The Church is Not Swayed By Society

“You need to get with the times.” Such words are often meant as a rebuke: you are old-fashioned, out of step, or unwilling to accept society’s changing standards. That pressure does not stop at the church door. Culture regularly urges Christians to revise their beliefs, soften difficult teachings, and treat popular opinion as the final authority. Yet Scripture calls the church to a different path. Romans 12:2 says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind.” God’s Word, not society, must shape the church. 

The Bible repeatedly shows the danger of wanting to be like everyone else. In 1 Samuel 8, Israel demanded a king “like all the nations.” Though warned that a king would take their sons, daughters, land, and wealth, they refused to listen. Their desire to imitate surrounding nations became a rejection of God’s rule. During Samson’s time, Israel had become so comfortable under Philistine domination that its people tried to restrain the man God raised up to begin their deliverance (Judges 13:5; 15:7–12). Later, idolatry brought devastating consequences because God’s people adopted the practices of their neighbors.

Christians are likewise called to remain distinct. Second Corinthians 6 contrasts righteousness with lawlessness, light with darkness, and the temple of God with idols. Separation from worldly values does not mean withdrawing from people or behaving with hostility. It means refusing to let sin become normal simply because society approves it. 

We cannot love the world’s rebellious ways and love the Father at the same time (1 John 2:15). The church must do more than resist culture; it must influence culture for good. Jesus calls His disciples the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13–16). Salt changes what it touches, and light is visibly different from darkness. Our distinctiveness is not intended to draw attention to ourselves, but to lead others to glorify God. 

That influence is expressed in everyday conduct. Paul urges believers to live quietly, mind their own affairs, work faithfully, and behave properly toward outsiders (1 Thessalonians 4:9–12). Our speech should be gracious and wise, and our lives should be honorable even among those who disagree with us (Colossians 4:5–6; 1 Peter 2:11–12). 

Customs differ across places and generations, but culture never outranks Scripture. God calls His people out of the world so they can become a holy influence within it. The church is right not to be swayed by society. Instead, it must be shaped by Christ, governed by His Word, and faithful as salt and light. The question for each of us is simple: Are we being conformed to the world, or transformed into the likeness of Jesus? — Dale J. Babinsky

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC—NOT IN THE EARLY CHURCH

Early in my ministry a new couple visited our congregation, and as soon as they were seated, I saw her pointing to the front, and they immediately left.  There was nothing up front that was odd, but it was obviously the absence of what she thought ought to have been there—a piano or organ 

 While the Jews in the Old Testament  used instruments in the worship, they are absent from Christian worship in the New Testament, though “sing” and “singing” are found seven times.  The playing on an instrument in worship, however, is not found.  Bear in mind that Jesus commissioned His apostles to teach the baptized to “observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).  Old Testament rites were then obsolete, and the words of Christ and His apostles took their place—so, no more animal sacrifice, burning of incense, and instrumental music.  By Christ’s authority, the apostle Paul instructed Christians, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).  The melody God desires is in our hearts, not in our instruments.  The words that we sing vocally must be accompanied by the instrument of our hearts.  It is as Jesus defined the ’true worshipper’  as the one that shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such hto worship him,  God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24).  “In spirit” goes beyond what comes from our lips to what comes from our hearts, and “in truth” denotes worship in harmony with the truth of His word, as Jesus defined it in His prayer in for His followers the garden of Gethsemane: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth> (John 17:17).  As Paul defined such truth to the young evangelist Timothy, he pointed him to the word of God, saying, “All scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous ness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

The New Testament scriptures , while giving examples of singing, it is silent on any instruments used in worship.  Early Christian writers stood unanimously anti-instrument,  With a computer, one can “Search” for “Instrumental music not in Christian worship” and read quotes from such writers of those days in defense of singing while opposing instruments.  Historically, churches sang acapella, meaning {“as in the chapel or church’.  It was several hundred years before churches introduced an instrument.  Even in The Reformation Movement, denominational ministers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin spoke out for acapella singing alone.  As denominations have liberalized, fhey drifted from the scriptures to make their services more entertaining with instruments. 

The issue is apparent.  Should churches decide what they like to please themselves, or to please God by following the Bible?  When Jesus prayed to the Father, saying “Thy word is truth.” He was reminding us that truth is determined by God, not to determine it by our preferences.   

–Ron Bartanen

 

LIVING AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS

A friend of mine used this phrase as I departed his place of business. The first time I heard it, I

reflected on my life in relation to the cross. To think about the cross or mentioning our living at its foot is not saying anything about the cross itself. The two wooden beams meant nothing. The emphasis, of course, is on Jesus who hung on the cross. Peter puts it this way: “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet 2:24 NKJV).

