No. 47, February 2001
MY FAVORITE CHRISTMAS CARD
Ouida and I make a big
deal out of the Christmas cards we receive, which are not few in number. We
read them as they arrive, and then go through them again between the holidays
and on into the new year. Letters accompany many of them, and these we read over
again, savoring old friendships and catching up on family news. This ritual
consumes much of our table reading during the holidays. Secret: We prefer
shorter Christmas letters over longer ones! Say it in a page makes a
good rule.
We try to write a few lines
to everyone who sends a card, which is quite an undertaking. Time usually runs
out before we answer them all.
While we didn’t
actually vote on it, I suspect our favorite card this year was the one from
Gov. George W. Bush and Laura. It was unique and unusually well done. The
frontispiece pictured the foyer and winding stairwell of the governor’s
mansion, professionally decorated in yuletide splendor. Inside was an
impressive picture of the governor and Laura with their twin daughters, the
ideal family photo, in color of course.
Along with the
season’s greetings was a biblical quotation (Jer. 29: 13), which reads: “And
you shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all of your heart.”
The Bushes’ selected
passage happens to be one of my favorites, and, when one considers its context,
one of the most significant in the Old Testament. That the card came during the
Florida election drama seemed to enhance its importance to us. And it makes
quite a conversation piece, and provides an excellent entree for laying an
exciting portion of Scripture on people’s hearts. It gives me an opportunity to
point out the big difference between halfhearted and wholehearted devotion to
God.
But most everyone
wanted to know what I was doing getting a Christmas card from the Bushes. That
includes my brother, who is a great Bush supporter. He told me he would die if
Bush wasn’t elected, which added to my interest in the outcome! Thank God for
the Supreme Court, which saved my brother’s life! “My feelings are hurt. Why
didn’t I get a card? ,” he complained. We had a lot of fun over that at our
lunch together on that occasion, and, since we like to talk Scripture, we got
good mileage out of Jer. 29:13.
The passage is part of
a surprise letter the prophet wrote from Jerusalem to the exiles in Babylon.
What was surprising is that he told them to settle in and make the best of a
bad situation, for they were going to be in captivity for a while, for two
generations in fact. God was the cause of their captivity, and after 70 years
he would bring them back home. In the meantime they were to build houses and
live in them, plant gardens and enjoy their fruit.
Moreover, they were to
take wives and rear families. The big surprise was when Jeremiah told them that
God wanted them to “Seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be
carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will
have peace.”
Pray for the
Babylonians? Seek their peace? Quite a contrast to the venom heaped upon them
by others, such as the psalmist who wanted their babies to be dashed against
the rocks (Ps. 137:9).
Some Jews in captivity
moaned: “B y the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we
remembered Zion” (Ps. 137:1). They insisted that they could not sing the songs
of Zion in a strange land. Jeremiah is telling them that there is still hope,
that they need not weep, and that they can sing Zion’s joyous songs in a
foreign land, for God will save them from afar (Jer 30:10). He assures them
that God has given them “a future and a hope” (Jer. 29: 11).
It is in that context
that we have Jer. 29: 13. The Then in verse 12 is not to be made to mean
some future time when they are no longer captives, such as when they return to
their homeland. Then and there in a foreign land, in the heart of pagan
Babylon, they will seek and find the Lord when they search for him with all
their hearts. God is in Babylon with his people as well as in Judea. You can
search for God and find him anywhere! when you search wholeheartedly.
What a glorious truth!
We may be tempted to weep and give up amidst a health crisis or a financial
disaster or the burdens of old age or in a job that has gone sour. Or in the
“captivity” of a dead church or a difficult family situation. But God is with
us in any captivity if we sincerely want him, with all our hearts.
I wrote the president-elect and thanked him
for reminding me of such a powerful biblical truth, and that I was sharing it
with others, urging it as a goal for a new year, a new century, and a new
millennium: Wholehearted devotion to God!
Seeking to reciprocate in some measure, I
cited a quote from American presidential history for what it might mean to our
new president. When Abraham Lincoln left Springfield for Washington in 1861 to
take office as the 16th president at a time when the nation was tragically
divided, he was asked about the overwhelming task he faced. He replied:
“Without divine assistance, I cannot succeed. With it I cannot fail.”
