XL: Judging Righteous Judgment

26 April 2007 Common Era

As Christians we often have difficulties in regards to particular matters and whether they are sin or not. There are many things that most will admit present difficulties, but the Bible may not spell out whether it is to be considered sin or no. When it comes to these matters, there are some who approach some matters of sin not explicitly revealed in the Scriptures as if it were explicitly revealed in the Scriptures, and there are others who approach matters of sin not explicitly revealed in the Scriptures as somehow less sin or matters concerning which we have no right to condemn as sin.

What should we do when it comes to matters that God has not specifically justified or condemned? We get an indication of God's intention for us in Galatians 5:16-24:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.

If we fall into the trap of thinking of such things in terms of strict "legalism," attempting to establish as law that it is definitively wrong or that it cannot be condemned, misses Paul's point entirely. Paul's point is evident in verse 24: Christians have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. "Drawing lines" is entirely against the point here.

Human beings like lines. Lines mean that it can be known just how far one can go before getting in trouble. How often do human beings "ride the line", so to speak, in their actions and behaviors? Everyone knows that there could be circumstances beyond our control (or within our control) that will lead us to cross the line, but that still does not make us think that we should stop doing so. In such circumstances, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the failure.

As long as we look at these matters in strict terms of line drawing we will not get to that which Paul intends. As Christians we are called upon to make judgments, and to make righteous judgments based upon the Scriptures (cf. Hebrews 5:14). Paul provides a very clear means by which we can ascertain what is right from what is wrong: the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit.

If something correlates to "sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, [or] orgies," we are to avoid them. We have crucified these desires with Christ.

If something manifests "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and/or] self-control," thoroughly consistent with the Scriptures in being a good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is good and wholesome and ought to be done.

Yes, dancing is not mentioned as sinful in the Scriptures. But when you consider what goes on in dancing, and you see on one side that there is "impurity" and "sensuality", and on the other side you see "goodness" and "self-control", on which side does dancing, particularly the young adult kind, fall? It is "like" sensuality, and therefore is just as much a work of the flesh as sensuality or sexual immorality.

"But you're adding to the Scriptures!" No, we are not. We are making righteous judgment based upon the information provided in the Scriptures. We know well enough what correlates with what. We know perfectly well that while the fruit of the Spirit is a complete list, the works of the flesh are left open-- the last one is "things like these," which shows that God has not revealed specifically every little thing that is sinful.

Gambling is another matter not mentioned in the Scriptures specifically. We see on one side "idolatry" (covetousness so defined in Colossians 3:5) and "rivalries" and "dissensions", and on the other side "peace" and "goodness" and "self-control". Honestly-- to which does gambling concord? Is the impulse behind gambling holy or carnal? We all know what the answer really is, and yet there is always this impulse to justify our own behavior or the behavior we see in others.
This can even work with drinking, a matter that is often contentious. While we understand that in the ancient world there were few options beyond wine if one wanted to have a healthy liquid, we do not have that problem today. Today, which is "drinking" more like? "Drunkenness" or "peace...self-control"? If you never drink, you can never get drunk!

Why is it that we want to argue and debate the minutiae of these issues? Because people want to do these things. But if we have crucified the flesh with its passions, why do we seek to justify some of the things the flesh wants to do? What "holy" impulse compels school dances? What godly influence leads to one gambling? What holiness and righteousness can come from drinking?

None, none, and none.

Those who are in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions. Those in the world constantly draw and re-draw lines to justify their behavior.

What will we do?

ELDV

XXXIX: Judgmentalism

25 April 2007 Common Era

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).

"Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful. And judge not, and ye shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released: give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again."
And he spake also a parable unto them, "Can the blind guide the blind? shall they not both fall into a pit? The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how canst thou say to thy brother, 'Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye', when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye" (Luke 6:36-42).

In our Luke class we have reached Luke 6 and these teachings of Jesus. I find it amazing how no matter when this passage is read, taught, studied upon, or preached, it is always applicable to many situations you can see.

