The Bible is a library of 66 books, written by some 40 men over a period of 1600 years. While each book must be read and studied for its own unique message, we must never neglect to note the interrelations of the books with each other. Moses wrote the first five books of our Old Testament. Genesis tells the origin of the Hebrew nation and how they got into Egypt. Exodus tells how they became enslaved and then were delivered. Leviticus tells how their national religion came to exist. Numbers relates how they spent 40 years wandering toward Canaan, their new homeland. Deuteronomy rehearses the exodus from Egypt and the 40 years of wilderness wandering. The historical background for the various psalms can be found in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Paul's epistles must be studied in light of the history of the Acts of the Apostles.

2. Within the Scripture are words of both inspired and uninspired men. Care must be taken to ascertain who is speaking and if he is directed by the Holy Spirit or not. For example in Genesis 3:4-5, we read the words of Satan as he tempted Eve. Surely one would not treat these as he would the words of God or an inspired prophet. Inspiration guarantees that we have a true record of what was said. It does not guarantee that every person quoted was telling the whole truth.

The Bible is written in various literary styles. Books like Genesis and Joshua are history. Their message is expressed in simple prose. Psalms and Proverbs are poetic in nature and abound in figurative language. For example, David writes: "My heart is like wax; it is melted within me" (Psalms 22:14). Surely no one could view these words as literal. So it is with thousands of other expressions. A good rule to remember is "All words of Scripture are to be understood in the normal literal sense unless the context (the setting in which they are found) forbids such." Only then do we look for a figurative meaning. This lesson is extremely valuable when you study the prophets such as Ezekiel or Revelation. Another case in point is history and prophecy. Is the writer relating events past or present (history) or is he predicting things yet to come? Jeremiah related the historical facts of Jerusalem's capture by Babylon (Jeremiah 52:1-30). But he also predicted the overthrow and destruction of Babylon (50:21-28), which occurred 50 years later.

Now that I have your attention may I hasten to say that I do not believe in organic evolution! God created every category of living things and made them to reproduce after their kind (Gen. 1:12). I do not accept that the universe has evolved from some invisible, innate cosmic dust to the present amazing number of stars and planets. God created the heavens and earth in the beginning (Gen. 1:1).

That said, observation tells us that some humanly created things do indeed evolved over time. I have seen churches evolve from Bible-believing, God-fearing, Christ-honoring religious bodies into human denominations with little fear of God, skeptical of the Bible as an authority they must comply with and embarrassed to openly wear the name of Christ. They have been heard to say, "It carries too much baggage with it."

In my lifetime I have seen Christian Schools evolve in significant ways.

From institutions whose mission was to provide Christian education for the young people of the Lord's church some have evolved into worldly educational institutions whose primary interest is to be recognized and accepted by the secular world of academia.

From being bastions of sound doctrine and supporters and defenders of the faith, some have evolved into swamps of doubt and confusion, centers for promoting change.

From small communities of Christians willing to be different from the secular world and the unwilling to conform to the standards of denominationalism, some have evolved into large affluent communities with a significant loss of spiritual stamina and conviction, willing, even anxious, to change their faith according to the denominational mold.

From schools where loyalty to the Lord, his Word and his Church were expected of every teacher, some have evolved to the point that they employ teachers whose connections to the church are weak and tenuous at best. Some have non-Christians on their teaching staff. Some are safe harbors for teachers who are disenchanted members of the church who are openly working to impose unscriptural changes on the church that will wreck and destroy her.

Administrators and trustees of our schools need to ponder the following points. Why do Christian parents spend the extra money to send their children to a school operated by fellow-Christians?

Not just for a superior education. A good education can be acquired at any one of thousands of schools other than those operated by our brethren.

Note just for education that respects God, Christ and the Bible. Many other schools operated by our religious neighbors do that.

Note just for a campus with a decent social, moral environment. Many religious schools operated by conservative evangelical schools offer that.

