Clapping After a Baptism

When I first moved to Sparks two and a half years ago, I was taken off guard one Sunday when the church began clapping after a baptism. I remember feeling very uncomfortable at the time because for the eight years that I had been preaching (at the time), clapping after a baptism was something that denominations and liberal churches did...not us.

But that was two and a half years ago.

While it's still hard for me personally to clap after a baptism (because it feels awkward for me), my position has changed. Now, instead of cringing when folks clap after a baptism, it's something that makes me happy and that I wish more congregations would do.

The issue of clapping after a baptism came up in a recent discussion, so I'd like to address the issue briefly here. I hope that you will consider these thoughts with an open mind.

First of all, why is it that some brethren oppose the practice of clapping after a baptism? There are four reasons that I have come across over the years.

Clapping after a baptism is a denominational practice. There is a fear that if we begin clapping after a baptism like the denominational folks do that we are on a slippery slope that will make us look more and more like the denominational churches. It's worth noting here at the beginning that this doesn't make it wrong. Are we ready and willing to condemn all other incidentals and practices that originate with denominational churches? I bet we'd have to give up a whole lot more than most people recognize. Secondly, I question whether it originates with denominational churches at all. Sure, denominational churches may clap after a baptism, but don't people clap in a number of settings? Weddings. Sporting events. Political rallies. Concerts. Graduations. Maybe instead of assuming that churches that clap after a baptism are imitating denominations, we should assume that people are just...being people...and reacting to a joyous occasion in a way that seems normal and instinctive.

Clapping after a baptism is a reflection of emotionalism. Those who make this objection are basically saying that we don't want to become like the Charismatics and Pentecostals. Clapping today, jumping over the pews and speaking in tongues tomorrow. Really? Of course, when pressed on whether or not it is wrong to display any emotion during the assembly or in response to a baptism, those who make this objection will acknowledge that it is okay to do so. By acknowledging such, they have given up the argument. Their opposition to clapping after a baptism becomes completely subjective.

There is no authority for clapping after a baptism. But is it an act of worship? Not at all. It's simply an emotional, joyful response to one of the greatest things we can witness in this life - the salvation of a soul. I'm reminded of the person who says "that's right" in response to a point during the sermon, or the way a congregation may laugh in response to an anecdote or joke told during a sermon. These aren't acts of worship; they are natural, emotional responses to what is taking place. More on this in just a moment.

We shouldn't clap after a baptism because we might offend certain people. Those who make this argument often appeal to Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8 to say that if something is a matter of liberty, we should be willing to give it up for others. "If it bothers someone, we just shouldn't do it" often becomes, "It could bother someone, so it's safer to just avoid it altogether." But that's NOT necessarily what either of these passages teach. In Romans 14, Paul tells those on BOTH sides to be more tolerant of the different views of the other side. The weak is to bear with the strong and the strong is to bear with the weak. Over in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is telling us that we should be willing to give up our liberties if using our liberties will cause another brother to stumble. Neither passage is telling us that we must give up our liberties simply because a fellow Christian "doesn't like it" or "feels uncomfortable about it." We have to be big boys and girls. Unless clapping after a baptism causes another brother to stumble, we need to be patient and longsuffering with each other in this.

Now, I'd like to make a few points in favor of clapping after a baptism.

In Luke 15:10, we're told that "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." In both Acts 8:39 and Acts 16:34, there was rejoicing following baptisms. I think we'd all agree that celebrating a baptism is completely normal! It should bring us great joy. Now, the question at hand is, "how can we express that joy?" In some churches, there may simply be a few smiles and handshakes or hugs afterward. In other churches, the congregation may let out a hearty "amen." Many of the churches I've associated with over the years respond by singing a hymn. And in some churches like the one here in Sparks, folks may express their joy by clapping.

Personally, I think if we're going to clap and holler when our team scores a touchdown or we bowl a strike or our child accomplishes some great feat (like learning to ride a bike or graduating from high school), it's absurd to suggest that we cannot clap after a baptism...which is far more important and special. 

If the Scriptures do not specify how the angels express their joy or how those early disciples rejoiced, is it not left up to us to decide how to express ourselves here?

But the one passage that really jumps out at me is 2 Samuel 6:16-23. This is the story about the return of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem during David's reign as king.

"Now as the ark of the Lord came into the City of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart." (2 Samuel 6:16).

Did the Scriptures authorize David to leap and whirl on such an occasion? Of course not. This wasn't an act of worship as much as it was an expression of pure joy. David was overwhelmed with emotion to see the ark of the covenant make it to Jerusalem.

The end of verse 16 says that Michal despised her husband in her heart. This led to a confrontation between her and David in verses 20-22. 

"Then David returned to less his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, 'How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself." (vs. 20)

Michal's point was twofold: (1) David was acting more like the base fellows than the king, and (2) his actions served as a bad example to those who witnessed him. Isn't this similar to the argument that many make against clapping after a baptism? We're acting more like the denominational churches. We should be more dignified. We should consider our example.

But notice David's response in verses 21-22...

"So David said to Michal, 'It was before the Lord, who chose me instead of your father and all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel. Therefore I will play music before the Lord. And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be humble in my own sight. But as for the maidservants of whom you have spoken, by them I will be held in honor."

Mic drop.