Judgmentalism is endemic in the world. Everyone majors in judgment. Perhaps there is no mantle as easily taken by human beings than the mantle of the judge.

Turn on the television. Judgments abound: the President and his actions, the recent Virginia Tech shootings and its perpetrator, American Idol contestants. Many shows are made popular on the very basis of making such kinds of judgments.

You can probably think locally. Our town is now suffering through the court process for one charged with shaking a 10-month-old to death; the comment boards of a local paper are awash in charges and counter-charges regarding involved persons and every sort of judgment about the characters of people. There are some people who know one party and is confident that such a one could never do such a thing and therefore the other party is at fault-- and there are just as many on the other side.

People being judgmental can be found on every side. And the church? Is the church a place of respite from such judgmentalism? Hardly! There can be no discussion of Luke 6 here (or many other passages) without finding plenty of reasons and Scriptures to temper the message. We have to discern right from wrong, after all; some judgment needs to be made. While this point is true, Jesus also knows that it is true: that's why He continues with "fruit inspection" in verses 43-45. Jesus, however, did not feel compelled to temper or limit what He says about judgment.

How many times do we try to temper Jesus' message about judgmentalism to cover our improperly judgmental attitudes? What shield are we attempting to find for our thoughts and actions?

I bring this up because I know that I struggle with it. Those personality tests indicate that I am an INTJ; the "j" there represents "judgmental". It is a part of my personality to ascertain a situation and to make a judgment regarding it. I say this to indicate that I easily fall into a position of judgmentalism, and therefore struggle with this particular matter.

It is easy for me to make on-the-spot judgments based on a person's appearance, clothing (or lack thereof), attitude manifested, diction and language usage, and so on and so forth.

This tends to be a natural human impulse...but should it really be so?

What does Jesus say? "Be merciful". "As you would have people do to you, do so to them." Would I want people to be judging me in the same way that I judge them? Quite honestly, no. Am I showing mercy to my fellow man? Quite honestly, no.

I would not want to be tried before a court of brethren. I would not want to be tried before a court of worldly people. And yet I am too often guilty of wanting to use the gavel on others.

It is a difficult thing in my position. "Fruit inspection" is necessary; I must know where people are to help serve them and point them to the Word to help them get to where they need to go. To "bear one another's burdens" (Galatians 6:1-2), I need to have some facilities for discernment. But where does "fruit inspection" end and "judgmentalism" begin? It's rather hard.

Yes, I know that many are quick to point to Matthew 7 and the concept of "judgment by same standard". Should that make anyone feel any better? Who among us is not guilty of judging others by superficial standards? Who among us has not put others in a box of our own mental design and have left them there no matter how they may grow or not grow? Who among us would really want to be judged by the standard which we have been using for others?

It is sobering to think that God sent His Son to die for the very people whom we are so quick to judge and put into a box. We also are the very ones being judged and boxed. Should this be so?

If we could just break down the judgments, we might find the humility to be able to actually reach more people in more meaningful ways. The greatest to the least among us have a need to be served by those who would show them the Gospel, and we have no right to consider it to be "beneath" us. I am convinced that we do not need soup kitchens or orphan's homes or fellowship halls to show we care. We do, however, need to have humility and mercy to do so!

If we could just break down the judgments, maybe more young people would be more interested in local churches. I have seen so many young people be continually hampered by the attitudes of others toward them. It does not seem to matter how you grow or develop-- you are still considered the same way you were when you were in high school. If people reached out a loving hand more quickly than the ruler of judgment, what could happen?

I know that this is a battle that I continually struggle with, and hope that I can solicit your prayers as I will pray for all of you. The more mercy we show and the less judgment we produce can only lead us to being better disciples of Jesus.

