Yes, it is that time of the year where the winter clothes are put away and the summer clothing comes out (what little there is). It used to be that skimpy clothing was only worn on the beach. This is no longer true as similar attire can be found at the grocery story, on the street and even at school. Sadly, the line between the way saints dress and the way the worldly dress seems increasingly less distinct.

The obvious reason has to do with conformity (Rom. 12:1-2). When the majority of the world approves of immodest apparel, those opposed are viewed as oddballs, weird, strange or out of touch. Christians are viewed this way because they are making a big deal out of that which is not a big deal to the ungodly.

Children of God should not just to familiarize themselves with I Timothy 2:9 but need to actually think about what it means. If someone were to ask you, “What is immodest apparel?” most people would probably name revealing articles of clothing. This response is not wrong, but we should give the issue a little more thought so we can understand what God views as immodest apparel and why He is concerned with it.

Consider the word licentiousness (lasciviousness in some translations) (Gal. 5:19). This term helps explain the concept of “immodest apparel” and is described as a work of the flesh. The word means filthy, unbridled lust, shamelessness, wantonness. Also the idea of exciting disgust. This not only has to do with moving one’s body to incite such feelings but also with what one wears.

Those wearing immodest apparel may argue that they cannot control those lusting after them. There is some truth to this, but those who lust after others are without excuse (Matt. 5:28). It is naïve to think that what we wear or do not wear will not impact how we are viewed. Remember, there is such thing as the attire of a harlot (Prov. 7:10). As the temperatures rise, may we all remember who we are and how we are to let our light shine (Matt. 5:13-16).

Chuck 

Over the years people have posed many hypothetical situations to me to get me to admit there are exceptions to the rule. They argue this on the assumption that if there is an exception to the rule, then the rule is invalid. This logic is simply not Biblical.

For example, the Bible clearly reveals that when people want to become a Christian they ought to be baptized immediately (Acts 2:42; 8:36; 22:16). But what if someone is in prison and there is no place to baptize them right away – does the prisoner invalidate his baptism by making arrangements with the prison officials? Of course not! The individual wants to be baptized right away but cannot, so he is immediately doing what he can to set up the baptism. This exception does not invalidate the rule.

What about the subject of divorce and remarriage? The Lord makes it clear that husbands and wives ought to remain married for life (Rom. 7:2).  This is true even if one is a Christian and the other is not (I Cor. 7:12-14). The only way anyone could remarry, according to the Lord, is if the mate dies or if a spouse is unfaithful. In the case of adultery, the innocent party can put the guilt away. Only the innocent can remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

When you show people that the only divorce sanctioned by the Lord is caused by adultery, all kinds of hypothetical situations are posed. What if the husband is beats the wife and kids? What if the husband abandons the wife? Is divorce permissible in these cases?

What does the Bible say about the husband that beats the wife? In Romans 13:3-4, the apostle Paul told the brethren that governing authorities are to be a help to those who do right. They are also there to punish those who do evil. If you and your children are being harmed, it is your right to be protected. Being separated from your mate for a period of time is approved by God (I Cor. 7:5). (This text was specifically dealing with a mutual agreement to separate for a time to devote self to fasting and prayer).

What if a mate abandons their spouse or family? Paul wrote that the loyal mate is not under bondage to them (I Cor. 7:15). In other words, they are not obligated to grab the children and chase them from one state to another. If they want to leave, let them leave. But again, the rule of divorce does not change.

Whether we are talking about baptism, marriage or any other law of the Lord, it is easy to come up with unlikely, hypothetical situations. You might even be aware of a few truthful, unusual circumstances. Still, there is no getting around what the Bible teaches. It is good for couples to work out their differences. God’s stance on divorce has not changed even though most people disregard what He has said.

Attempting to be exempted from God’s word is a waste of time. It is like when someone mentions Proverbs 22:6 and tells me that if a child is trained up properly, they will be faithful to the Lord. This is often true, but finding an exception to the rule does not mean the rule should be discarded.

Keep in mind, that there isn’t really any exception to the rule. To train a child up in the way of the Lord, and when they are faithful, the rule is true. When you teach someone incarcerated and they want to be baptized immediately, the rule is still true. When a mate is put out of harms way, yet their mate still hasn’t committed adultery, the rule is still true. Let’s not fall for the vain attempts to justify not doing what we are told in the word of God.

                                                                                          Chuck

Ever notice how easy it is to look like the bad guy when someone is in the wrong and you point it out? As you read through Paul’s short letter to the Galatian brethren, you cannot help but feel bad for him.

This letter was written by godly inspiration to help the brethren stay faithful and beware of evil influences (Gal. 1:6-9). You really get an idea of what the apostle was going through when he stated, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). Understand that the impact of those words are magnified when we note the attitude the brethren had towards Paul at one time. In the previous verse, the apostle said that there was a time that the brethren there would have plucked their own eyes out for him (verse 15).  

We might think that we can handle rebukes from someone that we care for. Maybe, but maybe not. Do not think that it becomes easier to accept correction from someone because you are close to them. When pointing out error, our ultimate goal should always be to do the will of God. Therefore, if we are told that we are coming up short in our service to the Lord, we should gladly accept what we are told by recognizing that it is a message from the one who we want to please (Heb. 11:6).

Contrast the reaction to the rebuke Peter gave Simon (Acts 8:20-24) and the rebuke Stephen gave to a crowd of Jews who claimed to be very religious (Acts 7:51-59). More often than not, we should be prepared for unkind words after rebuking someone. This harsh feedback often causes the person offering correction to doubt themselves, their approach, etc.

