangelicals were AWOL on this issue. Only Rome got involved in this issue. Shame on us. I did not want to be pro-life. It started with a single question: what is a fetus? (If you're wondering about stem cell research, ask "What is a fertilized egg?")

Let's examine some alternatives: 1) the fetus is part of the mother's body, like a tumor. 2) the fetus is a separate non-human organism. 3) the fetus is a separate human without rights. 4) the fetus is a separate human with rights.

Alternative 1 is not consistent with the fact that the fetus has a distinct genotype from that of the mother. Alternative 2 is not consistent with the fact that the fetus' genotype has 42 chromosomes and all that. Alternatives 3 and 4 depend upon where rights come from and who gets them.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist who wrote about walls of separation between church and state. He said that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus Mr. Jefferson's opinion expressed in this founding document of our nation seems to preclude the possibility that the fetus is a human without rights.

Conversely, Mr. Jefferson wrote these things while owning slaves. And the Supreme Court supported the constitutionality of this peculiar institution that denied the rights of slaves. In 1973, the Supreme Court put the rights of the mother above that of the child to such an extent that the state sanctioned the mother's termination of the unborn child's life.

The state sanctions the taking of human life all the time. If you break into my house and threaten my life, I can choose to resist with deadly force. In a sense, the fetus is a trespasser in the mother's womb and the mother lawfully evicts that child at the expense of its life. This is abhorrent, but in the eyes of US law it is not murder.

Because I am a Christian, I feel an obligation to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; I feel an obligation to defend those who cannot defend themselves; I feel an obligation to seek a change in US law that more justly acknowledges the rights of the unborn. (This is not an anti-woman position since half of the unborn in question are women.) My Christianity explains only my sense of obligation.

The case that I make against abortion and for the rights of the unborn, must be clearly articulated in secular terms. Otherwise, it will be dismissed as mere religious meddling in civil affairs.

The Keys to the Evangelical Voter's Heart

In 2000, it is estimated that 4 million Evangelicals stayed home or attended Bible study or did something but did not Vote.

Why is this?

One hypothesis is that just a couple days earlier Mr. Bush was revealed to have had a DUI conviction. That didn't strike me as particularly damning. I believed his "repentant sinner" narrative. Sure, he'd been an unsavory character when younger, but after he married Laura he got saved and quit his bad habits. The DUI was from before that professed conversion and thus irrelevant.

Another hypothesis is that Mr. Bush senior had nominated to the Supreme Court one David Souter whose vote kept Roe v Wade intact and who has sided with the liberals on the court. Now, if Bush senior can't be trusted to nominate strict constructionist judges, how could we get excited about his son?

The key to Evangelicals' hearts is the judiciary.

If you're not an Evangelical you should not freak out at this point. You may or may not like Evangelicals, but do you like Democrasy? Is it better for a judicial fiat by an appointed elite to rule the land? I prefer that laws come from legislators and that people vote for legislators.

You want a law? You should vote for a legislator. Don't appoint a judge to legislate from the bench.

So, are Evangelicals going to sit out this election in the same numbers we did in 2000? Probably not. Liberal Democrats in the Senate fillibustered Mr. Bush's judicial appointments to lower courts. This has helped Mr. Bush by creating the impression that he wants to do the right thing, but is thwarted by the liberals.

Are we more likely to vote upon hearing that Mr. Renquist has cancer? Yeah.

A More Sensitive Draft

Though Mr. Bush has repeatedly and emphatically stated that he has no intention of bringing back the draft, Mr. Kerry has proposed a program of compulsory national service. (This is not a year for the irony-challenged.) This is a draft, but it has a softer label. Mr. Kerry has said that he intends to fight "a more sensitive war on terror." Presumably, he plans to fight it with "more sensitively" drafted conscripts.

Mr. Kerry and Evangelicals

In the last debate, Mr. Kerry made a point to publicize the sexual preference of Mr. Cheney's daughter. Though many interpretations can be attached to this, the one I think most likely is that he thought Evangelicals would run screaming from the Bush-Cheney ticket upon learning this dark secret.

