There is a passage in the book of Haggai that poses a question we need to consider: "If a man carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will it become holy?" (Haggai 2:12). Conversely, verse 13 asks, "If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?" In other words, does some good make acceptable what is evil? Or, on the other hand, does some of what is evil, make useless what is good? The principle can be illustrated from Numbers 19:14-22 where everything that comes into contact with an unclean thing also becomes unclean. Accordingly, the priests to whom Haggai addressed the questions above responded to the first, "No" i.e., the holy meat does not make other food holy. To the question concerning the effect when something comes into contact with an unclean corpse, they said, "It will become unclean."

    There exists a tendency to excuse what is wrong if one can see some good mixed in with it, to overlook sinful behavior if intentions were good, to justify whatever means are used to achieve a laudable end. Some who rail about "homophobes" point to the artistic accomplishments of many homosexuals and on that basis insist that those people be given respectability. Does the art make the homosexual less perverted, or does the homosexuality pervert the artist? Well, put it this way. Would you be inclined to allow you daughter to date a kind, gentle, hardworking, intelligent young man who happened to practice bestiality? Would you reason that his sexual preference shouldn't color you overall view of him? Would you elect such a man to represent your interests in government? Would you rent your second floor to such a man?

    If we convict a murderer, it is not all the good he may have done along the way for which we convict him. Moreover, his good deeds do not mitigate the heinousness of his crime against God.

    Let me give you another example. The kind of gambling that is generally considered to be a vice is rightly so considered because it is covetous. Joe sets out to obtain some of Fred's wealth. Fred is not interested in parting with his money, but rather has designs of his own on the Joe's money. Each party is able to use the greed of the other party to entice the other party into putting money at risk. One person loses and the other wins. The one who loses is not happy. The one who wins has successfully manipulated the loser by means of the loser's greed. It may be said that the loser got what he deserved. But the winner did not. Neither acted out of love for his neighbor. Gambling that is covetous is wrong. Is it any less wrong when the winner is the state, or a charity, or a church? Does the church's involvement in wrong behavior make the behavior right, or does the wrong behavior degrade that which claims to be heavenly? How can that which claims to be Christ's church stoop to the tactics of the Devil?

    Ecclesiastes 10:1 says "Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor." There are more than a few dead flies in the history and present day activities of the Roman Catholic Church. The same can be said of the Presbyterian church, the Lutheran church, etc. But I make mention of the Roman Catholic Church in particular because of a recent telephone call from one of our readers. He said,

I'm a Roman Catholic, and although I find some of the things that you have in PREACH THE WORD valuable, I think you spend a little bit too much energy in tearing down what is a faulty church, but nevertheless a good one that's done great works...I would just suggest you spend time building rather than tearing down. I think that's what Christ would have done.

    Should whatever good the Roman church has done cause us to overlook the many errors that are essential parts of its identity? Would Jesus have done so? The Pharisees were "the strictest sect" of the Jews (Acts 26:5), and can be credited with holding the line against the infidelity of the Sadducees (Acts 23:8). But the Pharisees were guilty of stressing their own traditions, of exalting themselves, and of hypocrisy. What did Jesus say about them? Did he refrain from rebuking what was wrong with them on account of the good they had done? Here is what he said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves" (Matthew 23:15).

    Catholics often feel that criticism of their church is not helpful because "every church is flawed." They feel that if one leaves the Catholic church because of its flaws, he leaves himself no place to go.

    Understand this: The church for which Jesus died is not a human institution as is the Roman Catholic Church and as are Protestant denominations. It is "holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). It is possible to be a member of Christ's holy church. Remember that in the New Testament, Christians were not Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, or Lutherans, but they did assemble together. They did sing songs of praise to God. They did eat the Lord's Supper together. They did send out preachers, and they did take care of the needy among themselves. They did all of this without some controlling ecclesiastical hierarchy. They did it guided by the word of God, the same word we have in scripture. This is the option we want people to see. When we point out the flaws of Roman Catholicism, it is not our hope that people will throw up their hands in frustration and give up on trying to serve Christ. It is our hope that they will see that one does not succeed in serving Christ by persisting in a man-made and man flawed church.

    In truth, there must be some tearing down before the work of building can begin. Even the building of the Lord's house in Haggai's day had to be preceded be the destruction of the temple which Solomon had built and which the Jews had defiled.