| January 16, 2000 |
Vol. II, No. 38
|
I guess it’s a sign of aging, but increasingly I find myself reminiscing about “the way things used to be” among brethren. I have to remind myself of the biblical admonition to not ask, “Why were the former days better than these” (Eccl. 7:10). Indeed, every age has its problems.
In looking back, our goal should not be to brag about how things used to be, but to learn to “not imitate what is evil, but what is good” (3 John 11).
Over the three decades this paper has been published I have witnessed many changes. Some have been unavoidable, some needed, and some tragic. There have been gradual changes in attitudes, convictions and priorities among brethren. A few of these are good, but others have not been edifying, and have been detrimental to the cause of Christ.
Unavoidable changes have taken place due to the deaths of many faithful brothers and sisters in Christ. Each death is a reminder that “the old must die -- and the young may.” In the past 30 years I have grieved over the deaths of my mother, my father and my father’s second wife, each time consoled by their faithfulness and God’s grace. From this I have come to realize that there is no greater blessing one can leave his children than to be “faithful unto death” so that they will not have to “sorrow as others who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13).
Of course, many other Christians have passed from this life during this same time. Voices that once boldly proclaimed the truth have been silenced; hands that performed good deeds have been stilled; and the void their deaths have left MUST be filled.
It would be more pleasant to focus only on the positive changes that have occurred, but that would be misleading and ultimately destructive. Therefore, after mention of what I see as some “positive” changes, I will note some that I believe have been in the wrong direction.
High on my list of good changes that have taken place among brethren is the elimination of most racial distinctions. Thirty years ago it was not uncommon to see “black churches” and “white churches.” It was almost unheard of for a predominantly white congregation to invite a black preacher to hold a gospel meeting, let alone ask him to move there to work with them. Today there are many racially diverse congregations, and the day of the “white church” and the “black church” is mostly gone. Good riddance! We are all one in Christ, Gal. 3:28, and there is simply no authority for division based on cultural differences.
Another good change, as I perceive it, is the response faithful brethren show toward truly needy saints. Whenever there is a call for help from brethren who have faced disaster or persecution, there seems to be an abundance of help quickly on the way. This change may be primarily due to improvement in communications and the ease in getting funds around the world, but it is still a good change. My father always said, “My brethren are the greatest!” As opportunity and ability have increased, so has benevolence.
I also have seen a needed change in attitudes toward preachers. The sectarian concept of a clergy/laity distinction, including the need for higher secular education, has been effectively eliminated in most places. I’m not saying it doesn’t still exist in some places, but there has been much improvement. Brethren have also been much better in recent years about supporting preachers adequately.
I know there are other good changes that have taken place in the past 30 years, but this is not meant to be exhaustive. Likewise, the following will not be a complete list of what I deem to be detrimental changes, but they are merely some that caught my attention:
Perhaps the biggest change I see is regarding moral issues. Instead of being outspoken opponents of all forms of immorality, many brethren have become tolerant of what was formerly stood firmly against. As a result, the lines of distinction between the world and “us” have been blurred. Examples: Modesty; choices of entertainment; social drinking; divorce; dancing, etc. If this is not reversed, I fear a future list will include fornication, adultery, homosexuality and abortion.
Another change is diminished cooperation between congregations. The spirit of cooperation that once existed, motivating larger congregations to seek scriptural ways to aid smaller churches is not as evident as it once was. Even communication between nearby congregations has lessened. Some are unwilling to confer with one another in order to avoid planning gospel meetings the same week. I don’t know if the reason for this is due to a distorted view of local autonomy, or if it is merely a sign of apathy. Either way, it’s a change for the worse.
Willingness to keep in touch with brethren with whom we differ has also declined. This is especially true regarding those who have embraced a more liberal approach to Bible authority. No doubt, to ignore them is the way of least resistance, but is it right? Is it in THEIR best interest to remove your “conservative” influence entirely?
Of course, we cannot participate with them in anything we believe to be in error, but that does not preclude us from encouraging them in what is right. How can we even hope to have any influence on them if we won’t have anything to do with them? They ARE our brethren, and we are in no position to remove their “candlestick.”
I suspect some may want to take issue with this last point. If so, you know where I live.
--Al Diestlekamp, via Think
Matthew, after recording Jesus’ parables of the sower, the wheat and tares, the mustard seed and the leaven hidden in meal, states, “All these things Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: ‘I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world’” (Matt. 13:34-35).
This quotation is taken from Psalm 78:1-2. The prophet was Asaph, mentioned in 2 Chron. 29:30 as “Asaph the seer.” In the original setting, Asaph, by Divine inspiration, was going to utter truths concerning the love and mercy of God in such a way that his words would be remembered and passed on from generation to generation. The truths he was revealing were not totally new or unheard of, but had been scantily understood so that he refers to them as “dark sayings of old.”
Matthew’s use of this Old Testament passage shows that in the use of his parables, Asaph the seer was a type or foreshadow of Jesus, and that Jesus by His use of parables fulfilled or completed the picture begun by the Old Testament prophets.
There are a few details to which we should direct our attention in Matthew’s record. First, let us note that Matthew did not deny that Jesus ever spoke to anybody in clear language, without a parable. I once talked with a gentleman who tried to dismiss virtually everything Jesus ever said by insisting that it was “only a parable,” and he cited this passage to “prove” it. What Matthew tells us is that to this particular multitude in this particular setting, He spoke only in parables. Later, in private, His apostles asked Him for further clarification on two of the parables -- that of the sower and that of the wheat and tares -- and He explained them in clear, literal language. See verses 18-23. We might also note that what He spoke in parables was just as meaningful as what He spoke in plain language, but needs to be applied spiritually, rather than left in the realm of farming, cooking, fishing, &c.
We might also note that much of what Jesus taught had “been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Until Jesus and His apostles made it known, there was no way to know or understand the blessed gospel. The idea that Jesus could die for us and pay the penalty for our sins was suggested prophetically in many Old Testament passages, but was never clearly understood until Jesus Himself began to explain it.
Another aspect of Jesus’ parables is their enduring message -- in most cases, easily remembered, and easily passed on from generation to generation.
--CRJ