|
 The Church in Crisis,
Part II By Edward O.
Bragwell, Sr.
The Reflector - June 2008
(We continue from our last issue with Ed Bragwell, Sr.’s article
from The Reflector, July 2008, titled “The Church in Crisis.” The
previous installment discussed two things which are contributing to
a series of current crises facing the church; first, the quality of
preaching in some pulpits of the churches, and second, the corporate
style leadership among some elderships. He continues with two more
areas of concern.)
3. Redefining of marriage and liberalization of divorce. There has
always been some differences of views on marriage and divorce among
brethren. Until recent years these differences were very limited in
their impact upon local churches because only a few brethren could
be found that held views differing from the overwhelming majority of
brethren. Even those who held those views differing from most
brethren did not openly push their viewpoints because there were so
few divorces in local congregations.
But that has changed since divorce has become more socially
acceptable and preachers and churches have had to deal with a huge
increase in the number of divorces among members and prospective
members of local churches. All of this has given more urgency to
studying the subject and making application to situations as they
exist today. As a result many Christians, especially preachers, are
giving more time to the study of all aspects of the subject and
coming to very conflicting conclusions about the institution of
marriage itself and how a marriage can be scripturally dissolved.
Some of these conclusions that are being openly espoused will, if
widely adopted, destroy the institution of marriage as we have known
it and as it is revealed in the scriptures. They will also open the
door for adulterous marriages within congregations. These
conclusions are not matters of individual conscience and personal
practice, but matters that strike at the very foundation of the
oldest God-ordained institution and they force local churches to
decide whether or not they will fellowship adulterous relationships.
Among these erroneous conclusions is the concept that marriage is
just a private agreement between a man and woman to be husband and
wife before God and it is fast catching on with brethren. Meeting
the requirements of civil law and cultural norms is just a mere
formality that really has nothing to do with the validity of a
marriage. Likewise divorce is just a mental act before God and that
civil divorce proceedings have nothing to do with a real divorce.
Then there is the conclusion that there are multiple scriptural
reasons for divorcing a spouse that is gaining popularity in spite
of the fact that Jesus said that “But I say to you that whoever
divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her
to commit adultery...” (Matt. 5:32 NKJV).
If these conclusions are not challenged and checked they will throw
the marriage institution into chaos adversely affecting the church
and society as a whole. God’s marriage law is universal in scope and
is for all of human society as a whole and not just a law for
Christians. We would like to hope that those who have recently
arrived at these dangerous positions and are advising brethren based
on their conclusion will rethink their positions and consider the
logical consequences and return to the position that most brethren
have held for years. That being that marriage was ordained in the
beginning for the good of the human race and is entered into by a
covenant between the parties that is publicly ratified and
recognized in a manner dictated by the society in which the parties
live and that dissolving a marriage is also a legal or societal act
based on the customs of the society in which one lives. That does
not mean every marriage or divorce authorized by a given society
meets God’s approval. God’s law tells us who it is that has a right
to enter into a marriage covenant to be ratified by society and who
has a right to petition society for divorce from a marriage (Matt.
5:32;19:3-9). If the situation continues as it is now and the number
of advocates of these new positions continues to grow, I fear how it
will direly affect unity among brethren. Those who believe that such
doctrines will result in adultery will not be able to stand idly by
and let such teaching have free course. This is a real crisis.
4. The creation and proliferation of unnecessary issues. There has
never been a shortage of things for brethren to argue over. Most of
the time such discussions are of little consequence and are
localized, never rising to the level of a “brotherhood issue.” Many
issues are of the nature that brethren can agree to disagree because
their application is personal rather than congregational, nor do
they cause a breach of morality or undermine the foundation of one’s
faith. Such issues have been around for years causing a minimal of
strife among brethren. Most brethren agree that such differences are
not worth dividing over.
So, it is not like we don’t have enough issues to keep our
argumentative skills honed, it seems that in recent years there are
those who are bent on creating new controversies to throw into the
mix to keep the polemic pot boiling. Among these are the “tradition
busters” who dream up new and novel approaches to the church’s
worship and work. It is not that they, through serious study, have
found that the “traditional” approaches need changing because they
are unscriptural, but that we need change for change’s sake. They
push their proposed changes upon brethren knowing full well that
they will be met with resistance from those who happen to believe
that approaches already in place are scriptural and have proven to
be expedient over the years. Even those who are clamoring for change
admit that the old approaches were not necessarily wrong but in
their judgment their new approaches are better. But are they enough
better to warrant the strife that their introduction causes?
Then there are those projects that are launched that depend on the
approval and support of a goodly number of brethren to succeed. But,
alas, a significant number of brethren view the existence and
promotion of the said project to be at best questionable and at
worst unscriptural and a dire threat to the purity of the church.
