|
UNITY, DIVERSITY AND "THE TRUTH"
No brother or sister in the Lord likes to hear of, or, be involved in conflict with brethren. Yes, I know there are some people that just don't seem to be happy unless they are stirring up a fuss, but hopefully they are few. Let us all remember, among the seven things God s is "someone who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs ). I don't remember the first time I either heard or read the phrase "unity in diversity," but it was a long time ago. I thought them, and still do today, that it is a very deceptive phrase. Why? Because there is an element of truth to it, and like a fish hook, once swallowed will lead to false beliefs, reaching, and sinful behavior. And, in almost every controversy among brethren, its deceptiveness is employed by some to justify their viewpoints and behavior. It is an obvious observation that brethren have always had differences and disagreements about some things, yet have continued to exist in unity and fellowship. Such is also true in the Bible. Paul and Barnabas had a serious difference over Mark, yet went their ways and served God remaining in fellowship with God (Acts -40). Romans 14 instructs us that there are certain issues over which brethren can disagree and we are not to "despise" or "judge" each other, rather, as Romans 15 says "receive one another" (15:7). So, there is obviously a germ of truth in the idea of unity in diversity. Now, "the hook" is to take the unity in diversity idea and apply it to inappropriate issues. The argument is appealing (deceptive!) when spoke in the following words. "Well, if we accept and fellowship some brethren with whom we disagree on certain issues, why can't we accept and fellowship other brethren with whom we disagree on other issues." Sometimes a list is drawn up, listing a mixture of issues that have troubled brethren over the years, asking why we can accept some differences but not others. Such selectiveness has the appearance of being inconsistent, hypocritical and divisive. It is a simple defense to understand and it appeals to many, but let us not be misguided by it. It is error! The question that should be asked about Romans 14 is, "What error or sin does it teach us we can accept and fellowship? What sin was being practiced in Romans 14?" Of course, the answer is none. This chapter is not discussing sinful behavior, but behavior that is right to offer "unto the Lord," and He receives the person that does so (14:3, 6); it involves "pure" things, not "unclean" ( , 20); things right within themselves to do. The "weak" were "overscrupulous" (see Romans 14:1 in Charles B. Williams' "New Testament translation) regarding "the faith;" they were stricter than God because they drew "the faith" circle smaller than God does; they were "weak in the faith" (14:1) on certain matters. In Romans 16:17, Scripture says, "'Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them." Also, note 2 John 9-11. "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." These texts state an opposite action to Romans 14. Here are brethren that we are to "avoid" and "not receive." The difference is, fellowshipping these brethren causes us to share in sinful doctrinal "offenses ("death trap," Romans, R.C.H. Lenski, p. 915). These brethren are guilty of transgressing ("goes too far" (NAS), "runs ahead" (NIV), not abiding "in Christ's doctrine (the faith)." They attempt to draw the circle of faith larger, not smaller, thus putting themselves outside the "in Christ" relationship (Galatians ; Ephesians 1:3). They desire greater liberties than "the faith" allows, thus adding to what God says. Obviously, the unity in diversity idea can have two different applications. The first is acceptable and necessary to brotherly unity and love and the second is divisive, separating people from God and so from their brethren. We must not swallow the devil's hook and allow ourselves to be led into areas beyond "the faith," "the truth," "the gospel," "the doctrine" (Ephesians 4:11-16; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; 2 Timothy 3:8-17; Titus 1:13-14; James 5:19-20). It is "of the truth" by which we are "sanctified" so "that [we] all may be one" (John -21). Hopefully, even the diversity that is caused by those "weak in the faith" can be overcome as time passes and they learn to be "strong." That is, the maturity of "the truth" will prevail in their hearts and remove the barriers to a mature understanding of "the truth." Until then, if ever, the "strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak" (Romans 15:1). And, at the same time, we must "not receive" those who transgress "the doctrine of Christ." May we pray diligently for wisdom and courage for ourselves and our brethren everywhere to do the right thing, "for we are brethren" (Genesis 13:8). - Ronny Hinds EVOLUTIONISTS: THINK ON THESE THINGS!
"If a man have no life to live but this, and no further end of his actions than a beast, nor any further account to give, then he is indeed but one of the higher sorts of beasts, differing but gradually from a dog, as a dog doth from a swine. And if this be indeed thy judgment of thyself, I demand, whether or no thou be content to be used as a beast? Wilt thou not take it ill to be called or judged a beast by another? Or wouldst thou have others judge better of these than thyself? Shouldst thou have no man regard thy prosperity or life any more than a beast is to be regarded? a beast hath no property, no, not of that which nature hath given him. You accuse not yourselves of doing him wrong, when you deprive the sheep of his fleece, or when you make a constant drudge of your horse or ox. And do you think it lawful before God for anyone that can but master you to do the like by you? To strip you , and to make packhorses of you, and use you as their slaves? We take it to be no sin to take away the lives of beasts, if it be but for our own commodity. We kill oxen, and calves, and sheep, and swine, and fowl, and fishes for our daily food. And is it lawful before God for others to do so by you? Should nothing restrain them but want of power to overcome you? If you say that you are beasts, as beasts you shall be used." - Baxter, 1615-1691 Note: I have long thought that if you convince a man he is kin to a dog, he will act like one; convince him he is related to an alley cat, and he will conduct himself as one. These are the fruits of evolution, and yet we have some who tell us they are harmless. To those who so feel, we wonder how they would accept it if suddenly everybody else treated them as beasts? – Bill Moseley AND ANOTHER THING ... (Challenges) There are challenges in life... and then, well, then there are challenges. When we were kids we used to call them "dares." If you really wanted to put a guy on the spot you would challenge him, and then say, "I dare you, I double dog dare you!" Never did know what dogs had to do with dares - but they were there. Well, I got hit with one of these a couple of weeks ago. You may have noticed the fad going around with many of the fellows with a circle of beard around their mouth! Guess you could call these sort of a "goatee." Some of our men here have them (in fact, a lot of them have them). Yours truly made the mistake of facetiously saying to Mitch Read, "maybe I'll grow one of those." Then came the "I dare you." Easy for him to say; he already took the step, and is still living. Anyway Willene overheard it, looked at me and said "don't you dare!" What to do with such a decision - stir up the wrath of my wife, or let one of the brethren think I'm a wimp? There must be a point in all this somewhere. I guess it must be that as we handle the difficult decisions of life, a part of what goes into the decision is: "Who am I better off pleasing?" We are often faced with the "dares" of the world. Do we give in to them, or do consider what a higher power would have us do - that being God! Then I decided - I won't go hungry if I don't take Mitch's dare, but it may have greater consequences if I do. Tell me - which one would you have listened to? - Bill Moseley |