May the divine wisdom
of Jeremiah and Lincoln be with our new president and provide him divine
assistance as he assumes his task as our 43rd president, so that he cannot
fail. And with us all, so that we cannot fail. – Leroy
IS BLINDNESS EXCUSABLE?
If the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.
– Mt. 15:14
Are we to understand
that Jesus is here saying, as some claim, that blindness is no excuse, that the
blind leader and the blind follower are both condemned? Falling into a ditch is
interpreted as condemnation, and the blind will be there along with all the
ungodly. Pity the blind!
This view does not
square with what our Lord elsewhere says, where blindness appears to be
excusable, such as John 9:41: “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but
now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.”
This is part of the
story of the healing of the blind man, which depicts the Pharisees as wilfully
rejecting what Jesus had done, even to the point of abusing the man who was
healed. Their obstinacy led Jesus to say an amazing thing: “For judgment I have
come into the world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see
may be made blind” (John 9:39).
Jesus came to make
blind those who see? This must mean that Jesus caused those who were wilfully blind,
but who professed to be enlightened, to face up to their blindness, even
against their will. This is why, when the Pharisees heard Jesus say this,
protested, “Are we blind also?”
This is where Jesus
uses “blind” in different senses. If they were blind through no fault of their
own, unwillingly blind, they had no sin, or their blindness was excusable. But
since they professed to be enlightened when they were actually wilfully blind,
they were not excused and therefore in sin.
So Jesus makes a vital
distinction, one that we should find liberating. There is a vast difference
between circumstantial ignorance/blindness and negligent ignorance/blindness.
Many people are ignorant/blind through the circumstance of birth, poverty, lack
of education, oppression. They may have open minds, a love for truth, and a
heart for God, but have lacked opportunity. The (physically) blind man that
Jesus healed had such character. But others, like the Pharisees who opposed
Jesus, were (spiritually) blind because they had closed minds and did not want
the truth.
When Jesus says he
came to judge such ones, he meant he came to draw this distinction and reveal
blindness for what it is, excusable or inexcusable. Some don’t want to see and are
therefore blind even while they claim to have the truth. Others would see but
can’t due to circumstances beyond their control. Jesus’ judgment made clear
this distinction.
It is an old story: Some
who could won’t, some who would can’t. It is sometimes called the principle
of variable accountability.
The teacher sees it in
the classroom. She judges her pupils differently because the circumstances are
different. One student’s C may be more praiseworthy than another’s A. Variable
accountability leads parents to make allowances for one child while demanding
more of another, even when they grow up in the same environment.
It explains why Jesus
in Mark 12:43 would say that the poor widow put more into the treasury than all
the others, while in fact she had given only two mites. Jesus looked at both
the heart and the circumstances and judged accordingly. The widow gave out of
her poverty, the others from their abundance. Variable accountability.
Consider this thesis: In
Scripture and before God both commendation and condemnation are always matters
of the heart.
The Bible always distinguishes between errors
of the mind and errors of the heart. It never condemns one who is honestly
mistaken or sincerely in error. It always condemns pride, insincerity, arrogance,
and a closed mind. These are sins of the heart, and are very serious. But
sincere people may often be wrong, and yet pleasing to God. It is the honest
and good heart that God wants, not a perfect report card.
Alexander Campbell
recognized this when he made sincerity the basis of acceptance to God. He
illustrated this in an imaginary conversation between Luther and a monk named
Erastian. The monk was surprised that Luther believed his parents were in
heaven, having died in the Roman church. Erastian wanted to know why Luther was
causing such a fuss over all of Europe if people could be saved in the Roman
church.
Campbell has Luther
explain that while his parents could be saved in the Roman church he could not
be. His parents sincerely followed such light as they had; but he has more
light than they, and therefore a greater responsibility.
To put all this
another way, the Scriptures never condemn the unbeliever, one who has never
heard. It is the disbeliever that is condemned, one who hears and understands
the gospel but rejects it.