David's point was that even though his actions may have appeared undignified to Michal, it wasn't wrong for him to openly express his spiritual joy and excitement before God. For her to seek to squelch  his joy or judge his expression of joy was wrong. The text makes this clear.

Clapping after a baptism isn't an act of worship. No one is suggesting that we should clap during our singing or be filled with "Holy Spirit laughter." It is simply a natural expression of our sincere joy following a very special and joyous event. Just as the angels rejoice when a sinner repents, we should rejoice as well. If some do that by clapping, we cannot condemn them for it.

I personally wish that we were all like David in that we had such joy and emotion within us that we could not help but express it regularly. This is why I like to see a church respond with emotion following a baptism, whether it's a hearty "amen" or clapping. I actually wish we'd all jump up and shed tears of joy and clap and whistle.

But my main point here is not to tell you how you must react, just that we must refrain from judging those who react by clapping.

Why Are Racism and Police Brutality Wrong?

Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure that you're acutely aware of the rioting that recently took place in the city of Baltimore. And I'm sure that you're aware that this rioting was a response to yet another alleged instance of police brutality against an African American individual. Every major news outlet has been reporting on this almost unceasingly for the past week. There have been memes, videos, and blog articles related to these events shared on Facebook and other social media websites ad nauseum.

I'd like to address the greater issues of racism, police brutality and rioting for a moment from two totally different angles. I think this is important.

Let's first of all consider these issues from the standpoint of brute naturalism. This is the belief that there is no reality beyond the natural world. There is no God. There is no heaven or hell. There is no metaphysical force or entity that determines truth in some kind of absolute way.

In light of brute materialism, let's consider a few questions:

On what basis can we argue that racism is absolutely wrong or immoral?

Most of us are indignant when racism is expressed. But why? 

We're told that morality is subjective and that every individual has the right to determine his/her own moral truth. Women have the right to abort their own babies, right? Two men have the right to engage in homosexual relations, right? We're constantly being told, "Don't push your values on me." If this reasoning is really valid, then not only CAN'T we condemn the racist beliefs of others, we can't even argue in any objective manner that their racist beliefs are inferior to our non-racist beliefs.

Is racism wrong because it demeans our fellow man? If this is your argument, please explain why it is absolutely wrong to demean our fellow man? Because you don't want to be demeaned? So you're advocating compassion and empathy? Great. Now please prove from nature that compassion and empathy are superior to harshness and selfishness. Lions eat their young. Wolves will fight with other packs over territorial rights and food. Sure, there are examples in nature of what we call 'moral' behaviors, but there are also examples in nature of harsh and selfish behaviors? What makes the former better than the latter? Why can we appeal to the positive examples to make moral claims but not the negative examples?

The point is, there is no argument from nature - from brute materialism - that we can make to justify or condemn racism. If this worldview is true, then morality is totally subjective, and there is not a single logical argument that we can make to condemn racist behavior.

On what basis can we condemn police brutality?

Atheists often argue that morality is determined by our culture and/or government. If this is true, how can police brutality be condemned at all? If it's true that "might makes right," how can we condemn the "might?" We can't have it both ways.

Along these same lines, how can we condemn the slave culture that was prevalent in this country until the mid 1800s? If that was the culture then, then it was right and moral for them! And if morality is determined by culture, wouldn't this make the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement as well as the LBGT movement all inherently immoral? After all, these were all counter-cultural movements of the time.

Another approach - seeing through the lens of Christianity...

Christians contend that there is a supreme Creator who defines truth by His very character as well as the declaration of His will. Because this Creator is higher than us and over us all, His truth is objective and absolute. 

Regarding racism, our God is diametrically opposed to it:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth..." (Acts 17:26)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).

"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation...and that He might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." (Ephesians 2:14-17)

Christians can explain why racism and brutality are absolutely wrong. We've all made made in the image of God. We're all His offspring. And even though there are national, ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic barriers that divide us, through Jesus, those barriers are broken down and unity is achieved through Him.

So not only can we explain why racism, brutality and rioting are wrong, we can offer a real solution. At the foundational level, we can make an appeal to commonality through the gospel.

Atheists can disagree with our standard all they want, but the fact is, we can make a logical appeal to a standard of moral truth that offers an analysis of the real problem as well as a solution.

Conclusion

The cries of atheists and even political and social leaders who demand change (without appealing to God as a standard) will continue to ring hollow and prove ineffective. The problem of racism will never be solved and riots like the one that took place in Baltimore this week will continue to happen as long as we leave God out of the picture. This is because they're only holding other people accountable to their own subjective reasoning. "Who are you to tell me what to do?"

But also, we might ask why, apart from an absolute standard of morality and social justice, so many people feel so outraged at racism and brutality? These feelings cannot be merely traced to personal views, family traditions or cultural beliefs, because these are all subjective standards. What is it that cries out within us that these things are absolutely wrong?

I believe it is because we know - we inherently know - that "all men are created equal."

Our appeal to an absolute standard, our inherent indignation, and our pleas for equality and brotherly love are all explained by the gospel.

Jesus is the answer.

Christianity - Against All Odds!

Throughout human history, a number of powerful civilizations have dominated various regions of this planet. The Sumerians, Egyptians, Syrians, Assyrians and Babylonians all reigned over northern Africa and/or Mesopotamia at different points in history. Persia, Greece and Rome all controlled regions that extended far beyond Mesopotamia. We could talk about the mighty Chinese Empire. Then there were the Mayans, Aztecs and Vikings. Many of the western European countries have long histories of prosperity and domination as well. 

