THINK
July, August, September 1996
Volume 27, No. 3
CONTENTS
Raising A Big Tent - Al Diestelkamp
Satan The Trapper - Cleveland R. Reddinger
Praying With Our Eyes Open - Al Diestelkamp
Scabs Have No Honor - Andy Diestelkamp
Race Relations - by Ed Brand
Do You Think There's Nothing In A Name? - Al Diestelkamp
RAISING A BIG TENT
By Al Diestelkamp
There has been a lot of talk in the political world, especially in the
Republican Party, about a “big tent.” The proposed
“big tent” would create a coalition of people with
different agendas aimed at defeating a common opponent. Many claim the
“tent” should be big enough to include both pro-abortion
and anti-abortion voters. It’s not a new idea, and it validates
the old saying, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”
It’s not only in the political arena where people are looking for
a “big tent.” In the religious world forces have long been
working to create a really
big tent. We in the Lord’s church have rightly rejected the goals
of the ecumenical movement, understanding that it rejects the lordship
of Christ.
If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we struggle with
just how big the “tent” of our fellowship should be.
It’s not an easy matter to resolve. Most of us agree that our
“tent” must be no larger (and hopefully no smaller) than
what is authorized in God’s word, but that agreement does not
remove the difficulty before us.
I can almost hear some “little tent” advocates saying,
“What’s so difficult? Just read the Bible!” While I
agree that all our answers are in the Bible, it is clear that the Lord
intended to include in His “tent” people with varying
degrees of understanding of truth. Thankfully, He has left room for
those of us who must still “grow in the grace and knowledge of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).
Then, too, I imagine some “big tent” proponents will say,
“Jesus wants us to be one, so we must have unity.” On the
surface I can’t argue with that statement, but it is also clear
that the Lord didn’t intend for His tent to be so big that it
should include those who practice “the unfruitful works of
darkness” (Eph. 5:11).
This is a case where the truth lies between two extremes. As a result,
this article may not be applauded by many on either side of the issue.
This is not a call for
compromise of convictions. It is a call for compromise on the part of
those who can do so without violating their consciences, and for
honesty and consistency on the part of people with firm convictions on
matters of disagreement.
As I read what has recently been written by brethren on this subject I
am surprised at the arguments made regarding the application of Romans
14. On one hand some brethren seem to think there should be tolerance
for almost any practice, while others argue that Romans 14 has no
application to any doctrinal issue. Of course, to take the latter
position one has to declare certain controversial issues matters of
opinion or dismiss other people’s convictions as “matters
of indifference.”
Paul’s discourse in Romans 14 outlines God’s last-ditch
effort to build and maintain unity among brethren who genuinely
disagree in matters of faith or lack of faith (see vs. 23). It is sin
to practice anything you cannot do “in faith”—even if
it is only your understanding that is wrong. The heaviest obligation is
placed on one who believes something is authorized, but not required.
That person certainly places the practice in the realm of expediency,
and believes he is right to practice it, or to abstain from practicing
it. He is instructed not to insist on exercising his liberty at the
expense of those who cannot do so in faith.
At the same time, Paul instructs those who can’t practice what to
them is doubtful, not to stand in judgment of those who believe they
have liberty. Except in matters about which God has been specific, if a
brother engages in something which I believe to be unauthorized, but
does not make me a partaker in it (or an endorser of it) ultimately I
must let the Master be his judge. This does not mean I can’t
challenge any practice that doesn’t directly involve me. Indeed,
if I believe a brother is in error I have an obligation to help him see
his error.
There are many issues among brethren about which we disagree. Usually
there is one side which considers it a matter of conviction, and the
other side thinks it is merely a matter of opinion. Some of these
issues relate to the work and worship of the local church (such as
instrumental music in worship, church support of institutions, church
sponsorship of social events, etc.). In these cases the instructions in
Romans 14 place the burden of compromise in the lap of the only ones
who are at liberty to yield. Other issues involve individual
application (such as a woman’s head covering, taking the
Lord’s supper on vacation, etc.) and does not require compromise
on anyone’s part in order to maintain fellowship. I hasten to add
that even on issues involving individual application, there is still
right and wrong and God is going to judge based on His word!
Some of our “big tent” brethren want us to extend use of
this approach to the divorce- remarriage issue. Let me explain why this
is not possible. Jesus revealed that one who divorces his wife
for any reason other than fornication and marries another commits
adultery, and that one who marries someone who has been divorced
commits adultery (Matt. 19:9). Paul specifically tells us that we are
“not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a
fornicator...” (1 Cor. 5:11). Therefore, if I am convinced that
one is a fornicator, I cannot raise a “big tent” in order
to have fellowship with him and still remain faithful to God.
