“SHALL YOUR BRETHREN GO TO WAR WHILE YOU SIT HERE?”
By Al Diestelkamp

Toward the end of the forty years of wandering, the children of Israel made their way up to the land east of the Jordan River. After God gave them victory there, the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh found the land east of the river to be favorable and did not want to cross over, but Moses asked, “Shall your brethren go to war while you sit here?” (Num. 32:6). He granted their request on the condition that when the time came for the rest of the Israelites to cross over, they would participate. Later, as the Israelites prepared to go to war, Joshua reminded the men of these tribes that they had an obligation to help take the land on the other side (Josh. 1:12-15). The record shows that they kept their promise to help their brethren.

Yes, God could have given the Israelites the land of Canaan without these soldiers, but Moses knew that since they had obtained their land through the combined efforts of the whole of Israel, it was only right that they help take the land for their brethren.

Perhaps there are some lessons in this story for us today.

If we’re not alert, we Americans, might be satisfied to “sit here” while our brethren in foreign lands “go to war.” I know we can’t all actually “cross over” into these fields, but some must—indeed some have—and we need to give them the help they need. Most of the brethren who are working in foreign lands have sacrificed many of the comforts we take for granted in order to take the gospel where little has been done in the past. With few exceptions, they are working with people who are poor in comparison to those of us in the United States. Even if the present efforts are highly successful in terms of number of conversions, it will take many years before we can expect them to carry on the battle without our aid. We can be actively engaged with them by our encouragement, our prayers and our financial support.

There are regions of our own country in which the Lord’s people are struggling to survive. On the other hand, there are areas where the church is well-established. People can live in communities where they actually have a choice of working with one of several sound congregations of the Lord’s people. There’s nothing wrong with this. In fact, we should praise God for this blessing where it exists. But if you find yourself in such a place, do you dare “sit there” while in other areas your brethren are “at war”? One of the ways that a local congregation can show thankfulness for the blessing of being “self-supporting” is to help support preachers who are working with congregations which cannot possibly provide full support.

There may be one more application which should be made in this article. Each one of us who has been saved by the blood of Christ has received many blessings which are found only in Christ Jesus. Having that peace which “surpasses all understanding” (Phil. 4:7), we might be inclined to “sit here” (in Christ) while we should be helping others fight their “war” against Satan. Having received our own salvation, we must show our gratitude by helping others into the “promised land.” Back to Top




PARTNERS IN CRIME
By Andy Diestelkamp

While perhaps many would not characterize themselves as evil people, we have to consider the consequences of our beliefs and actions. What we think and do plays a big part in the constant conflict between right and wrong, good and evil. Do we stop to think about the domino effect that our “little vices” can have?

God has created us with the ability to choose. He wants us to choose good, but most do not. Interestingly, many do not feel that when they reject what God defines as good that they are in reality choosing evil. Most do not set out to do evil. Rather, they just don’t choose to do what is good and righteous.

None of us lives in a moral vacuum. Forces, both good and evil, are constantly exerting themselves. To which side are you lending your influence? Each of us has a degree of influence, and, conversely, each of us is exposed to the influences of others. How we interact in this mix does affect our culture at large.

Perhaps we never stop to think about the small and seemingly insignificant ways in which we may be assisting the powers of darkness. We must take care that we not be found to be accomplices in evil deeds and, therefore, partners in crime.

In 1989, less than 24 hours before his execution, Ted Bundy asked to speak to noted psychologist James Dobson. In this interview Bundy was asked if he thought he deserved to be executed. After saying that he didn’t want to die, he acknowledged that he deserved to die. However, Bundy went on to express his concern that after he was dead the forces of evil that fed his desire to kill and sexually assault dozens of women would still be rampant in our society. He specifically targeted the pornography industry.

Now, most of us have no difficulty in characterizing the actions of Ted Bundy as being evil. Your immediate reaction to Bundy’s remarks concerning pornography’s role in his life might be, “Not everyone who views pornography becomes a Ted Bundy.” No doubt this is true. In fact, a very small minority do. Yet, none of the fruits of pornography can be considered good! So, if we participate in such, to whatever degree, we then become partners in that evil. We lend our influence (even if it is only monetary) to evil. No, consumers of pornography are not technically guilty of being accessories to rape and murder, but they have lent their influence toward the evil that is depicted in pornography. They have become participants in the glamorization of evil!

Paul called upon the Christians in Corinth to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. He asked, “For what partnership have righteousness with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” The implied answer is that there is none. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate . . . and do not touch what is unclean.” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

Our culture is permeated with all sorts of sensual and pornographic materials that not only involve sin in their production, but also glamorize and promote illicit behavior. Back in the 70’s Ted Bundy had to go looking for what is today delivered right into our living rooms. Let’s not pretend as if this is going to have no adverse effect upon our society. Toleration of such in the name of freedom and choice may seem politically sound, but it will only lead to a greater bondage of the soul to a merciless evil.

Some may say, “I am personally opposed to abortion, but if someone wants to get one that should be her choice.” Where will that kind of reasoning on a matter of life and death take us with men like Ted Bundy? “I am personally opposed to pornography, but if he wants to purchase it that should be his choice.” If you can stomach that, then try this: “I am personally opposed to murder, but if he wants to do that it should be his choice.” No sane person would tolerate such.