Supporting this hypothesis is Mr. Rove's statement that roughly four million Evangelicals stayed home in 2000, because of Mr. Bush's DUI conviction of decades before. Indeed, the DUI conviction hurt, but I think Mr. Rove is wrong. The story bothered me, but it was consistent with Mr. Bush's "repentant sinner" explanation. I think the DUI hurt because it supported the story that Mr. Bush was a "white-knuckle drunk" and he would fall apart when the pressure was on.

After the 2000 election, we saw Mr. Gore melt down, and after 9/11/2001 we saw that Mr. Bush was made of sterner stuff.

Thus I presume that Mr. Kerry's advisors assumed that since Evangelicals condemn homosexual acts, they would hold Mr. Cheney's daughter against Mr. Bush. The rubes must think homosexuality is something like cooties, right? No doubt the bumpkins are so clueless that they didn't know about Ms. Cheney already.

If there's anything not completely bogus in Mr. Kerry's calculus it's that Evangelicals dislike hypocrites: if Mr. Bush is saying all this G-d talk and secretly living like the devil, it will cost him. I believe that's why the Democrats depict Mr. Bush as more than opponent, but a lying skunk. If Mr. Bush is a liar of Clintonian proportions, Evangelicals might just spend election day at a prayer meeting or something else the Democrats think ineffectual.

But isn't it more likely that the Clintonoids would be liars of Clintonian proportions? Thus the "Bush lied" meme falls flat with ne. Mr. Kerry and before him Mr. Gore have manifested a profound ignorance of the Evangelical mind. (Perhaps they think Mr. Carter's thinking is normative.) This has made them tone-deaf when dealing with Evangelicals. If you would manipulate us, you must understand us first.

The thing that the Democrats and their clients in the homosexual community fail to realize is that Evangelicals primarily want to be left alone. In the last century or so, Evangelicals have tried to create "separate" institutions, as seen in Christian radio and cable TV stations, bookstores, schools and universities. When a demographic has a "leave us alone" constituency, it doesn't respond well to "in your face." (A wise politician might use this fact to appeal to otherwise incompatible constituencies.)

The dog in this fight for Evangelicals is homosexual marriage. Marriages often take place in the church. Catholics say that marriage is a SACRAMENT. What gives a judge the right to mess with Rome's sacraments? This puts marriage on the boundary of church and state. When a judge moves those boundaries, Evangelicals feel threatened. Mr. Cheney's daughter is not running for federal judge, federal judges make us feel threatened, and Mr. Bush is less likely to appoint activist judges.

A Pyrrhic Victory?

Reading this I remembered that a couple months back I asked a rabid Democrat acquaintance (at the time I thought him a friend), "if the Republicans win, will you abide by the results of the election?" His answer was no answer, just an abusive tyrade.

Consider:
- Florida 2000,
- the Democrat rhetoric of "selected, not elected",
- massive voter-registration fraud,
- violence directed at Republican offices and
- plans for pre-emptive complaints of voter intimidation anyplace the election is close.

Each of these things undermine our system of democracy. Mr. Green's prescription is to hand the Democrats an electoral spanking. Years back Detroit made cars nobody wanted and they cost about $2k more than comparable Japanese cars. The market spanked Detroit; I bought a Subaru. Detroit fixed its problems, and now I drive a Saturn and a Chrysler. I'm a Republican, but I've split my ticket on several times in the past, voting for a conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican, or a pro-life Democrat over a pro-choice Republican.

This year, I'm seeing Mr. Kerry undermining the people, institutions and nations he'd have to work with on the international stage if he won. I'm seeing the Democrat party doing a hatchet job on the institutions that make this country "a stronger america" than the rest of the world. I don't know who'll win next month, but I hope it is not a Pyrrhic victory and I won't excuse any Republican who'll burn this country and the world down to secure power.

AWOL From The Senate

Last month, I was watching a news clip of Mr. Kerry windsurfing and reflected upon how all the news clips depicted him performing some activity or another of the idle rich. What does a senator do for a living? He votes and goes to meetings. One could peruse the Constitution to delve into the details, but the general idea is voting and attending meetings.