Though the “pup-tent” approach to fellowship isn’t
what we see in the Bible, be careful when raising a “big
tent.” In your attempt to make room for the camel’s nose,
you may end up with a three-ring circus! Back
to Top
SATAN THE TRAPPER
By Cleveland R. Reddinger
As a young man in my teens growing up in the country I decided (as many
of my friends did) to run a trap-line to gain some extra money. At the
time it was an enjoyable experience and I learned many things which
were useful later in life. I learned there are some animals you can
trap very easily and there are others which take a great deal of skill
to bag. You see, the goal of the trapper is to make the trap invisible
until it is too late to do anything about it
and—snap!—you’re caught! It is a matter of deception,
pure and simple. The French word for this art is camouflage. With some animals I never did master the art. But, as I said, I learned a lot.
The scriptures describe another trapper. He has been around for
thousands of years and, unlike me, he has mastered the art of trap
camouflage to the ultimate degree. The scriptures call him our
adversary, the devil (1 Pet. 5:8); the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4);
Satan, the accuser of our brethren (Rev. 12:10); the serpent (Gen.
3:4); and most importantly for our study, a liar and the father thereof
(Jn. 8:44). Satan is the consummate master of deception and
trap-setting. He knows his prey (that’s us), how we act and what
our weaknesses are. He is, in a word, the ultimate predator.
To give you an idea of how good Satan is at his craft, he has taken on
every responsible human being who ever lived in this world, one on one,
and has come out the victor in each case, save one. None can say they
have completely avoided all of Satan’s traps in their whole life
(Rom. 3:23). None, that is, but one: Jesus, the son of Almighty God (2
Cor. 5:21). Jesus, the Prince of Peace, has walked through this world
and unmasked, one by one, Satan’s schemes to destroy the souls of
men. That is why Paul could write with complete assurance that
“we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).
Let’s take a look at some of the camouflages Satan uses to get
people caught up in sin before they realize what is going on or what
the consequences of their actions are going to be.
One of the most successful camouflages he has used on men, especially lately in America, is the “If it feels good, do it”
syndrome. It probably felt good to Samson to be in Delilah’s arms
(Judg. 16). After all, she was attractive, she was willing and she knew
how to please a man. It probably felt quite good. But in the end it
cost Samson his strength, his eyesight and his life. That is the way of
sin. Feeling good now often feels very bad later, but then it’s
too late to escape the consequences of what you’ve done. We are
told that Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah’s
daughter “choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people
of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11:25,
emphasis mine, CR). Satan offers something which does, indeed, feel
good, but the good feelings are simply a cover for the jaws of the trap
which lay just beneath the surface.
Satan also uses other schemes to camouflage his traps, such as the old, ”Just once won’t hurt anything”
ploy. The problem is that many people have paid dearly for doing
something “just once...” David may have had this in mind
when he chanced to see a beautiful woman bathing (2 Sam. 11:1-5). The
woman was married to Uriah, one of David’s bravest and most
faithful warriors. But, after all, he only wanted her for a
one-night-stand—not forever. So David gave in to lust and sinned,
sinned and sinned again. What did it cost him? It cost him utter
humiliation by a prophet of God (2 Sam. 12:7) in addition to the death
of the conceived child (v. 14). Additionally, the sword was never to
depart from his house. One son raped a daughter of David which caused
another son to vengeful murder. Absalom led the nation in armed
rebellion against his father, and on and on. Surely, in David’s
case, just once almost destroyed everything.
His Satanic Majesty also utilizes the foibles of human reasoning in his
trapping endeavors. Humans oft-times do things they otherwise
wouldn’t if they think, “No one will ever find out about it.”
Gehazi probably felt like this when he deceptively received a reward
after the healing of Naaman the leper (2 Ki. 5:20-27). But God knew,
and he ended up suffering the fate that Naaman escaped, that of a
leper! Ananias and Sapphira made the same mistake and it cost them
their lives (Ac. 5).
Man is a social creature and does not like to be alone. Satan makes men feel comfortable by saying, “Everybody is doing it!”
First, everybody is not doing it, but even if they were, as a sentence
sermon says, “If 40 million people believe in a dumb idea,
it’s still a dumb idea!” We don’t determine the
morality of a thing by numbers, but by the word of God. Noah’s
contemporaries learned this lesson too late to save themselves from the
flood (Gen. 7:13-24). In this case, everybody was doing it (except Noah
and his family), but everybody else also perished, but Satan
wouldn’t bother you with details like that!