Each of these nations had its own unique culture and religious system. Sure, some of them were influenced by their predecessors, as in the case of Greece and Rome, but they were all still very unique in their forms of government, their cultural identity, and again, their religious beliefs. From the worship of Ra and Osiris in Egypt, of Zeus and Aphrodite in Greece, of Odin and Thor among the Vikings, to Itzamn in the Mayan Empire, every ancient civilization worshiped, in most cases, a broad pantheon of gods. They had elaborate systems of religion that included holy days, sacrifices and priesthoods.  Every major empire in history was very religious, often merging their political, cultural and religious identities into one.

In light of these facts, it's beyond incredible to me that of all the religions of the ancient world, the one story that has not only survived, but dominated, the world, is the story of the Bible. The three Abrahamic religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - comprise over 55% of the world's population, with Christianity (in all its various forms), claiming 2.2 billion adherents today.

I'd like to focus for a moment on Christianity itself.

Christianity began nearly 2,000 years ago in the city of Jerusalem, a relatively small city in the land of Israel. Israel is less than 11,000 square miles in size, making it not much bigger than New Jersey!

Of all the powerful empires in history, how amazing is it that the world's largest religion (by far) originated in such a small, obscure place?

But that's not all...

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, a man that was not a king, dignitary or even military leader. He wasn't the son of someone rich or famous. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was born to a modest, unimportant family from Galilee, and that He never had riches or power.

"For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." (Isaiah 53:2-3).

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey." (Zechariah 9:9). 

"Philip found Nathanael and said to him, 'We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' And Nathanael said to him, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?'" (John 1:45-46)

In terms of his economic and social status, Jesus didn't have anything going for Him! He was a peasant. He was from a part of Israel that even the Jews mocked and denigrated. What's more, He didn't seek power through political means or by force.

"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21).

"Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed to the mountain by Himself alone." (John 6:15)

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus' time was spent preaching, serving others and performing miracles. And while the number of His disciples at times swelled, His message turned a lot of people away, and angered the Jewish leaders. Most notably, His life came to an untimely end when the Jewish people cried out to the Roman authorities, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" and He was executed on a cross, an excruciating, humiliating death for anyone to endure.

It's truly astounding that this obscure peasant from Galilee with no economic status, political connections or even widespread popularity, and whose life ended on a Roman cross, inspired a movement that spread like wildfire throughout Israel, followed by the Roman Empire, and finally, the world!

It might make sense for Zeus to attain this fame and notoriety, or Odin, or Ra, or Shiva. These gods and goddesses were touted by kingdoms that actually had some real influence in the world. These gods and goddesses had ornate temples, were worshiped in many cases by government mandate, and prompted the movement of mass amounts of wealth. These gods and goddesses promised guardianship over the sea, rain for crops, fertility, political power and a number of other things that mankind has always deemed important.

Most of these suppose deities have faded from relevance, having been relegated to history books.

But not Jesus.

If you're a skeptic, perhaps you're thinking that, while Jesus may have existed as a man, He was never anything more than that. His disciples either lied about His resurrection from the dead, or were loony, and the "Jesus legend" began in earnest.

But who would fabricate such a story as this?

At the time, the Jews wanted freedom from Rome. Jesus didn't promise that. The gospel accounts make it abundantly clear that Jesus wasn't the Messiah that the Jews expected. He was from Nazareth. He defied the religious authorities. His own family thought He was crazy. But most importantly, Jesus was crucified and the Jews believed that "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Deut. 21:23). Jesus crucifixion made Him a cursed man - and no Messiah of Israel could be cursed! The Jews certainly wouldn't fabricate such a story!

Maybe the Gentiles amended and perpetuated the story of Jesus. Historically, we know this wasn't true, but neither could it be true. The Gentiles mocked the monotheistic faith of the Jews, viewing them as a primitive, rebellious people. On what logical basis would they promote a crucified Savior? Beyond that, the concept of bodily resurrection was not widely believed among the pagans. So, once again, it is illogical to argue that the Gentiles perpetuated the story of Jesus.

I'm reminded here of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23:

"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness."

One might argue, "Well, people believe lies all the time!" This is true! But are people generally eager to suffer and die for what they know is untrue? While it is true that many throughout history have bastardized Christianity by turning into a political force, the early church was born and thrived in the midst of persecution, first from the Jews and then from the Romans.

In my view, it is ignorant for a person to contend that such a culturally-antagonistic, easily-disprovable, foolishly elaborate story that often resulted in persecution and martyrdom could catch so quickly and rip through the world like wildfire despite being false.

The same cannot be said of Zeus, Ra or Odin. How is this true?

Seeing Christianity in this kind of historical context is, for me, a faith builder.

I'd like to close with these two quotes:

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him." -Napoleon 

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

The Egyptian, Mayan, Persian and Roman Empires have faded into obscurity. The gods and goddesses that were front and center in these once-mighty empires have likewise been buried in the annals of history. But a peasant from a country the size of New Jersey who suffered an untimely and humiliating death on a Roman cross nearly 2,000 years ago has somehow managed to captivate the world. While there are no longer any active temples to Zeus or Baal, there are assemblies of Christians worshiping Christ and being transformed by Christ the world over.