Sir Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” In 1 Samuel 3:12,13 we learn that the judge Eli was being rebuked by God, not because he had personally done anything vile, but because he had failed to restrain his sons. Perhaps this is where we as Christians fail the most. In our attempts to dwell at peace with all men we have failed to restrain our sons. Hence we have raised generations of people who call themselves Christians but are not courageous enough to rebuke because of the waves it will make. Through our silence we can end up being partners in crime.
Back to Top

WHAT’S A CHRISTIAN TO DO?
By Ed Brand

People are peculiar. Some want to live like animals, but don’t want to be treated like them. If humans are different from giraffes (and they are in many ways), then they should live as humans and be responsible for their actions. We have codified standards of behavior and expect ourselves and others to live by those expectations. People ought to act like people.

Christians are peculiar. Some want to live like pagans, heathens and other sinners; but they don’t want to be treated like them. Disciples of Jesus are not like other people in a very important way. They are different in the way they live, because they are different in the way they think.

Jesus taught such a distinction early in his public preaching. In the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7) he described a disciple’s character in a series of sentences which begin with the word “blessed.” Here is what these people “are”: poor in spirit (5:3); mourn (5:4); meek (5:5); hunger and thirst after righteousness (5:6); merciful (5:7); pure in heart (5:8); and peacemakers (5:9). These verses describe what kind of people make up the kingdom of heaven. Jesus emphasized “being” not “doing” in this first section. We should do the same. Carnal men may learn to mimic certain deeds God requires, but such actions do not indicate a changed heart any more than teaching a dog to walk upright. A dog will never be anything more than a dog.

Because of his character, a disciple will be different in action from his community. Jesus continues to speak about “blessed” men by describing the reaction of their culture to them. These disciples did not withdraw from their cities and villages. They continued to live in the midst of their world. Here are some of the reactions their lives provoked: “persecuted” (5:10), suggests they were pursued and harassed; “reproach” (5:11), means they were upbraided and censured. These disciples walked by a different rule. Their neighbors and fellow-citizens reacted to their peculiar behavior in keeping with their own character: persecution, vilification and reproach. Peaceful co-existence with a world lost because of sin was not an option which Jesus gave.

So, what’s a Christian to do? It’s not so much a question of what to do, as it is what to be. A disciple ought to be what he is: “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world.” Pass the salt and turn on the light, please.  Back to Top

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD & EVIL
By Andy Diestelkamp

Was The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil an evil tree with evil fruit? This was the tree that was in the middle of the Garden of Eden and of which Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat. Was this tree evil? Before answering this question it would be appropriate to look at some other passages of Scripture that relate to the subjects of good and evil.

1 Kings 3:5-12 tells us of King Solomon’s famous request for wisdom. Actually, the request was for the ability to discern between good and evil. This request was pleasing to God and He granted this ability to Solomon along with riches and power.

Hebrews 5:12-14 says that a spiritual infant is one who is only able to handle the milk of the word. In contrast, a spiritually mature person is able to handle the meat of God’s word and is exercised in the discernment of good and evil.

In these two passages it is clear that the knowledge of good and evil is a sign of spiritual maturity. It is essentially a positive quality. So, why was God pleased with Solomon’s request but angry at Adam and Eve’s partaking of that knowledge?

Was the tree or its fruit inherently evil? No! God made them and God is not the originator of evil. God declared His creation to be good and that included this tree (Gen. 1:31). God’s reason why Adam and Eve were not permitted to touch or eat of this tree is not specifically given. “For in the day that you eat of it you will surely die” was not God’s rationale for forbidding contact with this tree. It was God’s warning of punishment if His command was ignored.

This prohibition, however, does not imply that the tree was evil. We err greatly if we assume that something that is forbidden is therefore inherently evil. Parents will forbid children to play in busy streets or to get anywhere near them. Are streets evil? We will tell small children, “Don’t touch that stove,” “Don’t go in that yard,” “Don’t eat those cookies.” Are stoves, yards and cookies evil? These things may be forbidden, but that doesn’t mean that the objects themselves are evil.

Now, consider the approach of Satan as recorded in Genesis 3:1-7. Notice his presentation of God’s words. “Indeed has God said, ‘You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?’” At first glance this may appear to be a fair presentation of God’s instructions, but notice the subtle shift in emphasis. God actually said, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat...” God’s presentation of His instructions was positive with only one prohibition. Satan misquotes God and places emphasis upon the negative. This is still an often used and persuasive tactic. Never mind all the advantages and blessings that come with obedience. What is usually emphasized by those in the temptation business is what is being deprived. Peers, for example, will say, “You mean your parents won’t let you stay out past 8:00?!” The “friends,” in an effort to modify the behavior of another, focus not on the loving, secure home that continuously provides for every need, but on the restriction. It is an attempt to distort perspective, and it is often very effective.

