THINK
April, May, June 1995
Volume 26, No. 2
CONTENTS
Behave Like A Christian - Al
Diestelkamp
The Sin of Racial Prejudice - Andy
Diestelkamp
Does Silence Authorize Opinion? - Roy Diestelkamp
Romans 14 and Opinion - Roy Diestelkamp
Marriage...Had in Honor - Ed Brand
I Admit, I Just Don't Have the Nerve Some Preachers Have - Al Diestelkamp
Socially Adjusted Answers - Al DiestelkampBEHAVE LIKE A CHRISTIAN
By Al Diestelkamp
Paragraph
headings in our Bibles are not inspired of God. In fact, sometimes they
are misleading. However, in the Bible I use, the publisher has a
section heading (for Rom. 12:9-21) that seems very appropriate. It
reads, “Behave Like a Christian.”
Our Lord has placed a
duty on us to act fairly and kindly in our dealings with all men (Rom.
12:17). Lest we forget, we have a special relationship with other
Christians which should cause us to have an affection for them so as to
treat them in a preferential way (Rom. 12:10).
I know that
brothers and sisters in the flesh often fight and bicker with one
another. “Sibling rivalry” is not uncommon. However, it is hoped that
when they are grown they will “put away childish things” (1 Cor.
13:11). Christians, as adults, are expected to grow up and behave like
Christians.
Sometimes, it seems, brethren have more trouble
acting like Christians around other brethren than they do around people
of the world. That’s unfortunate, because the way we treat one another
will be noticed by people in the world (Jn. 13:35).
Certainly,
there are times when we must confront error. We must do so vigorously.
However, our zeal for truth must not cause us to use just any tactics
to accomplish what we consider to be the desired effect.
We all
know that “the end does not justify the means,” but sometimes we may
overlook that when some doctrinal error is being attacked.
Whenever
we have to deal with error, we are obliged to abide by the same rules
as we demand from those in error. If it is wrong for brethren who
practice error to place a restriction on what subjects can and cannot
be addressed, it is also wrong for us to do so on other subjects.
Hopefully,
we wouldn't “sit still” if our more liberal brethren were to draw up a
prepared statement which they expected new members to sign before
accepting them into their fellowship. If so, we should also be appalled
when the same thing is done by more conservative
brethren.
When trouble arises in a
congregation, there is often a struggle to control the pulpit and the
property. We may bemoan the fact that, more times than not, those in
error are able to maintain control. This may be due to the fact that
they have no scruples against doing what is unauthorized.
We, on the other hand, do not have the liberty to act like them. We must behave like Christians! Back to Top
THE SIN OF RACIAL PREJUDICE
By Andy Diestelkamp
Despite
the warped ideas of the “white supremacists,” the Nation of Islam or
any other racially driven groups, bigotry based on race or ethnicity is
wrong. Prejudice is defined as, “An unfavorable opinion or feeling
formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason . . . any
preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable . . .
unreasonable feelings, opinions or attitudes, especially of a hostile
nature, directed against a racial, religious or national group.”
Racial
prejudice is a problem that many of us had hoped would be gone from our
society within our generation. It is a problem that persists
everywhere. It is not only whites prejudiced against blacks, but vice
versa. Likewise, other ethnic groups have found themselves to be
discriminated against. We have lost the perspective that this country
is supposed to be a melting pot. Instead we have become a centrifuge
wherein we are spinning violently out of control and are segregating
ourselves into ultra-sensitive cliques based on ethnic heritage.
Shamefully,
these sinful attitudes are sometimes found among those who claim to be
Christians. It is one thing that a perverse world so bent on sin
continues to have tribal wars, ethnic cleansings and genocidal
tendencies, but Christians ought to know better. A disciple of Jesus
cannot be a racial bigot and be true to his Lord for the following
reasons:
Racial prejudice is showing partiality based on the outward man
James
declares that showing partiality based on the outward man is sin (Jas.
2:1-4,9). Peter (a Jew) declared that God is not a respecter of
persons. Peter came to understand this when he was called to take the
gospel message to those of another race (Ac. 10:34,35). If God is no
respecter of persons regardless of their race, then we who claim to be
His children cannot be otherwise.
Racial prejudice is not loving
Again,
James, in his writing on partiality (Jas. 2:8-13), calls upon
Christians to fulfill the royal law, which is to “love thy neighbor as
thyself.” It is James who contrasts prejudice with love. We can be
“good moral people,” but if we show partiality, then according to James
we are guilty of all! Partiality is not loving or merciful. Love is
what we owe our fellow man (Rom. 13:8-10). Love is kind. It is not
arrogant. It is not rude (1 Cor. 13:4,5). Racial prejudice is unkind.