Not just for a nice place to find a quality mate. Nice mates can be found at other religious schools.

Not just a place where values of home, family, democracy and free enterprise are held and taught. Such can be found in many other religious schools.

Parents sacrifice to send their children to schools operated by fellow Christians because they think that spiritual truths taught will be thoroughly biblical, that the students will be edified, and strengthened in their faith, that they will come back home stronger Christians, soundly educated not only in the secular fields but also in the things of God. They expect them to come home with their faith in tact, not filled with foolish and faddish ideas that will cause grief to the church.

If this ingredient is missing, then there is really no need for a Christian school operated by our brethren to exist. Why should we invest our money in an institution that is working against the well-being of the church? Why should we include a school in our will that already shows serious signs of abandoning the New Testament pattern of Christianity? If a school wishes to be a secular or a denominational school, they owe it to the brotherhood to declare their intentions and cease recruiting students and support from those they no longer respect and to whom they feel no accountability.

I urge all Christian parents and grandparents to weigh these thoughts when you contemplate sending your children to college. If their going to a "Christian school" will result in their faith being corrupted and their loss to the church, you surely don't want to send them there. Neither should we invest a penny of the wealth God has given us into an institution that no longer shares our basic biblical faith.


A NOTE TO ELDERS

He repeats his thesis that the "supper is a table rather than an altar" (p. 185). He evidently has us confused with the Catholic Church for it is their priests who observe the sacrifice of the mass. Our brethren have never done so.

He insists that the "Lord's Supper is a meal eaten at a table," not just "bread and wine" but a meal. "It is not the Lord's ‘snack' but the Lord's Supper," he says (p. 186). By this he means we should have a dinner meal with the usual provisions and then commune while thus engaged in dining. Some folks read, "he took a cup" and insist that the communion wine must be served in that which has a handle. Some read "table" and insist that there must be a dining table in order to commune. Strange, unfounded thinking.

To Hicks, the Supper is "more than a mere symbol. It is a genuine communion with God through Jesus Christ in the Spirit. God is present at the table" (p. 187). This is remarkably close to Luther's notion that the emblems when taken become the real flesh and blood of Jesus.

The supper should be "a time for sharing, prayer and conversation about what God has done for us... (p. 188). He calls it a "Jubilee festival" (p. 63) and would observe it with "resounding jubilation or enthusiastic outbursts" (p. 97).

He says that we have "evoked images of blood and gore at the supper and participants feel guilty if they do not concentrate on the cross and Christ's death as they eat and drink" (p. 189). Paul, taught that the Lord ordained bread and fruit of the vine to be taken in remembrance of his body and blood. In so doing we proclaim his death. He taught that eating and drinking the emblems in an unworthy manner makes us, "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (I Cor. 11:23-29). But Hicks believes the supper is "focused on the resurrection...rather than the death of Christ" (p. 189).

According to Hicks, the church should "revision the supper as a socio-ethical witness through shared food" (p.189). He sees it as "an example of economic ethics," a "meal served the poor in the Christian community" (p. 190) and the world as well. "The church...should invite the poor, the disenfranchised...the outsider to share food with them as a witness to the grace of God" (p. 190).

To Hicks, we should revision the supper as a moment of inclusiveness that transcends all cultural, ethnic and gender boundaries" (p. 191). Already we commune with any Christian man or woman of any race or station in life. But he means more. He wants the women to participate in the teaching and serving related to the observance of the supper (p. 79).

Hicks tells us, "At the table we ...we mutually pledge to "be there" for each other...we mutually commit to give our lives for each other..." (p. 191). This is one of the many discoveries Dr. Hicks has made regarding the Supper. But he did not find them in the Bible.

We should "revision the supper as the participation of all except the rebellious." By "all" he means even non-Christians. Only rebellious sinners should not be invited. They need not be believers in Christ. He reasons, "we do not exclude guests from singing, hearing the gospel or giving, and neither should we exclude them from the table" (p. 192). Per his logic heathen and paga