As Paul told the Corinthians, the message of the cross is foolish to the world. That's right. It's so foolish that a person can't help but give it a second look.

[FOR MORE ALONG THESE LINES, CHECK OUT A RECENT SERMON GIVEN BY DOY MOYER ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. CLICK HERE ]

Distinguishing Between 'Sound Doctrine' & Idle Talk (1 Tim. 1)

Have you ever been in a Bible class or even an informal Bible discussion where brethren began arguing over something that you didn’t feel was worth arguing about? Or have you ever heard a preacher or Bible class teacher say something that you disagreed with and wondered to yourself, “Should I say something, or just let it go?” 

If you’ve been in the church for any length of time, you probably answered both questions in the affirmative. This is a common struggle. 

In 1 Timothy 1:3-11, Paul helps us to distinguish between what he calls “sound doctrine” and “idle talk” – what is worth arguing about, and what isn’t worth arguing about. 

Paul opens this passage with a warning to Timothy, “Remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (vs. 3). The implication is that there are doctrines (teachings) that, together, constitute God’s standard of truth. This would be the Word of God (John 17:17; 1 Cor. 4:17; 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15, et al). Any doctrine that is not firmly rooted in God’s word is not to be taught, according to Paul.

But Paul is even more specific in verse 10 when he speaks of “sound doctrine.” The word sound literally means, “to have sound health…figuratively to be uncorrupt.” Of course, for a doctrine to be considered sound, it must be rooted in Scripture, but it’s important to understand that even scriptural doctrines can be misrepresented, twisted or muddied. In 2 Peter 3:16, we learn that “some things [are] hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” So when assessing a doctrine, we have to not only ask, “is it rooted in Scripture?” but also, “is it the intent of Scripture?” Does it fit the immediate context? Does it harmonize with the overall teachings of Scripture? 

Paul doesn’t stop here in his description of “sound doctrine.” In verses 4-5, he gives us two additional qualifications. 

In verse four, Paul writes that any teaching needs to promote “godly edification.” To edify is to build up. There are many details in Scripture that may be true, but are they edifying? Do they encourage us in our faith? Do they draw us closer to God? If we are rambling on about something that has no practical value whatsoever – and especially if we’re arguing about it – we need to stop and refocus our discourse on that which edifies.

Then he adds in verse five, “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith.” The purpose (goal) of any teaching should be to enrich our capacity to love. Even Jesus affirmed that the entire law hinges on the two commands to love the Lord and to love your neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40). Any doctrine that does not deepen and enrich our love for God and our fellow man in some way is not a doctrine worth arguing about.

By way of contrast, Paul discourages discussions that “cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (vs. 4). He calls this “idle talk” (vs. 6) and alludes to teachers who “[understand] neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (vs. 7). Is Paul speaking here of pointless rambling? Is he speaking of esoteric dialogue that cannot be grasped by the common man? Or is he speaking of the tendency some have to try to explain the unexplainable (Deut. 29:29; Psalm 131:1)? Yes, yes, and yes!

Finally, I’d like to direct your attention to the transition in verse eight. Paul writes, “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate…” and then goes on to list the characteristics of such people. This is in contrast with verse five which says that “the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart.” Honest, God-fearing people will receive and apply God’s truth eagerly! Those who stubbornly resist the truth, pervert it and diminish it are a real danger. Not only must we not waste our time arguing with such people; we must not give them the floor (vs. 3).

If a doctrine is rooted in Scripture, intended by Scripture, edifying and a means to deeper love, then it is worth discussing and even debating. When other motives and doctrines enter the picture, we must not “give heed” (vs. 4) lest the unity of the church be compromised.

A Cloud of Witnesses

I've been a Christian for 11 years and five months. I've been a gospel preacher for 11 years and two months. So 'faith' should come easy for me, right? Believing in God is a given, right?

Wrong.

I'm a human being. I live in a physical world. I live in a world that challenges my faith in Christ and constantly tells me that it's unreasonable to believe in something I cannot see or prove using clear, physical means. Not only that, but my flesh and spirit are at war, and my flesh (with Satan's help) looks for every excuse to justify sin and disbelief.

While there are times when my faith in Christ is strong, I would be lying to you if I said that I never have doubts. And let me tell you something, those moments can be very uncomfortable.

What do I do when my faith is weak?

Should I study my Bible more? Should I pray more? Should I confess my weakness and struggles to brethren who can encourage me, counsel me, and pray for me? Yes, yes, and yes.

But can I be honest with you about something?

I'm ashamed to say this, but these things don't always bring me fully back.

And this brings me to my main point...

What has helped me more than anything else has been the message of Hebrews 12:1-2.

"Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

It's so easy to forget that men like Noah, Abraham, Moses and David really lived. Not only that, but these were real people who really believed in God. And they believed in Him so much that they were willing to sacrifice everything for Him. Literally.