However, in the case of Eve, her first response to the tempter was good. She re-emphasized the positive statement of God while including the restriction and the punishment for failure to pay heed to this restriction. It is here that Satan not only misquotes God, but contradicts Him. “You surely shall not die!” To sweeten the temptation Satan exaggerates the benefits of eating the forbidden fruit. Yes, their eyes would be opened (vs.7)! Yes, they would be like God in their knowledge of good and evil (vs.22)! What Satan knew that he didn’t tell them was that those “benefits” were not worth the sacrificing of their relationship with God for a relationship with him.

With his questions and statements Satan implied that God was unreasonably withholding something good from Adam and Eve. He implied that God’s warning of death was just an idle threat or bluff to intimidate them. Eve could have said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are not mindful of the things of God.” Instead she gave Satan’s comments the weight of authority as she selfishly looked on the forbidden fruit. Deceit, lust, greed and vanity all played a part in the fall of mankind. Evil was not in the tree and it was not in the fruit or the knowledge that was obtained. Evil was in the simple act of disobedience to the will of God. The opinions of Satan were trusted more than the command of God. The desires of the flesh were valued more than the desires of God.

What we learn from Adam and Eve and the forbidden tree is that any rebellion to God or His ways is evil. It is evil no matter how it appears. It is evil no matter the good that we think will be accomplished. It is evil no matter the personal benefits we think that we’ll obtain. Adam and Eve were presented with a choice. Daily we are presented with similar choices. Which will we choose: good or evil, God’s way or some other?   Back to Top

FILLING THE LEADERSHIP GAP
By Al Diestelkamp

There is no greater service a man can provide than that of leadership. There is also no greater need—in the world, in the church, and in the home—than for men to accept the responsibility God has placed upon them in this role. In this article, we will concern ourselves with the home and the church. Much of the “breakdown” in these divinely-instituted units can be traced to lack of proper leadership. While there are homes which are forced to exist without male leadership, this is clearly not the way God intended it to be. Likewise, while it may be a necessity for a local congregation to function for awhile without elders, such a group should be working to remedy what is “lacking” (Tit. 1:5). Never let us get to the point where we are satisfied with less than God has ordained.

If we are to have the godly leadership we need in the church, we must start in the home. This is not to say that single men cannot develop a certain level of leadership in the church—they can. Even so, without men who demonstrate leadership capabilities in the home, we cannot have the level of leadership God has prescribed in the church.

We need faithful men to recognize their God-given responsibility to actively lead their families in the way of the Lord. This will require them to have the courage to say, “No,” when needed, and the kindness to say, “Yes,” to honorable requests by their wives and children. In so doing, they will be training and proving themselves for leadership in the church, where, as elders, they will need the same courage and compassion.

Of course, the first step in assuming the role of leadership God expects of a man is to be a good example to his wife and children. He needs to make serving the Lord his highest priority, understanding that, if he does so, the Lord will provide what is needful (Matt. 6:33). Being an example, as important as it is, is not enough. He must actively “bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Developing proper priorities in the family will come easier if you start while the children are young (or before they are born). Children should know from an early age that they will attend the worship and Bible study assemblies of the church. Later, when school functions, sports and other social events conflict, they will be prepared to make the right choices. When they waver, the father should be there to make the right choice for them.

It is the tough decisions in a family that a man may be tempted to avoid. It is not pleasant to say “No” to the teenage son or daughter who wants to attend a school dance, to enforce proper attire, or set other behavioral guidelines, but it is part of the responsibility of fathers. Fathers who rely wholly on the mother in the family to train and discipline the children have abdicated the responsibility God has given them.

Don’t misunderstand me! The mother plays a vital role in the training and discipline of her children, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the father. It is he who will have to answer to God on this matter. God has never been impressed with “The woman whom you gave to be with me” type of defense (see Gen. 3:12). Some mothers find it difficult to understand what would be wrong with their children dancing, but any father who is normal and honest knows what is wrong with dancing (outside the marriage relationship), and he needs to have the courage to use his God-given authority.

Men who head up a home also know what kind of attire is inappropriate for his wife and children. As difficult as it may be, there may be times when he will need to “veto” a choice of attire.

Even as children grow into young men and young women, they are not to be left to their own choices in all situations. Fathers need to prepare their children to “flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). A man knows that it is not realistic to allow his child to watch sexually provocative films, even more so with a person to whom he/she is attracted (and that’s usually whom they date), without placing a stumblingblock in their way. What can a father do? He can say, “No,” when the choice of entertainment is not what it should be. God has given him that authority and responsibility.

Men who demonstrate their leadership in the home may later be called upon to be the leaders in a local congregation of God’s people. In this, they will need to call upon the same qualities of courage, wisdom and compassion which they use in the home.

They, too, will occasionally have to make “tough decisions.” They are called upon to “take heed” to those whom the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (Ac. 20:28), exhorting, comforting and imploring, much in the same way “as a father does his own children.” This is so that people will “have a walk worthy of God” (1 Thess. 2:11-12).

God has declared the work of leadership a “good work” (1 Tim. 3:1). In order for the Lord’s church to prosper in our age, we need men who will own up to their responsibility. They need to make it their goal to be the kind of husbands and fathers which, along with their other qualifications, will demonstrate their ability to “take care of the church of God” (1 Tim. 3:5).