How Liberalism wins.

BEFORE WE BEGIN, for the purpose of this article, we shall use the simple definitions of liberal & conservative. Liberal means; “not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted.”1 Conservative means; “the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.”2

As it relates to religion, a conservative is one who wants to hold fast to the word of God. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” [1Pe 4:11], means that we do not go beyond the text of the scriptures. We’re told to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” [1Thess 5:21], and “not to think beyond what is written” [1Cor 4:6]. [cr. 2Peter 1:19-21; John 12:48; 2Thess 2:15]. This is what the Christians here at Franklin & Juniper church of Christ in Borger Texas want to do, hold fast to the Word of God.

A liberal, therefore, is the one who believes that we have freedom to move from tradition and authority, and have the ability to adjust religious beliefs and practices for the culture. They believe that strict adherance to the word of God is legalistic and unloving.

Many folks will apply labels of “liberal” or “conservative” but those terms mean different things according to where you’re standing at the time. As for me, I start with the undefiled Word of God [John 12:48] and want to CONSERVE that purity in my life and the church. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” [Pr 30:5 (cr. Psalm 119)].

Have you ever wondered why folks with strong conservative values allow error to creep in and pledge support for these errors? How do the “grievous wolves” that Paul spoke about, appear and how do they lead astray so many, even causing division in the church? Paul warned the Ephesian elders; “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” [Ac 20:29-30]. He also warned that Satan himself would appear as an “angel of light” and his ministers would appear as “ministers of righteousness” [2Cor 11:14-15].

I’ve noticed 3 arguments that are most often used in support of error. They are EMOTIONALIZE, DEMONIZE & CRITICIZE. Remember also, that change agents appear as “angels of light” [2Cor 11:14]. Let’s examine how this works, not with hate toward others, rather as a warning to all of us as we strive to do God’s will.

The 3 Arguments in support of error

EMOTIONALIZE: “It’s for the children” is the most oft used emotional argument to promote error. The users of these arguments seldom use scripture and when they do they “wrest the scriptures” [2Pe 3:16]. We saw it when denominations pushed for infant baptism. Truth teaches that babies are safe in the Lord [2Sam 12:23; Mat 19:13-14]. This argument continues to be utilized to go around the clear commands of God. We have to resist the urge to break God’s word when our emotions begin to burn. “Whether it is pleasing or displeasing, we will obey the voice of the LORD our God to whom we send you, that it may be well with us when we obey the voice of the LORD our God” [Jer 42:6]. Remember, our hearts can be (and often are) deceived [2Thess 2:10-11; 2Cor 11:14; Gal 1:8-9; Gal 6:7].

If there’s no success with this, they move onto…

DEMONIZE; The promoters of error demonize those that oppose them. While hanging onto the emotional argument, they malign the opposition. Paul faced this himself, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” [Ga 4:16] They’ll say we hate children, or are unloving, calling us “anti’s” & “legalists” because we say “I could not go beyond the word of the LORD, to do good or bad of my own will. What the LORD says, that I must speak‘?” [Num 24:13]

Then they will….

CRITICIZE; the opposition for doing things that they themselves are doing. The Apostles faced this very thing. They were criticized for preaching for gain, or for being arrogant, while the critics themselves were doing the very things they spoke against. “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.” [3John 1:9-10 (cr 2Cor 11 & 12)].

Many errors begin due to a lack of understanding on how to determine scriptural authority (or permissions). They also come due to a misunderstanding of the true work of the church. The work of the church is found in “the Great commission”; “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen [Mat 28:19-20]. It’s to TEACH the gospel and TEACH the new disciples to observe WHATSOEVER our Lord has commanded.

Please understand, I’m not against helping children, or being benevolent to strangers. I just want to do it God’s way. “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” [Col 3:17].

1 – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

2 – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservate

Flood Relief & Divine Pattern

EARLY ON AUGUST 11, torrential downpours dumped rain on the surrounding Baton Rouge and Lafayette areas. Rain fell at a rates up to 2-3 inches per hour and overall totals exceeded nearly 2 feet in some areas as a result of the system remaining stationary. Accumulations reached as high as 31.39 inches in Watson, Louisiana.

The Washington Post noted that the “no-name storm” dumped three times as much rain on Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina. It dropped the equivalent of 7.1 trillion gallons of water or enough to fill Lake Pontchartrain about four times. Hurricane Katrina, by comparison, dumped about 2.3 trillion gallons of rainwater in the state (though more in other states). The flood also dumped more water than Hurricane Isaac. According to the National Weather Service Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, the amount of rainfall in the hardest-hit locations had a less than 0.1 percent chance of happening or was a (less than) 1-in-1,000-year event.