This is why Paul could
say, “I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man, but I
obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief’ (l Tim. 1:13). The
distinction is crucial: He had been a sincere unbeliever, not a insincere
disbeliever. The apostle insisted that he had always been sincere, “living
in all good conscience before God,” even when he got slapped in the mouth for
saying it (Acts 23:1). And this is why he received mercy, he says.
Paul is saying that he
was formerly blind, but he received sight because he sincerely wanted to see.
This means that “the blind that leads the blind” that Jesus spoke of had a
different kind of heart than Paul. It is the insincere who have closed minds and
closed hearts that will end up in the ditch.
This is what God said
through the prophets long before: “This is the person to whom I will look, the
one who is of a humble and contrite heart and reverences my word” (Is. 66:2).
Understand, one with a humble and contrite heart might at any given time be in
error about a lot of things. But as the light breaks, he follows; as he learns
more truth, he responds to it.
This is why we should
be slow to judge the multitudes of the world who do not yet have the light we
suppose ourselves to have, presuming them to be lost. The Bible assures us that
“It is required of a person according to what he has, not according to what he
has not” (2 Cor. 8: 12).
It was this principle
that led Alexander Campbell to define a Christian in less than absolute terms,
to the consternation of his legalistic followers: “A Christian is one who
believers that Jesus is the Christ, repents of his sins, and obeys him in all
things according to his understanding.”
One can walk only in
the light that he or she has. We are all “blind” about some things. May we have
such a hunger for more light that our blindness will always be unwillingly, and
our errors always errors of the mind (understanding) and never errors of the
heart! – Leroy
OUR UNDOING: MULTIPLYING ESSENTIALS
Our Restoration
history makes this proposition a truism: the multiplying of essentials
causes division.
In 1889 at Sand Creek, Illinois Daniel Sommer
derailed the Stone-Campbell movement as a unity movement when he withdrew
fellowship from a large segment of the movement over a new list of essentials.
Up until then our folk set the parameters of fellowship where Alexander
Campbell did: in the “seven ones” of Eph. 4. He would often summarize them into
three: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
That was it, those
were the essentials. There might be a thousand opinions (theology) about those
“seven facts,” as Campbell called them, but it was belief in the facts that
unite us, not the opinions or the theology about the facts.
At Sand Creek, in a
document known as the “Address and Declaration,” Sommer multiplied the
essentials to include a rejection of instrumental music, societies, choirs,
preacher-pastors, “and other objectional and unauthorized things.” The document
ruled that those who after due admonition persist in such things “we will not
regard them as brothers.”
Within three years
Sommer could report in his paper that the Sand Creek document was being
accepted and that the Church of Christ would soon be clearly distinct from the
Christian Church, and he added a “Hallelujah” to the announcement.
It was the first time
in our history that lines of fellowship were drawn over what had long been accepted
as opinions. In multiplying the essentials Sommer narrowed the parameters of
fellowship and created a faction. In our ensuing history other essentials were
added, creating still more factions. They included injunctions relative to
Sunday Schools, the millennium, serving the Supper, colleges, congregational
cooperation, even divorce and remarriage. As essentials were multiplied the
Movement fractured more and more.
To his credit Sommer
had a change of heart in his latter years. In another document called “The
Rough Draft” he rejected Sand Creekism by shortening his list of essentials and
seeking unity between Churches of Christ and Christian Churches.
The lesson is clear: the
shorter the list of essentials the more inclusive we will be; the more we
multiply essentials the more exclusive we will be. Since we are under the
mandate to “Receive one another even as Christ has received you, to the glory
of God” (Rom. 15:7), it seems that we should seek the fewest essentials
possible so as to have the broadest fellowship possible.
But we must always be
captives of the Word. The Bible must set the basis for acceptance. What saith
the Scriptures? Looking to what is written, Campbell’s answer was “So long as
they hold fast the Head who is Christ.” Stone believed that we should accept
all those who are loyal and faithful to Christ, each according to his
understanding.
Jesus’ own answer is
surely best of all: “If anyone desires to follow me ….” (Lk. 9:23). We will not
err when we accept those who have a heart to follow after Christ. They may be
wrong about some things, but weren’t we when Christ accepted us? Their
obedience may be imperfect, but was not ours?