The final camouflage we will examine is, “Try it and if you don’t like it, you can quit.”
This reminds me of the fly trying to get out of flypaper. Sin is
sticky. Today we call it addictive. One becomes accustomed to alcohol,
tobacco, fornication or anything else other than Christ that rules his
life, and quitting becomes easier said than done. Reuben probably
thought he would come back later and let Joseph out of the pit (Gen.
37), but when he did come back Joseph was gone and he was stuck in a
web of deceit that lasted for decades. Sin doesn’t let you quit.
Each of Satan’s camouflages is used to hide the deadly trap of
sin and its inescapable consequences of spiritual death. Jesus’
blood can cleanse us of the guilt of sin and can open the jaws of the
trap and set us free. But then He expects us to use our eyes and the
knowledge He has given us in His word to avoid those traps in the
future. Back
to Top
PRAYING WITH OUR EYES OPEN
By Al Diestelkamp
It is customary among Christians to bow the head and close the eyes
when engaged in prayer. It is a custom that is neither prescribed or
forbidden in the scriptures. It is my usual custom.
The congregation where I worship has designated one Sunday evening
service per month to be devoted primarily to prayer and thanksgiving.
In this hour-long service each man who is willing to participate is
asked to devote his prayer to a certain specific blessing and/or
petition. They are not usually “off-the-cuff” prayers, but
ones which have been planned. For that reason, some of us jot down some
notes from which to remind us lest we forget something when leading the
congregation in prayer. To use these notes the one leading the prayer
must open his eyes.
Any time we do anything which is a variation from what we have done all
our lives it feels awkward. I’ll admit that peeking at my notes
when trying to remember a long list of people or works in need of
mention is not yet comfortable. But the minor discomfort is outweighed
by the benefit.
James revealed that “the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous
man avails much (Jas. 5:16b). Neither the fervor or the efficacy of
prayer is hindered when circumstances call for the eyes to be open.
Our experience with the special prayer and thanksgiving service has
been very edifying. You might say that it has further opened our eyes
to the benefits of congregational prayer. You might want to try it!
Back
to Top
SCABS HAVE NO HONOR
By Andy Diestelkamp
Perhaps you have had occasion to see signs in your area that say,
“Scabs Have No Honor.” This phrase is often used by members
of a labor union in reference to those who have either crossed a picket
line or who have been hired to work in place of those who are on
strike. Have I understood these frustrated strikers correctly when I
interpret their inflammatory signs to mean that the replacement workers
are dishonorable people? Who or what are they dishonoring?
Now I’ve never been one of those “scabs,” and I
rarely know which of the sides in a protracted labor dispute has the
most legitimate complaints. I do know, however, that no matter the
validity of their grievances the labor union discredits its own cause
by charging that replacement workers are without honor.
From a biblical perspective it is the height of hypocrisy for strikers
who have intentionally stopped working to call those who are working
people without honor. Scripture says, “If anyone will not work,
neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God’s word implies
that it is the one who is not working that is dishonorable.
I am well aware of the fact that management may indeed be unreasonable,
but does that justify dishonorable behavior on the part of labor? Those
strikers who claim to be Christians need to reassess their loyalties
and once again look to Christ as their example of how to handle this
situation. Honor is not defined by union heads. Honor is a virtue that
only God can rightfully define. Likewise, honorable activity is
dictated by God’s word and not by the vote of some local union.
The words and deeds of those who strike against their employer clearly
indicate that their loyalty to the union is of greater value than their
loyalty to God (Matt. 6:24).
We need to be thankful to God that we live in a country with such
diversity of opportunity that we are at liberty to leave the employ of
unreasonable men. First century Christians did not have such
opportunities yet notice what the apostle Peter taught. Servants were
to be submissive to their masters and not only to the good masters but
the harsh ones as well. God sees it as honorable that one endure
mistreatment. There is no credit in God’s eyes if you do
something wrong and are punished for it. However, if you only do good
to your master despite the evil he does to you, then it is commendable
before God. Christ’s suffering serves as a practical example of
how His followers should likewise endure grief. “When [Christ]
was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not
threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1
Pet. 2:18-23). This, of course, goes against commonly accepted strike
tactics.
Does management physically beat labor? It is doubtful, but if Peter
admonished servants still to behave in an honorable manner despite
their master’s harshness, then today’s employes should make
an equally honorable application to their own situation. From a
biblical perspective it is strikers that are without honor, not their
replacements!