It is an arrogant elevating of one’s race over that of another. It is
rude in its treatment of others. Christians, of all people, cannot
claim to love God when they do not love their brother whom they can see
(1 Jn. 4:20,21)!
Racial prejudice causes division
Factions
and divisions are listed among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20,21).
The practice of such things will cause one to lose his soul. Where in
the fruits of the spirit do we find racial segregation?
In spite
of the scriptures that have been cited, there are many churches that
have divided solely on the basis of skin pigmentation! That makes no
more sense than division based on eye color or hair color. Any division
that occurs ought to be on our uncompromising stand for the truth, not
on carnal prejudices.
Paul affirms that all humanity has come
from one blood (Ac. 17:26). We have all come from Adam. Eve was called
the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). All races spring forth from one
source. We have all been created in the image of God. (Gen. 1:26,27).
We are all the offspring of God (Ac. 17:28). Let’s act like it! Back to Top
DOES SILENCE AUTHORIZE OPINION?
By Roy Diestelkamp
Have
you ever been discussing applications of authority with someone, and
run into the argument that if the New Testament is silent on a
particular subject, then man is free to exercise his opinion on that
matter? It usually goes like this: “Yes, I realize, the New Testament
doesn’t authorize such and such, but neither does it forbid it.
Therefore man is free to have, and to exercise, his opinion on the
matter.” Such an attitude will open the door to all kinds of
unscriptural activity.
For instance: the New Testament is
absolutely silent on the subjects of the sponsoring church, church
supported orphan homes, colleges in church budgets, infant baptism,
social drinking of alcoholic beverage, etc. That is, the New Testament
does not expressly say: “thou shalt not,” to any of these matters.
However, the New Testament does not authorize such either. Does
Christ’s silence place these matters into the realm where we have a
right to exercise an opinion?
No, and again no! Silence does not authorize anything.
There is New Testament authority for:
1. A church to support directly an effort to preach the gospel (Phil. 4:14-17);
2. Orphans to be visited and good done for by individual
Christians (Jas. 1:27; Gal. 6:10) and this might even entail supporting
institutions called orphan homes (though families serving as foster or
adoptive homes would be the far better);
3. Individuals to provide for their own, and to spend their money
on right things as they see fit (1 Tim. 5:8; Ac. 5:4) and hence
individuals might well support colleges to educate the young;
4. Baptizing repentant believers (Acts 2:37-38; Mk. 16:16); and
5. “Medicinal” usage of a “little wine for thy stomach’s sake and
thine often infirmities” (1 Tim. 5:23).
These are authorized activities, and there is often some generic authority that goes with these things.
Some examples of generic authority:
1. A preacher may be sent cash, check, or money order;
2. Orphans may be received into personal or institutional homes;
3. Children may be home schooled, public schooled, or sent to college or technical school;
4. Repentant believers may be baptized in baptistries, rivers, or lakes; and
5. “A little” alcohol may be taken for stomach problems, colds and
coughs, etc. (though today medical science has often provided better
alternatives).
God’s silence does not authorize:
1. One church sending funds to another church to support a preacher (a sponsoring church);
2. Church support of orphans homes;
3. Church support of colleges;
4. Christening and baptizing babies; or
5. Use of alcohol as a general beverage of consumption.
Silence
is silence—not authority. If you order from a catalog store a white
shirt, a blue tie, and black shoes, and you are sent two white shirts,
a blue tie and a red tie, and black shoes and a pair of slippers, if
you are like me you are going to say: “I didn’t order that. You have to
take these other things back.” Now the store could easily say, “But you
didn’t forbid us to send these things.” My answer would be, “No, I
authorized you to send the things I authorized.” So also, New Testament
silence does not extend authority or consent for anything, or give man
the right to an opinion. Back to Top
ROMANS 14 AND OPINION
By Roy Diestelkamp
In
Romans 14 Paul dealt with what was an obvious problem among the Roman
saints. Brethren were disagreeing, and disputing over the eating or not
eating of meat, and the observance or non observance of Jewish days.
His
inspired declaration was that there was “nothing unclean of itself”
(vs. 14), and that these days could be regarded to the Lord, or not
regarded to the Lord (vs. 6). God received meat eaters and non meat
eaters, and Jewish Christians who kept the Jewish feasts, and Gentile
Christians who did not.
Paul’s instruction therefore was to
receive those whom God had received. Now today on occasions we are
hearing that Romans 14 teaches us to receive those who would teach and
or practice error on divorce and remarriage.
Something is being
missed here. These people are teaching and advocating divorce and
remarriage not authorized by the New Testament. If the divorce and
remarriage is not authorized by Jesus Christ, then such is not
“received” of him. It is not his doctrine. If the divorce and
remarriage is not a received doctrine of Jesus, is the person who is
doing or teaching the wrong to be received by brethren?
