Character and Leadership
Kerry Duke

They call it the character issue. It concerns whether or not a person's character has anything to do with his manner of leading other people. Some say there is little or not relationship between the two, the implication being that a man of worthless character can do just as good a job in leading others as a man of upright character. As long as the leader is doing his job, they contend, what he does in his private life does not matter.

This thinking is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of leadership. Leadership, particularly in the home, the church, the school and the government, is not just getting others to perform certain tasks. It is leading others to have the right attitudes. The leader must try to instill these attitudes in the people he leads by his words and his life. If he has these attitudes himself, they will be displayed naturally and spontaneously, and his followers usually quickly and unknowingly absorb them. This subtle transfer of attitudes and values is a critical aspect of leadership. A leader with noble character builds the same in others; a leader of base character influences others to be unprincipled.

In some occupations and even in some areas of leadership, character may not be as important. A construction foreman does not necessarily have to possess moral integrity in order to erect buildings and pave highways. He may be a philandering drunkard, but he still gets these jobs done. Even in his case, however, this lack of principles will eventually create confusion and even disaster in his life and in the lives of his workers.

Who would argue that the character of lack of character of Old Testament kings did not affect the nations over which they ruled? David inspired loyalty in his followers. Solomon instilled peace and justice in Israel. Josiah instituted an unparalleled reform in Judah. Their goodness was not appreciated by all, but it was imitated by many. On the other hand, "The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted" (Ps. 12:8). The wickedness of Ahab and Jezebel and the viciousness of Manasseh are striking examples of this verse. King Solomon often stressed the importance of character in rulers: "It is an abomination to kings to work wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness" (Prov. 16:12). "Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy" (Prov. 20:28). "Take away the wicked from before the kind, and his throne shall be established in righteousness" (Prov. 25:5). "The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it" (Prov. 29:4).

To maintain that good character is not essential to good leadership is absurd. It ignores a well-known statement of Solomon: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). A greedy person does not just hurt himself; he hurts others, especially his own family. "He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house" (Prov. 15:27). One who loves glory causes strife and division in the church (III John 9-10). Likewise, a selfish and immoral ruler encourages wickedness in his subjects. Who would deny that a ruler who has deep racial prejudice has a character flaw? Who would respect a president who hates women? Of course, some would object that these personal views would affect his treatment of others, and that is precisely the point. President Clinton's disregard for truth, his disrespect for his marriage vows, and his lack of self-discipline only encourage an already undisciplined and disrespectful culture to remain in that condition or to become worse.

The implications of this idea are ridiculous. Would those who promote it be concerned if their president were a homosexual or a transvestite? Would they be bothered if he was a member of the Nation of Islam? Would it matter to them if he engaged in sorcery and devil worship? Would they trust a man who wasted 90 percent of his income on gambling? After all, these are private, individual decisions, and if lying and adultery are irrelevant to good leadership, then so are these.

Do advocates of this view actually believe that the only real difference between Lincoln and Hitler or Washington and Stalin was their varying abilities to craft and implement national and international policies? I hope they do not. But the complacency of many in this country toward corruption at high levels is frightening. One young lady in Nashville, Tennessee, called a local radio talk show the day following President Clinton's "confession" and said, "I wish they would just let him alone . . . all he did was have sex in the White House"!

What these people are really saying is that as long as they get what they want for the present, they don't care what their leaders do. As long as the economy is strong, as long as they enjoy life, let them alone. Forget about the need for self-discipline. Forget about the weakening of the nation brought about by character-less leaders and national moral decay. Just let the boomers and busters have a good time and don't burden them with moral responsibility.

The qualifications for the highest office in the world are mostly character requirements (I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). These passages show that before a man can rule the church as one of its elders, he must rule his house (I Tim. 3:4-5). But before he can rule his house, he must rule himself (I Tim. 3:1-3). If this principle is true of the highest office on earth, it is certainly true of lower offices, including the presidency of the United States of America. Hugo Grotius, whom James Madison called "the father of the modern code of nations," wrote in 1654: "He knows not how to manage a province; nor can he wield a province, that cannot order a city; nor he order a city, that knows not how to regulate a village; nor he a village, that cannot guide a family; nor can that man govern well a family that knows not how to govern himself."¹ J. Wingate Thornton said, "The qualities of a good ruler may be estimated from the nature of a free government. Power being a delegation, and all delegated power being in its nature subordinate and limited, hence rulers are but trustees, and government a trust; therefore fidelity is a prime qualification in a ruler . . ."²

We have reached a frustrating and discouraging point in the history of this country. But remember that while wickedness often reigns in high places, the Most High still rules in the kingdoms of men (Dan. 4:17). In spite of evil leaders, God still looks favorably on citizens who fear Him and keep His commandments. These are the people who preserve our country by causing God's face to continue to shine upon us.