• Noah stood alone as a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) in a very wicked world. 
• Abraham was willing to leave his homeland and even sacrifice his only son. 
• Moses "[chose] rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward" (Heb. 11:25-26). 
• The prophet Obadiah risked his life for hundreds of other prophets during the time of the wicked, tyrannical Jezebel all because he "feared the Lord greatly" (1 Kings 18:3-4).
• When Job lost everything, he said, "For I know that My Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (Job 19:25-27).
• The prophet Jeremiah was cast into a dungeon for preaching God's word. "In the dungeon there was no water, but mire. So Jeremiah sank in the mire" (Jer. 38:6).
• When Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego were called before the King of Babylon and commanded to worship his idol, they replied, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will be worship the gold image which you have set up" (Dan. 3:16-18). 
• Jesus really died at the hand of Pontius Pilate!
• Stephen, when his death was imminent, siad, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" (Acts 7:56). And when they stoned him to death, making him the first Christian martyr, he cried out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (vs. 59).
• James the brother of John was killed with the sword (Acts 12:2).
• And let's not forget the millions of Christians who were burned alive, made into human torches, fed to the lions, slaughtered during the Inquisition...and even the countless saints today who are being persecuted in foreign lands (watch this video).

No faith has radically transformed lives more than the Christian faith. No faith has inspired such deep, unwavering conviction as has the Christian faith. For thousands and thousands of years, men and women all over this world have believed so strongly in the God of the Bible that they have given Him their very lives...not to be rewarded with virgins in paradise, but just to be in the very presence of this God whom they love ardently and passionately.

What I take away from Hebrews 12:1 is that when my faith is weak, I can be inspired by the faith and conviction of untold millions who have firmly stood in the face of incredible adversity with the hope and love of God - the same God I serve - driving them onward and upward.

I am not alone.

I am surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses."

And boy...how incredible - HOW INCREDIBLE - it is to know that one day - ONE DAY - I'll be with all of them before the throne of God above.

Answering 13 Questions that 'Church of Christ' Preachers Supposedly Can't Answer

A brother-in-Christ called me up a week or two ago and asked me to look at an article online that his wife had discovered. The article was written by Pastor David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, TN and is entitled, Common Sense Questions a 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer. In just the third paragraph of the article, Mr. Martin brashly says:

"If you ask one of these preachers any of the questions in this tract, you won't get a straight answer due to their 'screwball theology.' You'll have them in 'hot water,' 'swimming in circles,' trying to explain their heretical positions. They'll be 'hopping all over the pond' because they can't stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines."

Now, I don't know Mr. Martin and have no issue with him personally. But considering the fact that I have been preaching for 'churches of Christ' for 11 years now, I suppose that I am qualified to answer his questions. I will only add that I'm not answering Mr. Martin's questions to be argumentative, but because these are very common questions that many honest people have.

I sincerely hope that my answers are adequate and helpful.

1. According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament Church in the early 1800's. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?

It's true that a Restoration Movement occurred in the 1800s here in America and that "churches of Christ" became quite prevalent as a result. The reason that the members of "churches of Christ" are sometimes labeled Campbellites (by outsiders, because this is not a label we use for ourselves) is because a man named Alexander Campbell was a leader in this movement.

While it's tempting to conclude, based on these facts, that our history can be traced to the work of Alexander Campbell, I would first of all suggest to you that if New Testament Christianity was truly restored by Campbell and his contemporaries (e.g. Barton Stone, "Raccoon" John Smith), then our history goes back to the first century, not the 19th century. So the question is, "Did they restore New Testament Christianity?" That was, after all, the aim of the Restoration Movement.

But more to the point, I see men such as Campbell and Stone as just a few of the countless men throughout history who made the same effort to restore and practice the faith of the New Testament. Take John Huss, a well-known Pre-Reformation reformer, as an example. In the early 1400s, John Huss wrote from Bohemia to Richard Wyche in England, "“Dear brother, the people will hear nothing but the Scriptures, especially the gospels and epistles. And wherever, in town, village, house or castle, a preacher of the sacred truth appears, there the people flock together in crowds. Lo, I have but touched the tail of the Antichrist, and it has opened its mouth, that it may swallow me up with my brothers. Our Lord the King and his whole court, queen, barons, and common people, are for the word of Jesus Christ. The Church of Christ in Bohemia salutes the Church of Christ in England.”

I believe that there have always been Christians faithfully following the New Testament pattern, and this letter from John Huss to Richard Wyche is evidence of that.

2. If a "Church of Christ" elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campebllite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation - the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he isperforming a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?

I, for one, do not preach that baptism is not valid unless it is administered by a "Church of Christ elder." And I know a lot of elders and preachers in "churches of Christ" all across this great country, and I've never heard any of them use this reasoning. It's not a matter of who baptizes you, but why and how you're baptized (in keeping with the New Testament teachings).

3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.

I'll answer a question with a question.

If a sinner is going to church to hear the gospel and is ready to believe and accept it...but he dies on the way to the building, or the preacher's car breaks down and the service is cancelled...or let's say he dies of a heart attack during the sermon, right before he really believes in Jesus...is he hopeless and hell-bound?

In the end, all any of us can do is use the opportunities that come our way to preach the gospel, obey the gospel, and help others find the Lord. "What if" scenarios such as these do not change the message of the gospel in any way. If the New Testament mandates baptism for salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-7; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:20-21, et al), then that is what we must preach and practice.

THE NEXT FIVE QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH OUR BELIEF THAT SALVATION CAN BE LOST. I ONLY WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BELIEF IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHURCHES OF CHRIST; THERE ARE EVEN MANY BAPTIST CHURCHES THAT REJECT THE "ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED" DOCTRINE.

4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to "lose my salvation" and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! - before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn't that my best opportunity?

I have to admit that this question made me chuckle.