This flooding has caused heartache and hardship for some in our family of Christ. One congregation in particular, reached out to let brethren know of their plight. They requested help according to the pattern established in the New Testament, not through the institutions of man.

The pattern for aiding brethren in other areas has been established by Acts 11:27-30.Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” (emphasis mine seb).

A famine had arisen in the days of Claudius that had severely stricken the Christians in Judea. The Holy Spirit directed Paul on how this relief should be made. Paul wrote about the contribution being sent by the saints in Macedonia; “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” [Romans 15:26], so too, the church at Corinth [1Cor 16:1-4].

What we see from this pattern are individual saints (and local congregations) collecting money and sending it directly to the parties affected. No middlemen, no organizations that funnels off money for “operating costs” nor do we see a board of directors who can decide to send the money for a non-scriptural use (as we see with so many “charities”). What we see are saints fulfilling the need directly. The pattern is simple, clean AND EFFECTIVE, because it is the divine pattern from God.

As individuals, we have liberty to be a bit more broad with our benevolence. We’re able to give aid beyond just the saints, unlike the limitations placed upon the church treasury by the Holy Spirit [1Timothy 5:9,16]. If we can, we should be benevolent, being mindful of those times when we ought to refrain [Ga 6:10; 1Thess 3:10-12].

That being said, here is the note from the brethren in Louisiana;

_________________________________

STOP! The need involving Christians in Louisiana has been met.

With several families displaced by floods and facing reconstruction on the inside of their homes, the cost estimate was $500,000 beyond what that local church could do. However, THE NEED HAS BEEN MET.

I just spoke with one of the elders. Their biggest concern is returning the funds beyond what they need. I told him he’ll have to get a roll of stamps. He said, “Wilson, it will take rolls and rolls AND ROLLS of stamps…” He said, “We never dreamed there would be such an outpouring of help for us…”

He went on…

“Please spread the word that the need has been met and that we will do our best to return the monies not needed back to the source.” I am sure they will. But be patient. They have been flooded (sorry!) with overwhelming generosity.

Want Bible? Exodus 36:5: “The people were restrained from bringing any more…” Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. It just happened in Gonzales, Louisiana…

God is good. And so are His people. Please “Share” the news

___________________________________

Praise God, the need was met for these folks within a few weeks, following God’s pattern of benevolence. I’m sure more can and should be done by individuals, and it can be done following God’s divine pattern for benevolence.

Making Preachers Rich

An Excerpt of a sermon BY Moses E. Lard

EDITOR’S NOTE: In 1863, Moses E. Lard, one of the “second generation” Restoration Leaders wrote a tribute at the death of Allen Wright, another preacher of that era. Lard said “the Churches always managed to keep Brother Wright poor, very poor.” From this point Lard gave a “sermon” to the readers of his Quarterly. Speaking of the brotherhood he said,

” . . . (they) tell me they do not believe in making preachers rich. Neither do I. But, brethren, I do believe in making them comfortable, in supporting them this side of want, and in affording these faithful men the means of schooling their children well.

Is this right? But why, pray, do you not believe in making preachers rich? Do you think it would hurt them? You cannot say it would; for you have never made one rich, to know. Suppose before you longer preach your doctrine with so much confidence in its truth, you test it by making at least one preacher rich.

Hitherto you have kept them all poor; let us now have at least one exception to your rule. You are satisfied that it works well both ways. Preachers are not at all satisfied that you are right in what you say, neither will they be until, by making at least one of them rich you convince them that you are so.

Do you think it would hurt you to be rich, or hurt your children to educate them well, and thereby enable them to move in genteel circles? Of course you do not. How then can you imagine that it would your preacher, or injure his children to make him rich?

You tell me it would cause him to neglect his calling. But how do you know this? You have never made one rich, to have the point tested. Would making you rich cause you to neglect your calling? Why then should you think it would cause the preacher to neglect his? The closer you stick to your calling the richer you grow. Think you not, if the preacher, too, could grow daily richer by sticking to his calling, that he would not stick to it close indeed. But the difference is, that the closer you stick to your calling the richer you grow, while the closer he sticks to his the poorer he grows. Is there not something wrong?

But tell me truly, faithful brother, do you preach this doctrine really believing it. Is it really so that you do not believe in making preachers rich, and that, too, because it would hurt them and cause them to neglect their calling? Or is not this a mere plea to shield your own purse? Beware” (Lard’s Quarterly, September. 1863, Volume One, pp. 37, 38).