Living at the foot of the cross should cause us to reflect on the fact that Christ was on that cross bearing the sins of mankind. He did it for me. If I was the only person who ever lived, I am convinced He still would have done it. It was in God’s eternal plan (Eph. 3:8,9). Living our life at the foot of the cross means we consider what Christ did and how it applies to my life. The writer of Hebrews suggest we look at what Christ did on the cross and his attitude toward his suffering: “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. For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls” (Heb 12:2,3 NKJV). The joy is not in His suffering, but in its outcome—the salvation of all men. Paul elaborates in Phil. 2:5-11 as he begins that section of Scripture with the phrase, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” (v. 5)

Living at the foot of the cross means we are focused on Christ. There were three crosses on Calvary. Jesus was on the middle cross. There may be some significance to that. The eyes of those watching the crucifixion would have been on that middle cross. Paul further encourages us by writing, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col.3:1,2). He is no longer on the cross, but at the right hand of Father ruling over His kingdom.

Looking up from the foot of the cross should us to put our lives in the proper perspective and live our lives Christ centered and Christ based. Are you living at the foot of the Christ and thinking about your life and your relationship with Him? If not, start today to live at the foot of the cross and put to death daily those things that will prevent you from be with Christ one day.

-Bill Brandstatter 

Evangelistic Oversight

Is “evangelistic oversight” a teaching in the New Testament? It is not, though some strongly affirm it is a New Testament teaching. AI’s CoPilot said this about the doctrine: “Evangelistic oversight is a man‑made doctrine—primarily found in some Churches of Christ—that teaches the preacher (evangelist) has ruling authority over the local congregation, including authority over elders when present. All three major sources agree that this doctrine is unscriptural, historically recent, and rooted in misinterpretations of a few New Testament passages.”

Evangelistic oversight, as a doctrine, is precisely the same as the denominational doctrine of a “pastor” leading a congregation. There is as much authority from God for the “pastor” system of church government as there is for the doctrine known as “evangelistic oversight.”  In other words, the adherents of “evangelistic oversight” have no credible ground upon which to stand in opposition to the denominational “pastor” system. None!

In the New Testament, the leaders of the congregation, as set forth by God’s divine will, is for Christian men to serve as presbyters (also known as pastors, elders, bishops, overseers). From the teachings of Scripture, the spiritual leadership of the congregation resides in the shepherds, the elders. They lead the congregation in spiritual matters not business matters, for the apostles appointed 7 men to do that in Acts 6. This is not to say elders have no role in matters pertaining to the physical realm of individuals or even the congregation as a whole, but it is to say delegation works best when men (deacons / servants) are trusted to serve in this role.

Does the preacher / evangelist have any role in ordaining men into positions of leadership? He does. Notice: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge” (Titus 1:5, ASV). This means he has a God-ordained role in appointing, ordaining, recognizing men in positions of leadership. That role is not oversight, but appointment, a recognition of men put in position to lead the congregation. The preacher is, naturally, a spiritual leader in the congregation, but not the spiritual leader, but one among the others who serve as bishops. RT

OUR ENEMY’S REAL STRENGTH: DECEIT

In May 1863, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, with a worn out band of less than 600 soldiers, managed to talk 1,466 Federal troops into surrendering to him. How? He created a convincing illusion.

Union Colonel Abel Streight’s men were being doggedly pursued by Forrest’s cavalry. The men became so tired they could not stay awake to fight or even eat. Forrest demanded that Streight surrender. Streight initially refused, unless it could be proved that he was outnumbered. At this point, two pieces of Confederate artillery came into sight. Unknown to Streight, these were the only two cannons Forrest had on hand. Forrest gave a knowing nod to one of his captains, who had the cannons removed from sight. As minutes ticked by, Streight watched with mounting agitation as the same two cannons were pushed into his view, only to be pulled back and then made to reappear at another place. Finally, Streight exclaimed, “How many guns have you got? There’s fifteen I’ve counted already!” To that, Forrest nonchalantly replied, “I reckon that’s all that has kept up.”

To magnify the illusion, Forrest began giving orders to his captain which were to be relayed to phantom units that did not even exist. Taking their cue from this trickery, the few Confederate troops Forrest had began marching into and out of Streight’s line of vision, giving him the appearance of greater numbers than actually existed. So, even though Streight’s men outnumbered Forrest’s by more than two to one, the Union troops surrendered, thanks to quick thinking and ingenious deceit on the Rebels’ part (see Nathan Bedford Forrest, A Biography by Jack Hurst, pp. 123-124).

What’s the point? The Devil is a master of illusion. Though he is pure evil, he can nevertheless give the appearance of being an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). He can make the righteous feel outnumbered, outgunned, and overpowered, when such is not the case at all. He can talk us into surrendering on his terms by getting us to overlook the vast spiritual resources God puts at our disposal.

Long ago, the prophet Elisha was surrounded by a Syrian army bent on his capture (2 Kings 6:8-17). Elisha was not bothered by this, but his servant was greatly distressed. Elisha told his servant, “Fear not; for they that are with us are more than they that are with them.” Elisha then prayed for God to open the eyes of his servant so he could see what Elisha already saw. God did so, and the servant was able to see “the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” God had the matter well in hand, and was more than able to conquer the Syrians, which he did. Elisha’s servant gained a new perspective that he must have carried the rest of his life. He learned the enemy’s strength was illusory, and that, if God is for you, there is more power at work than can be defeated. And there is more to a battle than meets the eye.