However,
the argument is made that the brethren in Romans 14 were disagreeing
with each other and arguing over meats and days. They could not come to
agreement (and never did) and Paul told them to receive each other. It
is true that brethren in Romams 14 were disagreeing, but they were
disagreeing over what God had already authorized. Jesus Christ was not
confused on the matter; the Holy Spirit was not confused, and neither
was the apostle Paul. The inspired word had been spoken before, and now
it was delivered in written form. These brethren were obligated to
believe that word of God.
Could someone still rightly believe it
wrong for others to eat (Gentile) meats or observe (Jewish) days?
No, the Holy Spirit had borne witness (Rom. 8:16), and man is to
receive that word with meekness (Jas. 1:21). Therefore there were to be
no doubtful disputations about these authorized actions.
Now
the Holy Spirit, through Paul’s pen, required that if one could not
personally eat meats in faith, he was not to do so. However, neither
could he require that others refrain from doing so.
Likewise,
those who did even what the Holy Ghost authorized (i.e. eat meats),
were not permitted to try and cause the brother who did not have faith
to eat meat to violate his conscience. The Holy Spirit had authorized
the eating of herbs too! The brother who ate only herbs, was doing what
Jesus Christ authorized too! Since both were to submit to the will of
God, and recognize the authorized action of the other, they could
receive each other, and come in and go out with each other (Ac. 9:28).
Now
divorce and remarriage will fit into Romans 14 just as soon as
someone points out the authority for the loose views that are
going around. Until then, such is just not in Romans 14. Back to Top
MARRIAGE...HAD IN HONOR
By Ed Brand
Marriage
is on the ropes in the USA. Divorce has ruptured the rapture of wedded
bliss for many. Some of those so divorced will try again, but the
second time around will end the same way for many of them. Others do
not want the encumbrance of marriage, so they live together. After all,
the marriage certificate is only a “piece of paper” and we all know
what is written on a piece of paper isn’t worth much.
Some
municipalities and employers have offered “domestic partner” insurance
benefits, which is usually reserved for legally married couples. Of
course, to be morally neutral, same sex couples are welcome. Are all
the bases covered? Divorce is OK. Living together without
“certification” is OK too, whether it’s two husbands or two wives.
Our’s is a crazy, mixed up society. That’s what pluralism will do for
you.
But every so often along comes a breath of fresh air. I got
a whiff today. Dr. Thomas Theocrides “believes premarital sex is
wrong.” So says a report in the Chicago Tribune (Jan. 14, 1995).
Perhaps many people think that such activity is wrong, but don’t say
much about it. Dr. Theocrides puts his belief before his wallet. He has
written his patients and told them he will no longer supply
contraceptives for those unmarried. See what I mean?—a breath of fresh
air.
Now, steps to the editorial soapbox Kim Gandy. She is the
Executive Vice President of the National Organization for Women in
Washington, D.C. She calls the good doctor’s decision “unconscionable.”
She charges the physician’s decision as “unreasonable, exceeding the
limits of any reasonable claims or expectations . . . unscrupulous.”
She is spokesman for a group who endorses and demands women have the
right to kill their babies while still in the mother’s body. Politely,
this is called abortion. And she has the audacity to call Dr.
Theocrides’ action “unconscionable”! Something isn’t right here.
Scripture
states that we ought to put a premium upon the honorable estate of
marriage: “Let marriage be had in honor . . .” (Heb. 13:4). Two things
contribute to the present dishonorable state of wedlock: (1)
fornication dishonors it before marriage; (2) adultery dishonors it
afterward. God has promised He will judge both dishonorable actions.
Our nation needs to hear this message loud and strong.
Hooray for Dr. Theocrides! Back to Top
I ADMIT, I JUST DON’T HAVE THE NERVE SOME PREACHERS HAVE
By Al Diestelkamp
I’ve
always been somewhat amazed at the ease with which some brethren, in an
effort to defend some common practice, are ready to discount — or
explain away — some rather straightforward statements in God’s word.
I
have come to expect sectarians to justify their doctrines and practices
by declaring some part of the New Testament as “not applicable” to us
today, but I am having a hard time hearing similar things from my
brethren.
This has been especially noticeable when discussing
what might be called “gender issues.” The gap between societal
attitudes and New Testament authority has widened with every passing
day. However, it seems that the once-wide gap between sectarian
practice and the beliefs of brethren is gradually narrowing.
For
many years now, styles have allowed for men and women to have either
long or short hair, to suit their own tastes. It is no wonder that the
world sees no sin in women having short hair, nor for men to let their
hair grow long. The apostle Paul was inspired by God to write, “Does
not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a
dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her;
for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:14-15). In
spite of that plain statement, many women who are Christians cut their
hair short. To defend this popular practice some well-meaning brethren
argue that the word “nature” doesn’t mean what we think it does. But
that doesn’t solve the problem. The question is whether nature
(whatever its definition) was teaching truth. Paul was calling on
“nature” to illustrate the truth he was teaching.