First, according to Romans 6:3-7, because baptism is modeled after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, one must be immersed in water and then raised up from the water to "walk in newness of life" as the apostle Paul instructs.

Also, it would be an act of murder for the baptizer to hold you under the water against your will, and an act of suicide to hold yourself under the water. So it might just be better to go ahead and complete the baptismal act, put your dry clothes back on, and start living your life in such a way that you can bring glory to God (Matt. 16:24-26; 1 Cor. 10:31-33) and bring more into His kingdom (Matt. 5:13-16). That's God's expectation. The apostle Paul said, "For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:23-24).

5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to "lose my salvation," just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.

I don't think the Scriptures equip us to discern between "damning sins" and "non-damning sins." All we're told is that sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), causes our death (Rom. 6:23) and keeps us out of the light of God's fellowship (1 John 1:5-8). Therefore, we as Christians ought to just do our very best to avoid sinning (Rom. 6:1; 13:14) and when we do, to repent and confess our sin to God, who promises to forgive us (1 John 1:9).

6. If as a Christian I can fall and "lose my salvation," is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God "takes away" my salvation, doesn't that make Him an "Indian giver"? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?

Yes, we can regain our salvation. John tells us that when we sin, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Also consider Acts 8:22; 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 and James 5:19-20.

Is God an "Indian giver" for taking away our salvation? When we choose to sin and depart from God's will, we are forfeiting our salvation; God isn't taking it from us. According to 1 John 1, when we're right with God, we're "in the light." Sin is darkness. So when we sin, we are choosing to step out of the light (and thus out of God's fellowship).

7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the "point of no return" so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.

There are two sins that are unforgivable, I believe.

First, there is the famous "unpardonable sin" in Matthew 12:31-32, which is identified in the text as "blasphemy against the Spirit." Without spending too much time here, the context tells me that this is not a one-time sin that we accidentally fall into, but rather a mindset that is so severely wicked that true repentance is impossible. Even 2 Peter 2:14 describes those who "cannot cease from sin" because they have so given themselves over to the power of darkness.

The second kind of "unforgivable sin" is that sin which a person persists in and for which he does not seek forgiveness. Paul writes in Romans 6:1, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" John adds that "He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins [practices sin, CH] is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." I gather from these and other verses that if we continue in sin and do not repent, we will not be forgiven.

8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash - would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.

Why is it so wrong to say "it's up to God" without giving a specific Bible reference? When describing his experiences in heaven, Paul said "whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows" (2 Cor. 12:1-4). I don't feel like I'm ignoring the question at all by acknowledging that there are some things I don't know. "God knows." That's not me being evasive; that's me being honest and, I believe, humble.

9. Why does the "Church of Christ" insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the "church of God" eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the "church of Christ." The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn't say "church of Christ." Where does the Bible call the church the "church of Christ"?

Mr. Martin references Romans 16:16 but does not quote it, so I will: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you." If there were "churches of Christ" (plural), then there was a "church of Christ" (singular).

Now, I'm not claiming that this is some official name for the church that we MUST use to the exclusion of all other names. It is merely a description of what the church is. The church is an assembly of Christians that belongs to Christ. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "I will build My church," and in Ephesians 1:22-23, we're told that Jesus is the Head of the church. When we identify ourselves as "churches of Christ," we're not only striving to use a biblical designation, but to give all the honor to Christ, our Lord. What is so wrong with that?

I agree that the churches in the first century were also identified as "churches of God" in places like 1 Corinthians 1:2. Many other designations were used for that matter. For this reason, I do not bind the "name" "Church of Christ," nor do I condemn the use of other scriptural designations for the church. I just want to give honor to my Savior, and the Bible indicates that this is one way to do that.

10. If the "Church of Christ" claims to worship God only as "authorized" by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the "authority" to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are "aids to worship," where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an "aid to worship" for the song service in the "Church of Christ," then why can't a piano be an "aid to worship" for Baptists who may need more help in singing?

There is a lot to say here, but I will simply give an illustration to make my point...

I'm sure Mr. Martin would agree that we are to observe the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures specify that we're to use bread to represent Christ's body and fruit of the vine, or grape juice, to represent His blood. Would it be acceptable to use Oreos and milk instead? Or Sun Chips and Pepsi? No, because the scriptures specify bread and grace juice!

But...the Scriptures do not specify how we're to secure the emblems, or how we're to serve them, etc. We realize, however, that we must secure them somehow, and that we must serve them somehow. Right? So we may purchase them at the store. We may bake our own unleavened bread. We might serve the Lord's Supper by having a select few members distribute the emblems to the congregation, or we might do it by having everyone come to the front, or by sitting around a table.

The point is this: where the Bible specifies what we are to do, that is what we must do. Where the Bible doesn't specify how we're to go about doing something, it's up to us to determine the means by which we will do it. This is how we understand authority in every walk of life.

Because the Scriptures plainly instruct us to "sing" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13), that is what we do...nothing more and nothing less. But how are we going to be unified in our singing? How are we going to go about it? This is where we have liberty in how we act, and I personally know of many different congregations who go about this in different ways. Some use pitch pipes to help find the right pitch, others do not. Some use song books while others use PowerPoint projectors or "call and response." None of these things, however, change the fact that we're singing.

11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one's sins forgiven? Every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins," it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to "take away" sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that "for the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain' in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) - the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), all sin - past, present and future - was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that 'whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.