This does not mean that management is always right. Obviously they are
not. Masters who mistreat their servants will be judged, not only by
the NLRB, but also by the Almighty God. “Masters, give your
servants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in
heaven” (Col. 4:1).
Still, it is these kinds of labor disputes which clearly show that the
attitudes taken to the negotiation tables have virtually no resemblance
to what God expects of human beings. Both management and labor have
spurned the honorable attitudes described in God’s word in favor
of worldly tactics. For that they have both suffered.
Paul says that servants are to be obedient to their masters in
sincerity of heart. Good workers are not just working when being
watched to give a good impression, but when alone as well. The reason
is that ultimately their work is done as servants of Christ. This
produces quality work because it comes from the heart. Masters would do
well to encourage this kind of work environment and to give up
threatening. Masters should never forget that their Master in heaven
doesn’t cut slack for management but judges without partiality
(Eph. 6:5-9).
I don’t imagine that it is easy to buck the worldly tactics of
the average labor union, but Christians should be expected to display
their moral courage in the face of such pressure and intimidation.
Labor’s efforts to demean those who have chosen to work by
calling it dishonorable may be typical union battle doctrine but it is
not sound doctrine according to God’s word. Back
to Top
RACE RELATIONS
By Ed Brand
Hardly a week goes by without a news story in the paper or on
television reminding us about the sad conditions of race relations in
America. Last year’s verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial seemed to
intensify the focus on relations between black and white Americans.
Our federal lawmakers and policy enforcers have tried for years to
level the playing field for minorities. Unfortunately, when the field
is tilted favorable for one group, it is tilted unfavorably for
another. Such tilts only increase tensions between races.
You would think, from reading and hearing, that America invented racial
hostility. We did not. Such hostilities existed long before Columbus
ever thought about asking King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella for some
ships, so he could go exploring.
The Old Testament is our looking glass into the past. Race relations
weren’t so hot among the various ethnic groups in the ancient
world. The Egyptians didn’t like shepherds (Gen. 46:34) and even
though some nations descended from a common ancestor (Moab and Ammon
came from Lot, Gen. 19:37-38) they formed separate nations. So much for
the brotherhood of all men.
In Jesus’ lifetime, the next door neighbors of the Jews were
Samaritans. They had common roots but that didn’t go very far in
the first century. When Jesus met an unnamed woman at the well in
Sychar, John adds a note of explanation for the benefit of his readers
who probably wouldn’t know Sychar from Sebaste. He said,
“(For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans),” (Jn. 4:9).
Race relations weren’t any better than they are now.
Are race relations between races hopelessly doomed, characterized by
suspicion and hatred? If no political solutions have been discovered in
the intervening centuries, can they be legislated today? The sad answer
is probably not. Racial hostility will not be cured by political legislation.
But it can be eradicated. The New Testament is historical proof that
races of men and women can live harmoniously together. Jesus Christ
made that possible. He abolished ethnic hatred by uniting Jews and
Gentiles “in one body” (Eph. 2:16) and thus made
“peace” (vs. 15). In Christ, “There can be neither
Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). Christians come in all different
colors and languages. There are no quotas for minorities, for the
kingdom is open for everyone. Jesus is the key to the racial harmony
lock. He taught His disciples to love, earnestly and fervently, one
another. He is the moral force which enables us to overcome the
centuries-old problem of racial strife. No earthly government will be
able to heal racial strife, once and for all.
Jesus can. Back
to Top
DO YOU THINK THERE’S NOTHING IN A NAME?
By Al Diestelkamp
There has been considerable discussion among some brethren concerning
how local congregations identify themselves on signs and advertising.
Should we stick with “church of Christ” or would it be wise
to choose another scriptural description?
Most all agree, at least in principle, that there is no single
description prescribed in God’s word that we must use to the
exclusion of all others. However, some get nervous when a congregation
chooses to be identified in some other way.
I’ve heard some ask, “Would you be willing to erect a sign
that says, ‘This is not a Church of Christ?’”
That’s supposed to settle the matter. But that argument
won’t work. In return I would ask another question: If you were
to purchase an existing building that had a sign out front that read,
“Church of God,” would you take it down? You would, and so
would I! Why? Not because it fails the scriptural test, but because we
don’t want to be identified with the denomination using that
name. They have spoiled a perfectly good description.
Just a few years ago there was a diet product on the market called Ayds.
When scientists decided to name a fatal sexually-transmitted disease
AIDS, the company felt it was in their best interest to choose a
different name for their product.
Likewise, in some communities where digressive brethren and sectarians
use and abuse the name “Church of Christ” faithful brethren
may be motivated to use another scriptural description. Back
to Top