Another
“gender issue” is the role of women in society. As women who claim to
be guided by the Bible step out more and more into the business world,
it is not surprising that they will aspire to teach and usurp authority
over men. When we read in the inspired word that “I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence“
(1 Tim. 2:12), some claim that this is limited to the her role in the
church. It is claimed that Paul’s statement that he was writing “so
that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of
God, which is the church of the living God . . .” (1 Tim. 3:15) makes
the whole letter apply to behavior “in the church,” and not in the
world. If that is true, then I guess a bishop must “have his children
in submission with all reverence” (1 Tim. 3:4) only during the times
that could be described as “in the church.” The context of 1 Tim. 2:12
does not demand limiting its application to women’s role in the church.
In fact, the following verse ties this restriction to the order of
creation and the transgression of Eve.
There is a scripture
restricting women that is limited in application to the church. Paul
writes, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not
permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also
says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands
at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church” (1 Cor.
14:34-35). One way that brethren circumvent this teaching is to
virtually nullify the whole chapter, claiming it‘s application was
limited to the exercise of spiritual gifts. Or, some would limit the
application of these verses to the wives of the prophets. Either way,
they say that since we have no Christians today with the gift of
prophecy, these passages do not apply. But even if you were to grant (I
don’t) that Paul was instructing certain women not to speak in an
assembly where the gift of prophecy was being exercised, Paul states
the reason: “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” Notice
he didn’t say that it was shameful for prophets wives to speak, but
women. Neither did he say that it was shameful for women to speak in
church when men were prophesying. Let’s not put words in the Holy
Spirit’s breath!
I am aware that the views expressed here are
not shared by most brethren. I also realize that I could be
mistaken. These are issues on which I would be delighted to be
shown that I am wrong. Until then, in light of the “stricter judgment”
(Jas. 3:1) I expect, I don’t have the nerve to try to defend a practice
the Lord has described as “a dishonor“ (1 Cor. 11:14-15); or allow what
one of the Lord’s apostles did “not permit“ (1 Tim. 2:12); or teach
that it’s permissible to do what the Holy Spirit revealed is “shameful”
(1 Cor. 14:34-35). Preachers and teachers who mishandle the scriptures,
and thereby embolden others to practice what God has condemned, will
one day be called on to explain it to the Author. Back to Top
SOCIALLY ADJUSTED ANSWERS
By Al Diestelkamp
Recently,
on a network newscast, a correspondent reported that a government
official had given a “socially adjusted answer” to a probing question.
Having never heard that term I had to think about that for a few
seconds before it sunk in. Finally I realized that he had found a
politically correct way to say that someone had lied. What had been
sought was the truth. The respondent, instead of giving a truthful
answer, “adjusted” the answer.
We have come to expect people in
powerful positions to lie to us. That shouldn’t be. There are times
when it is quite appropriate to refuse to answer a question. To answer
truthfully might be revealing something which should not be known to
others. We may not like to hear it, but it would be well if our
government officials would learn to say “No comment” more often.
There
is also a difference in using tact in answering questions, and outright
lying. God has not required us to reveal all we know to whomever asks.
As long as we don’t leave the impression that we are telling all we
know, there are times where prudence requires us to generalize when
answering a question.
Our Lord, occasionally, found it best not
to answer a question (Mk. 11:29-33). At other times He found it
necessary to answer in parables, allowing the people to draw a
conclusion (Matt. 9:14-17). On at least one occasion, when asked a
series of questions (Matt. 24:3), He answered in such a way that the
real meaning was not understood until much later (Matt. 24-25). In all
this, He never gave a “socially adjusted answer.”
We are
admonished to always speak the truth (Eph. 4:25; Col. 3:9), and we have
adequate warning that all unrepentant liars will be punished along with
other sinners (Rev. 21:8). Therefore, it behooves us to measure our
words, especially when asked questions we may not wish to answer.
We
know there is no justification for lying, no matter how innocent it may
seem to us. With that in mind, we should try to help one another to
avoid lying by not asking questions which might place one in a spot
where the easiest thing would be to lie. For instance, I have had
friends call me on the phone and start the conversation off with “What
are you doing?” or “Did I interrupt anything?” There are perfectly
honorable activities which one might be involved in, which are no one
else’s business.
Come to think of it, maybe this same
consideration should extend to government officials and other people in
the public eye. They, too, may have some knowledge which should remain
a secret. The old saying, “Ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no
lies” may have some bearing. Back to Top