Mr. Martin says that every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" appears in the Scriptures, it refers to sins already forgiven. He sees the word "for" as meaning "because of," not "in order to obtain." This is a classic argument and at the heart of many debates about baptism. 

Without getting into a lengthy debate about the meaning of the Greek word eis, I will simply point to Matthew 26:28. Before He was even on the cross, Jesus said to His disciples, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Did Jesus shed His blood on the cross because our sins were already forgiven, or in order to obtain the remission of our sins? This verse would seem to crush the premise of Mr. Martin's argument.

The fact is, the people in Acts 2:37 asked Peter and the apostles what they had to do (in response to the news that they were guilty of crucifying the Son of God). Peter responded by telling them what to do, and his instructions included both repentance and baptism "for the remission of sins." It's clear, based on the context, that they were repenting and being baptized in order to obtain forgiveness and salvation. 

In Acts 22:16, Ananias asked Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." In Romans 6:3-7, Paul explains that "the body of sin" is destroyed in baptism, a point which is repeated in Colossians 2:11-12. So even if a person struggles with the meaning of "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins," these other verses make it clear that sin is forgiven and destroyed when we are baptized.

12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness," then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit - grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)

I don't believe that baptism is a "work of righteousness." Works of righteousness (Titus 3:5) are those works of which we can boast to the neglect of God's grace. It's true that we cannot earn or merit our own salvation. Those who arrogantly or naively think that they can work hard enough to "deserve" heaven are flat-out wrong! But there is a difference between works of merit and works of humble obedience. Hebrews 5:9 says that "having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." And Luke 17:10 makes it even more clear that obedience doesn't earn us anything!

I believe that if God places conditions on salvation (e.g. faith, repentance, baptism) or gives us instructions to obey, we ought to obey without question. I have taught and baptized a lot of people over the years and I have never once seen anyone come up out of the water or walk away from our studies thinking that God owed them salvation. I've only seen gratitude toward God.

I'll only add that if salvation is by grace alone (something the Bible doesn't teach), and if it is truly unconditional, then all are saved because God's grace has appeared to all (Titus 2:11). Mr. Martin would reject this conclusion. The dirty little secret is that even those who teach that salvation is unconditional teach that we must believe to be saved. And repent (Luke 13:3). And confess (Rom. 10:9-10). They just want to exclude baptism...even though the Bible is just as clear that baptism is essential.

13. The "Church of Christ" teaches that "obeying the Gospel" includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were "purified by faith" (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism!We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theology of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without "muddying the waters" of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?

Some of Mr. Martin's questions are rather lengthy, aren't they? And there are really four questions here, and more answering than asking, but that's okay.

I admit that this is difficult, but I will try to provide a concise answer for each question.

How is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The text actually doesn't say that they were saved by faith before and without water baptism. Or did I miss something? If one is going to argue that they were justified at the point of faith before baptism on the basis of Acts 15:9 (which says that God purified their hearts "by faith"), I would turn your attention to Acts 16:31-34. After being baptized, the Philippian jailor "rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household." In the context of individual conversion, the word "faith" may include the act of being baptized since it is an act or response of faith.

The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? First of all, I wonder if Mr. Martin is contradicting his early statements that works do not save us? It would appear so. To answer the question, though, while it is true that those who obey God receive the Spirit, it's not necessarily true that only saved people can receive the Spirit (see 1 Sam. 19:18-24 and Num. 23:1-5). This is because the Spirit may be given for reasons other than salvation.

In Acts 10:6, Cornelius was told that Peter the apostle would come to him and tell him what he must "do." Peter later recounted that he was sent to Cornelius to "tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14). If you'll read the text of Acts 10:44-45, you'll quickly discover that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles suddenly and unexpectedly, not because they obeyed Peter's message. Peter wasn't even done with his message! So the Holy Spirit wasn't sent upon the Gentiles in response to anything they did. Therefore, by Mr. Martin's own reasoning, the Gentiles in this story weren't saved yet even though they received the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues.

So why did they receive the Holy Spirit if they weren't saved? The context would indicate that because the Jews were so doubtful about the Gentiles, God baptized them with the Holy Spirit to prove that they were candidates of salvation (see Acts 11:16-18).

It's interesting that when Peter finally told Cornelius and the Gentiles what to do to obey the gospel message, he said, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47)

In light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation. I admit that this is a very unusual and unique story in the book of Acts. The events of Acts 10 clearly stirred up a lot of controversy even then, so it's no surprise that the same response is seen today. In the end, I believe that Cornelius and the Gentiles heard the gospel, believed it, and were baptized into Christ. The fact that they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water (vs. 44) only proves contradictory if you assume that this was a sign of their salvation. The context, however, indicates otherwise.

For more on this, listen to a sermon I preached on this topic here.

Conclusion

These 13 questions posed to preachers of "churches of Christ" are very common and, in most cases, very understandable. There was a time when I had many of these same questions. In fact, I was once a very active Baptist like Mr. Martin. But in the end, I believe that these questions are either rooted in misconceptions and/or easily answered with Scripture.

As I stated earlier in the article, I have no beef with Mr. Martin. This isn't personal. Someone from my church family asked me to take a look at this article and I saw it as a good opportunity to address some very common questions. Some of these questions were easily and quickly answered while others were deeper and required more attention.