Thus the fat is in the fire and a new major issue develops. We need
to ask if all of this is necessary? The best defense that the
promoters of these projects are able to make is that they are
“authorized liberties.” Then the question must be raised is: Is
clinging to an admittedly “authorized liberty” worth the brotherhood
strife its introduction has caused?
Then, on the other hand, there are some brethren who see apostasy
lurking behind every bush. Their unwarranted and ill advised
objections also create new unnecessary issues. We all need to be
careful that our oppositions are well thought out and scripturally
based and not just a product of our living in the “objective case
and kickative mood.”
There is hardly anything that is worth disturbing the harmony and
good will among brethren. We are going to need unity to go forward
in this new century. Nor can we afford to allow trends away from
ancient order go unchecked for the sake of peace. So, we believe
that the church is truly in a crisis that is going to require
careful study of the Scriptures and sound judgment on the part of
all to weather the storm and once again preserve a remnant bent on
walking in the “old paths.” ~
More of Ed’s sermons and articles are available on
his very helpful website:
www.edssermonsandthings.com)
|
|
Matthew the Tax Collector and
Simon the Zealot by David King
“Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain
to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was
day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose
twelve whom he also named apostles” (Lk. 6:12-13).
The twelve men whom Jesus chose to be His apostles make an
interesting study, but we want to single out two of them: Matthew
the tax collector (Matt. 10:3) and Simon the Zealot (Lk. 6:15).
These two men represented opposite extremes in the political
landscape of first-century Judaism.
The tax collectors were local Jews who contracted with the Roman
government to collect taxes from the local populace. Their
collection methods provided ample opportunity for skimming excess
profits for themselves. The Jews considered them traitors to their
people.
The Zealots, on the other hand, were the right-wing extremists of
their day. Their hatred of the Romans extended even to the advocacy
of open rebellion against Rome (which actually happened in AD 66,
leading to the destruction of Jerusalem).
Had Matthew and Simon been left alone in the same room, only one of
them would have walked out alive. Yet Jesus chose these two men to
work together as fellow apostles under His oversight. Why did Jesus
take such an enormous risk? Having these two on His staff had a
potential for a disastrous blow-up. But Jesus did not make a
mistake. Remember, He spent the whole night in prayer before
choosing these two. He knew what He was doing.
In fact, Jesus’ gamble paid off. If there was any friction
between these two over their political beliefs, we have no record of
it. As far as we know, these two men spent the remainder of their
lives in harmony, working for a common cause.
How did it happen? The answer is not hard to figure out: Both men
had a loyalty to Jesus that exceeded their political biases. They
both found in Jesus a purpose in life that was greater than their
previous calling.
This same phenomenon was demonstrated repeatedly in the early days
of Christianity. The church in Corinth included a former leader of
the local Jewish synagogue (Ac. 18:8) — a paragon of virtue — along
with former drunks, crooks, homosexuals, idolaters, and other
assorted riff-raff from among the pagans (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Can you imagine how awkward their church services must have been,
especially at the beginning? But again, the unifying factor here was
a commitment to a common Savior. When they came to Jesus, they found
the power to overcome their prejudices and suspicions, and forged a
new relationship based on a higher calling. To be sure, both parties
had to make changes to adapt to this new role, and those changes
were not easy to make. But they did it, and it worked.
The story of Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot holds a
powerful lesson for us today. It is possible for people from wildly
different backgrounds to work together in harmony — but only if they
are first willing to submit themselves to the rule of Christ. ~ |
|
Soap Must be Applied A
soap manufacturer, not a Christian, was talking to a minister. Said
the soap maker: "The gospel you preach has not done much good for
there is still a lot of wicked people."
The preacher had no immediate answer, but they soon passed a child
making mud pies. He was exceedingly dirty. It was then the
minister's turn, and he said: "Soap hasn't done much good in the
world, I see; for there is still much dirt and many dirty people."
"Oh, well," answered the manufacturer, "soap is useful only when it
is applied."
"Exactly," was the preacher's reply, "So it is with the gospel of
Christ Jesus."
There can be no doubt concerning the application of this factual
principle. Until the gospel is used (applied to the life of the
individual) it is of no profit to him. One living in sin can be
washed clean of the sins of his past life by obeying the gospel of
Christ. That gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to everyone
that believeth" (Romans 1:16). Saul of Tarsus was told to "arise and
be baptized and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16).
Before the gospel is of value to mankind, it must be applied
(obeyed). Paul states very clearly, "In flaming fire taking
vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Christ humbled himself
and left heaven, lived in the flesh and suffered agony unto death
that each one may enjoy eternal life. But, unless we respect the
commandments given by Christ and obey every word of the gospel, we
shall not benefit from what He accomplished.
There is no such thing as using soap once a week and expecting to
keep clean all week long. So, likewise, one can not expect to be
free from sins by only a casual or haphazard contact with the gospel
of Christ. It demands constant, continual, unerring obedience. ~
Jack Thompson, preacher for the White Park church of Christ.
|