We certainly need to use good judgment when correcting others, but those who want to go to heaven will also want people to be open and honest with them. Criticism is not always an easy pill to swallow, but I pray that we do not fall victim to wanting it always sugar coated!

Chuck

During discussions about the church, people have occasionally told me that Alexander Campbell started the church of Christ in the 1800s. How do you answer this? This is a great question and with any good Bible question, we shall do our best to give it a Bible-based answer.

Before I get into the scriptures, let me give a brief history lesson about Alexander Campbell. Alexander’s father (Thomas) was a Presbyterian preacher. Thomas was dissatisfied with the Presbyterian beliefs and desired a more Biblically-oriented belief system. Alexander was also a Presbyterian and had similar concerns about the group’s teachings.

Alexander soon joined a local Baptist church. The longer he preached, the more convinced he became that there should not be any religious sects and that we should simply be Christians (Acts 11:26). This drove a wedge between him and the Baptists. Eventually, Campbell came across an independent group called the Disciples of Christ. Alexander Campbell’s plea was that of his father: “Where the scriptures speak, we speak, where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

I say all of this to point out that Alexander Campbell, like some before him and some after him, encouraged people to get back to the scriptures. Nobody alive in the last several hundred years can reinvent the wheel though. This is to say that no matter what Campbell did, he was not going to be able to start the church of Christ. Alexander Campbell could not have founded the church of Christ because Jesus did that roughly 1700 years before Alexander was born (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).

What is a good way to answer the accusation that Alexander Campbell started the church of Christ?  I would start by reading the verses that were listed in the previous paragraph and then consider the travels of Paul in the book of Acts. People should see that when Paul went into a city, he taught the gospel, converted people and helped establish local churches (Acts 15:41; 16:5; etc.).

Remember that when Paul traveled to these different cities, he went into the synagogues to teach. This indicates that these cities already contained religious people doing what they thought was right in the sight of God. Those who accepted the teachings Paul spoke were converted (Acts 18:8). What would people, who rejected what Paul taught, say about him? Could they accuse him of starting his own religious sect? They could, but they would be wrong.

I do not want to leave the impression that I am putting Alexander on par with Paul. What I am saying is that neither Paul nor Alexander Campbell could start the church of Christ. There were some in the first century that wanted to put Paul in a position of authority that only belonged to Christ (I Cor. 1:11-14). You cannot stop people from believing and teaching things that are wrong. I am no more a member of a church that was started by Alexander Campbell than I am of one started by the apostle Paul!

If some man establishes a religious organization rather than seeking only the one that was established by Christ, that organization is a religious sect ( a denomination, if you will). Whether you talk about the Presbyterian Church or the Baptist Church, neither one were started by Christ. The churches that follow Christ are of the church that belongs to Christ (Rom. 16:16). This question is important for all of us – do you belong to the church you read about in the Bible, or do you belong to one you read about in some history book that was created by some man?

Chuck

There is no question that our Lord does not want anyone to perish (II Pet. 3:9). Even so, if you read that passage in Peter, you will note that it ended by saying “…but that all should come to repentance.” Was this talking about those who are not Christians?  No, he is talking about all people.

There is not enough space in this bulletin to list all the Biblical references that deal with the need for Christians to repent, but here are a few to read carefully: Rev. 2:5, II Cor. 7:9, Acts 8:22. Seeing that the Bible obviously requires Christians to repent, we can logically conclude that it would be wrong to say that a group of religious people are okay with God just because they call themselves a church.

We cannot consider all religious groups faithful because there is a God-given standard. Without a standard, churches would never need to be rebuked. Everybody can recognize that there are differences between today’s sects. Therefore, these differences mean that someone is wrong or all are wrong. They logically cannot mean that all are right. Because of the God-given standard, we must agree (Gal. 1:6-9; I Cor. 1:10).

As an example of how we must agree, notice what Paul told the church at Corinth. Paul spoke on the subject of giving and mentioned that he was telling them the same thing he taught the other churches of Galatia (I Cor. 16:1). An inspired apostle was not to instruct one church to do something the others were not also expected to do.

If we are adamant about our faith and yet refuse to say that others are wrong, we could be implying that our own group is actually wrong. If we insist that our religious group has the truth and yet still refuse to say others are wrong, we are indicating that we have misunderstood the nature of God’s word.

Nobody can be considered faithful that is not abiding in the doctrine of Christ (II John 9). It may be common to hear the idea, “Let’s agree to disagree” but that is not sanctioned by the Lord. As the head of His church, Jesus demands the church to be the pillar and ground of truth (I Tim. 3:15). Folks might gather to worship God, but their gathering must be right in His sight or else they are gathering for the worse, not the better (I Cor. 11:17-19).

Personally, I have more respect for the denominational church that claims they have the truth and others are wrong than I do for a group that says everyone is okay. To be clear, I am saying that I respect their position – I am not saying they are right with the Lord simply because they took a stand. My point is that we all must be willing to claim we have the truth and be willing to study with those who oppose. However, most groups shy away from controversy by not taking a stand and instead choose to be “politically correct.” Remember, Jesus was crucified because he exposed false teaching (Luke 22:1-2).

This article is not to be construed as permission to hate people or religious groups. There is no room for self-righteous attitudes. We are to love all people just as the Father and the Son did (John 3:16). Exposing error is NOT the same as constructing walls. We are ty identify the walls that already exist whether or not people want to acknowledge them. There is a big difference between having unlawful hate in one’s heart and hating every false way (Psa. 119:104).

It would be wonderful if one church was as good as another. If that were really true though, none of the epistles in the New Testament would have been written. Both warnings and rebukes are necessary to stay true to God’s standard (II Tim. 4:2).

Chuck