A slacker could sleep through meetings and let his staff nudge him at the right times to say Aye or Nay. In fact, Ronald Reagan was criticized for dozing during afternoon meetings. At least he showed up.

Tonight I'm watching the Vice President debates. Mr. Cheney, who as president of the Senate works in the same room with Mr. Edwards, said this was the first time they'd met.

This is some gravy job where you get six years minimum of slacking off, and you have to run for Vice President for anybody to point out that you blow off even those minimal duties of voting and attending meetings. Why would Mr. Edwards want to leave that gig?

I think it has to do with the duties of the Vice President. Since the Vice President only casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate, he doesn't have to vote as often. That must make the job a lot easier.

Why The Rich Oppose Tax Cuts

The current tax code is structured in a progressive fashion where the bulk of government income comes from the top earners. One would expect that rich people would object to bearing the burden, but a lot of rich folks are unconcerned or actively resist tax cuts. Why?

It could be that the rich are innately more altruistic. This may or may not be true, but it seems inconsistent with other traits we associate with rich people.

There is a significant difference between earning money and having money. It should be noted that earnings are often taxed at a much higher rate than possessions. High tax rates build a hedge around old money. Thus the oligarch affects a populism to tax his new-money competitors and use the funds to buy votes from the oligarch's clients.

This helps explain why we see two multimillionaires presenting themselves to the public as populists.

Disenfranchising Voters

The Conventional Wisdom is that those who aggressively cleanse voter rolls want to disenfranchise voters. There are dark hints that this is a form of crypto-racism. I'd like to suggest that election fraud is an indirect form of voter disenfranchisement.

Suppose you honestly cast your vote for candidate X, but a political hack drives a spike through a stack of ballots for candidate Y. This invalidates all votes for anyone who is not candidate Y. This disenfranchises all of those voters in the sense of negating their votes (if not in the sense of turning them away from the polls). This is an obvious direct form of disenfranchisement of honest voters by a dishonest party.

Or suppose the names of dead people are put onto the voter rolls. These dishonest ballots dilute the force of honest voters. It doesn't completely negate the honest voters' votes, but it partially disenfranchizes them.

It doesn't matter if you are Republican, or Democrat, or Green, or anything, election fraud steals from everyone.

How To Go To Hell

Introduction

Got a good reason for taking the easy way out
Got a good reason for taking the easy way out now

She was a day tripper, a one way ticket yea
It took me so long to find out, and I found out

She’s a big teaser, she took me half the way there
She’s a big teaser, she took me half the way there now

Tried to please her, she only played one night stands
Tried to please her, she only played one night stands now

She was a day tripper, a Sunday driver yea
Took me so long to find out, and I found out

Day tripper
Day tripper yea
The last time I taught Sunday School, I was talking about why we are not Willow Creek Community Church. Before that I talked about why we aren’t the Christian Reformed Church. Before that I talked about why we aren’t the Roman Catholic Church. So, I figured I was being excessively negative and decided to give a positive lesson instead. Today I’m going to talk about How To Go To Hell.

MT 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

When Jesus said these things, we have to remember whom he was talking to. He was talking to the Pharisees. He did not address the Sadducees. They did not believe in the resurrection. Therefore the Sadducees did not believe in Hell. The first thing to remember when you want to know how to go to Hell, is you have to believe in Hell.

History of the Pharisees

The Pharisees were named after the Hebrew word perushim comes from the word parash, meaning to separate. They lived in the Second Temple Era of Israel, that is roughly 536BC to 70AD. After that they became known as Rabbinic Judaism and then simply as Judaism.

Their name, Pharisees, tells us they were separatists. But what were they separated from? For most of their history, Pharisees defined themselves in opposition to the Sadducees. The Greeks were into Philosophy and worldly wisdom. The Sadducees embrace of Greek thought could probably get them called “liberals” by today’s standards. The Pharisees also resisted the Greek cultural influences that the Sadducees embraced.