ELDV

XXXVIII: The Danger of the Tongue

12 April 2007 Common Era

We have recently seen a furor develop over the comments made by Don Imus over the radio waves. Don Imus is well-known for being generally insulting to pretty much everyone and everything. Recently, however, he made some comments regarding the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team that were extremely inappropriate. Imus did come out and apologized not long after the comments that were made, yet despite his apparent penitence, the damage has been done. Since many major sponsors have withdrew their advertiser support for his radio show and TV simulcast, both CBS and MSNBC have dropped him.

While it is true that there is a bit of hypocrisy in how the media has handled Imus-- far less has been done in the past regarding people making insensitive comments, and what he says is not really that inconsistent with what he has said in the past-- his story is a testament to the power of the tongue and the danger in careless words. Even a man known for making off-the-wall comments can lose his job because of a particularly inappropriate statement-- how much worse of a fate can we suffer because of the tongue?

And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell. For every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind. But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be (James 3:6-10).

James is exactly right: the tongue is a fire. It can devastate and destroy and no amount of apology or penitence can make it right again. Just as one who starts a wildfire soon has no ability to contain it, so it is also with someone who speaks foolishly. How many people have suffered on account of a contrary word? Only God knows how many souls have fallen away because of misguided, angry, or unfortunate words from a Christian. How many holes have we dug for ourselves because of what we have let loose from our lips?

In the multitude of words there wanteth not transgression; But he that refraineth his lips doeth wisely (Proverbs 10:19).

There is not one of us who has no need to watch what he or she says. Each and every one of us struggles with "sins of the tongue". Let us consider the furor over Don Imus and learn clearly how important it is to exercise great caution with the tongue.

"And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36-37).

ELDV

XXXVII: The Value of the Local Church

02 April 2007 Common Era

The value of the local church, established in God's wisdom, is unfortunately yet again under attack among churches of Christ. It is being reported that a 2,000 member church in Dallas and a 200 member church in Plano, Texas (14 miles away) made the announcement that they were going to become "one church in two locations." They will share a "common staff, eldership, budget, and vision". The following was said:

"Instead of seeing the merger as the end of his church's autonomy, Roseberry said that becoming a multi-site church demonstrates the kind of unity discussed in 1 Corinthians 12, which describes the church as one body of believers made up of many different parts.

'We're all members, one to another,' Roseberry said. 'That extends across congregational lines'" ("One church, two locations," The Christian Chronicle, April 2007).

This most recent digression does not come as too much of a surprise. One of the recent innovations in the Evangelical megachurches has been the franchising concept. Just as McDonald's allows various individuals to own different McDonald's restaurants but all feature the same food, so megachurches have been establishing "satellite" locations either in different parts of an urban area or in different urban areas, and they either feature a satellite linkup to the main megachurch or have different staffs that co-ordinate their lessons and concepts. If some denomination is doing it, we can be sure that it will eventually come into the church, and we are unfortunately not disappointed again.

This attempt at innovation is horribly misguided. The main concern from the Scriptures is that while God established the universal body of believers (Matthew 16:18) and local bodies shepherded by elders (Acts 14:23, 20:28), we see no organization in between. This movement away from autonomy proper and toward organization beyond the level of one local congregation is exactly what happened in the first few centuries of Christianity, directly leading to Catholicism and its attendant heresies.

The main problem with this concept, however, is that it goes entirely against the point of the local church.

The article quoted an individual as saying:

"The church isn't defined by the building it meets in, but by that which transcends brick and mortar," he said. "We're all going into this with the conviction that we can do more for God's glory together" (ibid.).

I entirely agree that "the church" is not defined by the building it meets in. I even entirely agree that it transcends brick and mortar. That is precisely why this innovation is a bad idea!

Why did God establish the local church? The universal assembly of Christians is a collective that has not assembled nor will assemble until the end has come (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17). It was entirely possible to have Christians function only as individuals and then finally come together at the end. Yet we see from the beginning that Christians in a local area came together to one place. Why?