If you're still reading this article, I'm impressed. It's been a long one. Clearly, you are interested in these issues. Please understand that there is SOOO much more to say here, so if you have any questions yourself, please let me know. I mean that.

Upholding BOTH Law & Liberty - Three Final Points

In the first two articles in this series (which can be accessed here and here), I made the point that when it comes to daily decisions and moral choices, we cannot condemn what the Bible does not condemn.

Based on a few comments that I received from good brethren, some may have gotten the impression that I was making a case for moral anarchy - everyone can do what they want to do and no one can condemn anyone's behavior. And even if you disagree, you're a judgmental Pharisee if you say anything.

Is that the necessary conclusion from such studies on liberty? 

I don't believe so.

In this final article, I'd like to make three points that ought to govern our moral behavior when in the realm of liberty.

We Must Acquire Wisdom

In many ways, the book of Proverbs epitomizes the main point of this series of articles. Even though Solomon, in this book, does condemn certain activities and behaviors (e.g. 6:16-19), the theme of this book is WISDOM.

"To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion - a wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel, to understand a proverb and an enigma, the words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (1:1-7)

What is wisdom? Applied knowledge, right? Well...yes...but it's much deeper than that. You see, obedience is applied knowledge, too, but there is much more to wisdom than just obedience. Wisdom is not just the willingness to obey the specific teachings of Scripture (i.e. don't commit adultery), it's the ability to apply the principles of Scripture to those gray areas. 

As an example, the command to avoid lust in Matthew 5:28 will keep me from ever justifying pornography. It will also keep me from movies that include nudity, sex-scenes, suggestive material and even rampant immodesty. As a father, it causes me to teach my daughters the importance of modesty so that they are not a stumbling-block to boys in the future, and to teach my son the importance of guarding his heart. Because of the dangers of lust (and knowing my own weaknesses in this area), I try to avoid public beaches and swimming pools where there are bikini-clad women all over the place.

Is it sinful for a Christian to go to a public beach? Is another Christian family sinning when they have different views on modesty? This is where I think the previous two articles come into play.

In the New Testament, Paul instructs us to "walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:15). He adds in Romans 13:14 that we're to "make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts."

Not everything is black and white. There are gray areas. This is where wisdom comes in.

And while we cannot condemn folks for making choices that we believe to be unwise, we all do have an obligation to (1) encourage wise behavior, and (2) respond positively to godly counsel. Remember, Solomon said that "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov. 1:7). Don't be that person.

We Must Love One Another

Americans often have a sense of entitlement. We have rights and we feel entitled to those rights. If someone tries to infringe on our rights, we freak out. I once knew a brother-in-Christ who, in response to the government's ban on incandescent light bulbs, said he'd shoot anyone who came onto his property to take his incandescent bulbs. 

Even though we have incredible liberty in Christ, Paul instructs us in Galatians 5:13-14...

"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It has been said that "with great power comes great responsibility." This is especially true when it comes to Christian liberty. We cannot have the attitude that because we have certain rights and liberties, we can and will do what we want to do, no matter what the consequences might be.

Isn't this the main point in 1 Corinthians 8? "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (vs. 1). In regards to the eating of meat offered to idols - a clear Christian liberty - Paul concludes in verses 12-13:

"But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if good makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

We have to give thought to how our actions will influence others!

It it worth it for me to exercise my liberty in an area if it's going to hurt my influence? Is it worth it if it causes a weaker Christian to stumble?

I have always taken a very strong stance against drinking, and still do. I have talked to brethren over the years, however, who believe that it is okay to have an occasional drink. My response has always been the same: even if you think it's okay to have a drink, is it really wise given the number of brethren who have struggled with drinking and even alcoholism in the past, or who might not have the same level of self-control that you claim to have?

Do you see the point?

There are a lot of things that we can do but shouldn't! And even when we have disagreements about what does and doesn't constitute liberty, our love for one another ought to keep us from pushing our rights to the point of division (see 1 Cor. 6:7).

Jesus is Calling Us To a High Standard!

I do believe with all my heart that we need to do a better job of understanding and respecting the realm of Christian liberty. But it's of equal concern to me that some brethren see liberty as an excuse to remain weak and worldly.

It's true that we all start out as "babes in Christ." We're weak and feeble and brethren may have to bear with our lack of knowledge (Rom. 15:1). But just as babies grow into children, and children grow into young adults, and so on...so also should all Christians undergo spiritual development.

"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food...But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:12, 14).

If and when seasoned Christians are consistently justifying unwise and worldly behavior, there is a problem. The more that we grow in Christ, the more holy and righteous our lives should appear. This is NOT because we lose sight of our liberty or become more prudish, but because we develop a deeper understanding of God and His will that inspires wisdom within our hearts.

Conclusion

If we are all seeking God's wisdom, a deeper love for one another, and spiritual excellence, I truly believe that we will find ourselves making wiser decisions in our upward walk with Christ. The result won't be moral anarchy or a surge in worldliness, but a deeper respect (from the heart) for God's word that will increase our morality and godliness.

So can we encourage wisdom by openly discouraging certain behaviors and situations? Absolutely! In fact, this is something that we must do. But we have to be careful not to erect barriers that God hasn't Himself erected. I know it's a scary thought, but there does come a point where we have to give brethren room to grow in wisdom.

Perhaps this is where "longsuffering" comes in.