These are the sorts of people that Jesus was talking to in this passage.

Hypocracy

MT 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Jesus characterizes the Pharisees as hypocrites. What does the word “hypocrite” mean?

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

The Greek word “hypocritEs” means actor. An actor plays a role, assuming an identity that is not his own. On Babylon 5, when the Vorlons inquired into the righteousness of a person, they asked “who are you?” Each of us should ask ourselves, “who am I?” A girl I knew in High School wrote a book where she talked about “Christian identity” but what does that mean? I tell folks I used to teach Sunday school and I used to be a Deacon. Is that who I am? What does that mean? Who am I?

The first thing to know about the Pharisee is that his identity is not the same as the role he plays. He plays the role of the man of God, but when you see him playing moral “whack a mole” on everyone around him you see who he really is: someone who puffs himself up by tearing those around him down. Guilt manipulation is the favorite blood sport of the Pharisee. I will not give any examples though a few come to mind.

What is the identity of one who keeps God’s law? Jesus said so a few verses back:
MT 22:34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

How then does one keep this law to love God and one’s fellow man?

1CO 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Jonathan Edwards said love means giving the other the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of the censorious attitude of someone who plays moral whack-a-mole.

Religious Abuse

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Does this remind you of anyone? Over Labor Day, we heard sermons that encouraged and challenged us to give more. Walking to the dining hall, a thought occurred to me and I said to Mary. “I’d feel more comfortable if the people who encouraged me to give weren’t in the business of accepting offerings.”

Have you ever seen someone who purports to pray, but doesn’t talk to God--just preaches a sermon while he expects everyone to keep their eyes closed and so on? I mentioned this to my friend Joe and he just shrugged, "That's not praying. It's preaching," he said.

False Evangelicalism

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Think about a witnessing situation. Are you trying to describe the benefits that you have derived from your encounter with God? Or are you trying to convince some guy to quit drinking, smoking and chewing tobacco, and then become a Baptist, Republican, pro-life, creationist, and home-schooler?

Rapaciousness

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

I had some difficulty figuring this passage out, so I called one of my lifelines. And This is what John Calvin had to say:

Matthew 23:16. Woe to you, blind guides, As ambition is almost always connected with hypocrisy, so the superstitions of the people are usually encouraged by the covetousness and rapacity of pastors

Calvin was concerned with Rome and its use of superstitions like relics and indulgences and foolishness like that. That’s what it looks like Jesus is condemning here. We can’t get superstitious about things and symbols and confuse the symbol for the substance.

The world has, indeed, a natural propensity to errors, and even draws down upon itself, as if on purpose, every kind of deceit and imposture; but improper modes of worship come to gain a footing only when they are confirmed by the rulers 1 themselves.

Here Calvin is talking about rulers in the church, the pastors, teachers, priests.

And it generally happens, that those who possess authority not only, by their connivance, fawn upon errors, because they perceive that they are a source of gain to them, but even assist in fanning the flame. Thus we see that the superstitions of Popery were heightened by innumerable expedients, while the priests opened their mouths for the prey; and even now they daily contrive many things by which they delude still more the foolish multitude. And when minds have once fallen under the darkening influence of the enchantments of Satan, nothing is so absurd or monstrous as not to be eagerly swallowed.

It was on this account that the Jews had more reverence for the gold of the temple, and for the sacred offerings, than for the temple and the altar. But the sacredness of the offerings depended on the temple and the altar, and was only something inferior and accessory. It may readily be believed that this dream proceeded from the scribes and priests, because it was a scheme well fitted for collecting prey. And this was not only a foolish but a highly dangerous error, because it led the people into ridiculous fancies. There is nothing to which men are more prone than to fall away from the pure worship of God: and therefore, under the covering of this veil, it was easy for Satan to withdraw from the contemplation of God those who were too strongly inclined to foolish imaginations. This is the reason why Christ so severely chastises that error. And yet the Papists were not ashamed to prostitute the sacred name of God to a mockery still more detestable; for they reckon it of more importance to touch a morsel of a stinking carcass, than to peruse the sacred volume of the Old and New Testaments, or even to raise their hands towards heaven. And in this way arises a carnal worship of God, by which the proper fear of God is gradually obliterated.