We know that they came together to partake of the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:23-27). Such is also called the communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). While there is a sense in which all Christians commune by coming together in different local churches on the first day of the week and yet each partaking the "one bread" (i.e., all share in unleavened bread, even if in different loaves in different places), this communion is concretely realized in coming together and sharing that meal together. How can this new "church" really have this communion? How can they be considered as having "come together" when each part is 14 miles away from the other?

Christians came together also to build one another up (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:25). This was done through prayer, song, lessons, teachings, and in other ways-- yet all of them required being together in the same place. If one was not present in that particular assembly at that particular, singular location, one would not be gaining that encouragement! How can this "church" be said to come together to build one another up when 2,000 are in one place and 200 in another?

The existence of the local church is not only predicated on that which occurs within the assembly proper. There are all kinds of passages that talk about how the body of Christ works (Romans 12:4-8, 1 Corinthians 12:13-27). While we say that such, in theory, refers to the universal body, in actual practice we always use it to refer to the local body. While it may not be a perfect parallel, there have to be some ways that a local church is to represent the manifestation of a part of the universal body in a given area-- otherwise we have a vast disconnect between the theoretical implications of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 and how they play out in action. Regardless, neither Romans 12 nor 1 Corinthians 12 nor any other such passage justifies any body between the local and universal churches. If we take 1 Corinthians 12 and see it in terms of the church universal, we recognize that everyone in the body in all the disparate parts of the world function to the same end; such does not have a local body in view. If, however, we look at 1 Corinthians 12 and see it in terms of the local body, we recognize that each member of the local church has his or her role and all must work together. To extend the metaphor to the current situation, it is as if the body were severed into two parts and then expected to work harmoniously together. Such makes the metaphor ridiculous and meaningless, and exposes the problem with such a setup.

Why is it necessary for the members of the local church to work together? Again, returning to 1 Corinthians 12, we have our answers.

And whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it (1 Corinthians 12:26).

The main point of the local church-- the reason why God in His wisdom established it-- was to provide the saints with the opportunity to continually build one another up. Just as in war, so in Christianity (cf. Ephesians 6:10-18): if you go out on your own, you will surely die, but if you go out with companions, your odds of living are far better. We need to get to know one another as we fight the good fight of faith together (cf. 2 Timothy 4:7). We need to know what each other's burdens happen to be if we are going to bear them (Galatians 6:1-2). God also demands accountability within the local church-- elders as shepherds of the flock, making sure that the lump is not leavened (cf. Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 5). This is to make sure that the conduct of brethren is becoming of brethren, and God provides the means for the local body to disassociate from one so as to show him that he is in danger of hellfire and needs to repent (1 Corinthians 5, James 5:19-20). How will this "church" accomplish these things? How will the 2,000 in Dallas know what the burdens of the 200 in Plano happen to be? How will they develop the working relationship needed to fight the good fight of faith together? How will the elders know what is going on in the lives of the flock over yonder and thus fulfill their obligations as shepherds of the saints of God?

Yes, it is possible, especially today, for brethren to get to know one another despite vast distances between them. Such has never been against the plan of God; nevertheless, our association must be tighter with our local body than with Christians throughout the world. If our association is not as tight with our brethren with whom we come together often as it is with brethren we barely if ever see, then God's will for your particular local body is not being met.

Assemblies of different people in different locations are different assemblies. The fact that these churches would even think of trying such a thing demonstrates that they have simply embraced the gods of the [denomi]nations around them and at least in these terms have ceased looking to God for guidance. They show that they do not see the local church in terms of one organic body of brethren highly interested in one another, working together to build one another up and to keep one another from straying (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:25, Acts 20:28, Galatians 6:1-2). If they did, they would understand God's wisdom in establishing the local church as some form of subset of the universal, and that there cannot be a body between those two. Let us strive to fulfill God's intention for the local church and do everything we can to work with our brethren to the building up of the Kingdom!

ELDV