Whatever may be
lacking when we accept them, including a mistaken view of baptism, we can work
it out in an atmosphere of acceptance. Our Lord may have reduced the essentials
more than any of us, even to a bare minimum. He seemed willing not only to
accept those who were for him, but even those who were not against him! (Mk.
9:40). – Leroy
Between Us
...
In January Ouida and I
were with the Amite Church of Christ in Louisiana where Don McGee ministers.
This congregation is part of the rich tradition of premillennial Churches of
Christ that have a long and admirable history in Louisiana. They so believe in
the soon-return of Christ that it is evident in their public prayers,
conversation, and teaching. Even thanksgiving at meals is likely to include a
“Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus.” This is conspicuously absent in other of our
congregations, where we appear to have forgotten about “the promise of his
coming.” The Amite congregation beautifully reflects the likeness of Christ in
their lives. Some remembered when I last visited them 27 years ago in company
with David Reagan. One sister had recorded that event in her Bible!
Since we were to fly
into New Orleans for the trip to Amite, we thought we’d go a day early and walk
the French Quarter once more. Mostly my idea. We had a hotel right on Bourbon
Street. Ouida’s verdict on the Quarter: It is overrated, and dirty beside, its
more than one way! I did not make it to the topless bar across from our hotel,
but I did enjoy walking Jackson Square and watching the artists. And the
restaurants are as interesting as they are expensive.
Also in January I did
a series on Wednesday nights on our Restoration heritage at the Garden Ridge
Church of Christ in Lewisville, Tx., which is only 12 miles from our home. Mike
Danchak, who is himself a Restoration history enthusiast, is the pulpit
minister of this growing, dynamic congregation. I am impressed with their
epigram, which is included in the masthead of their bulletin: “. . . a body of
God’ s people where each person is being continually transformed into the
likeness of Christ.” I told them that that would delight our pioneers,
particularly Barton Stone and Walter Scott.
I will speak at the
South Louisville Christian Church in Louisville, Ky. on March 7 and at the
Portland Ave. Church of Christ in the same city on March 11. In between I will
give the spring lectures for the School of Biblical Studies, also in
Louisville, at the Southeast Church of Christ. For info on the Louisville
programs contact Alex Wilson at 502-897-2831.
On Palm Sunday, April
8, I will speak at First Christian Church (Disciples) in Perry, Mo. On same day
Dale Jorgensen will conduct a Palm Sunday musical concert, an annual affair
that is gloriously edifying. For info call Pale at 660-665-8575 or 573-565-3306.
There
is renewed interest in the psalms these days, including Churches of Christ. For
a fresh look from a scholar who is excited about the psalms we recommend The
Psalms: An Introduction by James L. Crenshaw of Duke. There is an in-depth
study of four psalms (24, 71, 73, 115), and a general introduction to the book
as a whole, providing insights for better understanding. $15 postpaid.
The Crux of the
Matter: Crisis, Tradition, and the Future of Churches of Christ will be off
the press in mid-February. Three seminal thinkers are raising vital issues
about our people, such as who we are and what is our future. They are Jeff
Childers, Doug Foster, and Jack Reese. It promises to be a good read. $14
postpaid.
Help My Unbelief by
Fleming Rutledge is another book that challenges both heart and intellect. A
woman, and she pulls no punches! Ideal for those who have problems with their
faith, but it also strengthens a sound faith. $22 postpaid.
During 40 years of
publication we issued upwards of 400 issues of Restoration Review, a
journal of 20 pages. We once had these available in bound volumes, but no
longer. But we do have upwards of 100 different issues, loose copies from some
25 of those years, but no complete sets. We’ll send you one each of all that we
have, around 100, for $25 postpaid. For a smaller sampling: 15 issues selected
at random, $5 postpaid.
We still have copies
of Carl Ketcherside’s The Twisted Scriptures. $9 postpaid.
We have copies of Bill
Bennett’s The Moral Compass and The Book of Virtues that are rich
resources for family values. $25 each postpaid is a reduced price.
Chaplain Talmadge
McNabb, 1 Springfield Rd., Brown Mills, NJ 00015, is looking for bound or loose
copies of Bible Talk, which I published 1952-57.