So the next time you feel surrounded and outnumbered, don’t surrender. Dig in. After all, “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

Weylan Deaver

Baptism in the New Testament (3)

“Re-Baptism”

In the last two bulletin articles, we learned that baptism by immersion (into water) results in one having his (or her) sins forgiven. This is New Testament teaching; one must submit this teaching of the Lord, as He taught it, to be saved. What if one is convinced their baptism was in accordance with the Lord’s teaching, even though the church from which he or she came does not teach expressly what the New Testament teaches? How is that handled?

On the Friends of the Restoration page (Facebook), a post had been made by one wherein a preacher that lived two centuries ago said even if one was not baptized in the express way the Lord taught, let that baptism (of theirs) stand.

Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such–he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized MERELY {sic} to obtain the remission of sins, mistakes the whole matter … I know some will say that the candidates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time! (“Rebaptism” MH vol 2#11 {November 1831}, 481-485 for the whole article).

This topic has generated a lot of controversary through the years. To begin, it must be understood that to be immersed biblically, one must submit to the teaching of the New Testament as expressly taught. Second, it is imperative that one understands the New Testament on the matter and has an understanding what he or she is doing. When people allow others to teach, even when it is done in all sincerity, what the New Testament does not teach, then understanding is not in place.

So, with the New Testament teaching in place, one is genuinely convinced he or she obeyed the Lord exactly as the Lord taught (even though the preacher / teacher has doubt concerning that), what then? It seems to me there are three options to consider: 1) one can deny the validity of that person’s baptism, insisting he or she was not taught in accordance with New Testament doctrine, perhaps damaging that relationship gained in discussion, 2) the teacher / preacher can accept all that is said and pursue the issue no more, allowing that person’s conviction on the matter to be the truth, 3) the teacher / preacher can set the matter to the side for the moment and let the elders take the lead in how they want to handle it. That which they decide to do, respect it, and be what positive influence you can be going forward.

It is worth remembering here that if one learns the necessity of baptism from the gospel of Mark, John, even Matthew and obeys what is taught in any one of those three, without knowing or understanding additional teachings of the New Testament, then who of us is in position to deny the validity of what was done? Speaking for myself, I won’t.

Getting back to the options to consider, here is how I handle it; I take the third option. In the end, one must decide based on a personal conviction, not a perceived “heavy-handed” pressure application from a preacher / teacher. 

-Ron Thomas 

FROM ATHEIST TO CREATIONIST

If you don’t believe that all of creation had a creator, then the only alternative is to believe in evolution.  Rejecting the idea of “Intelligent Design,” one, of necessity, must believe that all things came into being by unimaginable numbers of happy accidents.  To do so, however, requires that one conveniently ignore facts of science.  Those who advocate the religion of evolution maintain their hold of the public’s minds by declaring evolutionary theories as facts.  Scientists who question these “facts” are ridiculed and often denied positions of influence, such as in schools where evolution is taught as reality, while evidence of creation is never to be voiced.

However, occasionally there are those who value truth above assumptions.  Such is the case with Dr. Jerry Bergman, Adjunct Ph.D, Associate Professor of Toledo Medical College in Ohio, who described his transfer from being an atheist to being a creationist in Acts & Facts Magazine (Feb., 2016).  After graduation from Wayne State University he relates that he was “involved in the atheist movement” for a time.  Along with evolution, he had accepted atheistic philosophy which came with it.  He told of the many lectures given in college supporting not only evolution but also speeches negative to Christianity.  He referred to one speaker who said “we have given Christianity 2,000 years to fix up the world, and it is high time to try atheism.”  Christianity was portrayed as the primary source for all the evils of the world.  He said, “What especially bothered me was that my atheist peers were determined to suppress Christianity by any means, legal or illegal—first by running it from the public square, then in the private domain.  Atheists seemed to feel that the ends justified the means, so they ruthlessly thought to crush Christianity.  I soon realized this goal was evil because in the end it always did more harm than good—and yet it has been tried in many places.”

He relates that he began to see many major problems with evolution and atheism.  Among these is the scientific fact that mutations, which are essential for the evolutionary hypothesis, are 99.9% “neutral, harmful, or lethal,” not beneficial.  He writes, “Consequently there is no way that life could have first evolved 3.5 billion years ago and still be around today because life would have become extinct long ago from genetic meltdown and cell catastrophe.”  He also referred to “the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones that were claimed to be over 65 million years old.  This is a problem because destructive forces such as cosmic rays would have destroyed soft tissue long ago.”  He concluded by saying, “Like many scientists who came before me, I discovered that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible.”  It pains me to think that children in our tax-supported schools and universities are daily shielded from the evidence for creation, and their minds are being warped to accept atheistic philosophy which would darken their minds against God and His word.  Parents who speak out against such are branded as ignorant and even abusive to their children.      

Ron Bartanen