It is nothing. By this phrase he does not mean that they entirely took away the honor of the temple, but he speaks comparatively. For when they represented in extravagant terms the sacredness of offerings, the common people were led to entertain such veneration for them, that the majesty of the temple and of the altar was undervalued, and they reckoned it a less heinous crime to violate it by perjuries than to swear by the sacred offerings with too little reverence.

18. And whosoever shall swear by the altar. Here our Lord does what ought to be done in correcting errors; for he leads us up to the source, and shows, by the very nature of an oath, that the temple is far more valuable than the gifts which are offered in it. He accordingly assumes this principle, that it is not lawful to swear but by the name of God alone. Hence it follows that, whatever forms men may employ in swearing, they must give to God the honor which is due to him; and hence also it follows in what manner and to what extent we are at liberty to swear by the temple, namely, because it is the residence or sanctuary of God; and by heaven, because there the glory of God shines. God permits himself to be called as a witness and judge, by means of such symbols of his presence, provided that he retain his authority unimpaired; for to ascribe any Divinity to heaven would be detestable idolatry. Now so far as God holds out to us a brighter mirror of his glory in the temple than in offerings, so much the greater reverence and sacredness is due to the name of the temple. We now perceive, therefore, in what sense Christ says that we swear by him who inhabits heaven, when we swear by heaven itself. His design is, to direct all forms of swearing to their lawful end and object.

Though Calvin condemns the Papists of his day, I think that every time we encounter a religious person or group who has a strong attraction to money, and a strong desire to separate he faithful from their money, then this is the same sort of blindness Jesus and Calvin condemn here.

Distortion

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Here the Pharisees make a big deal of something small, and make short-shrift of something big. Remember above we talked about what God things are the biggest commandments.

Back in college I was talking to Jim Phipps, a speech professor. He said something that made little sense at the time. He said that you WANT to have more jobs to do than you have time to finish. That way you get to pick the ones you work on. Otherwise, you’d have to do them all.

Let’s suppose you’re Saul Pharisee. You’ve got 10 Commandments you can’t or won’t keep. What do you do? Make up a whole ton of EXTRA commandments that you can busy yourself with keeping while you blow off the big 10. OK, we’ll add

1. no dancing on Sunday
2. no going to movies
3. no smoking
4. no drinking
5. no two-piece bathing suits
6. no hair over your ears
7. no blue jeans before suppertime
8. no granny glasses like the ones John Lennon wore
9. no playing cards (except Rook that doesn’t have face cards)
10. no loud rock music.
    

Do these commandments appear in the Bible?

I don’t have any love in my heart for legalists, because I love God’s law. Legalists can never keep God’s law and they’re always substituting their own little rulebooks for God’s law.

Calvin has this to say at this point:
Christ charges the scribes with a fault which is found in all hypocrites, that they are exceedingly diligent and careful in small matters, but disregard the principal points of the Law.

Externalism

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Look back at those goofball commandments I mentioned above. They’re all external things. They all make you look respectable. But God looks upon the heart. When we’re talking about ignoring the core important parts of God’s law, and emphasizing trivialities, we’re talking about ignoring internal law-keeping in favor of external-show-law keeping.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Christ piles this on again and again. Externalism is bad. Externalism is bad. A show of righteousness is no substitute for a heart of righteousness consisting of mercy, judgment and faith.

False Hero Worship

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I go back to Calvin again. “The scribes endeavored to gain the favor of the ignorant multitude, and indeed of all the Jews, by this additional hypocrisy, that they cherished with reverence the memory of the prophets; for while in this manner they pretended to maintain their doctrine”

Which is better, to praise the name of Christ or to live what he taught? To praise the name of the Apostles or to follow their teaching? To praise Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, John Bunyan, Robert Ketchem, and M.R. De Haan, or to do what they said to do?

The Pharisee engages in hero worship, but doesn’t bother about what made the hero heroic!