Endnotes
¹Hugo Grotius, cited by Rosalie J. Slater, Teaching and Learning America's Christian History (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1965), p. 69.
²Cited by Verna M. Hall, A Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1966), p. 379.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

There is much double talk going around these days in churches of Christ. Is double talk a new thing? Absolutely not! It has been around ever since false teachers and misled people have been around. Double talk is actually a way of lying and deceiving. Sometimes it is done innocently and sometimes it is done intentionally. Sometimes it takes place when the one doing it does not know what he is talking about like that of a jabbering child or young person.

Let us notice some of this double talk. F. LaGard Smith is perhaps the most outstanding double talker I have ever come across in my entire life. He teaches law at Pepperdine University in California. He has written extensively and has said some good things, but most of the good things he has said have been canceled out by his double talk. He condemns himself by such activity. I wonder if he has ever thought of it this way. I wonder if any double talker has ever thought of being against himself. Let us quote from F. LaGard Smith and let you see just a little bit of the whole lot of double talk he has done.

Smith said: "On one occasion, Paul reminisced about his personal, dramatic, conversion experience and the purpose of his own baptism. He said that Ananias had told him: 'And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name' (Acts 22:16). It is the same for each of us. With the water of baptism, the bridegroom washes away our sins, bathes us in his own purity, and presents us to himself as a righteous bride" (Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony, pp. 24-25). Thus, in this place Smith says we have our sins washed away in baptism.

But look at what he says on page 200 of this same volume: "Do faithful believers who were baptized only as infants stand in eternal jeopardy? Are those who have committed their lives in faithful service to Jesus Christ, but who have never been taught the need for water baptism, spiritually lost? Can it be that those who see baptism as a matter of obedience, but not of salvation, are risking God's judgment? The thought of condemning to hell the vast majority of believers throughout the Christian centuries is one of the most compelling reasons for the recent moratorium on any serious discussion of baptism . . . Is it not enough to leave the judgment to God?" On one hand Smith says water baptism washes our sins away but on the other hand he does not know if it is necessary to save one, a prime example of his double talk.

Notice what brother Smith then says on page 201 of this same book: "None of us can presume to know about the eternal destiny of anyone, on the basis of any question of doctrine—be it predestination, charismatic gifts, the washing of feet, or even baptism." Again Smith is saying that one just might go to heaven without water baptism. He teaches here that one might go to heaven even though he believes the false doctrine of Calvinism, direct operation of the Holy Spirit, miraculous gifts and feet washing as an act of worship. How much further does one have to go before the brethren reject him? Such double talk!

Smith in his book Who Is My Brother? states: "As for the instruments, I tried to content myself with the thought that while everyone else was singing with the instruments, I was singing without them!" (p. 103). Now we have brother LaGard Smith coming up with a rather strange invention. He says he sang with the instrument—but not really because he threw his mind in neutral and believed he was singing without the instrument. Have you ever heard of such nonsense in your life? And from a teacher of law? Notice some more of his double talk. He goes on to say that this bothered him somewhat. But why should it since, according to him, he was not singing with the instrument in his mind, even though his mouth along with his vocal cords were moving at the same pace as that of the little denominational church with which he was worshipping? This sounds like President Clinton's reasoning, doesn't it?

According to brother Smith a man could be robbing a bank—but not really if he would think he was only withdrawing some of his own money from his savings account. Or one could be lying—but not really if he would throw his brain out of gear and just think he was telling the truth. Again, according to LaGard Smith one could be living in adultery—but not really if he would throw his brain out of gear and think his marriage was scriptural and right. On and on we could go with this silly type of thinking. It is plain, downright silly!

All the liberals use double talk. Some of them teach that you must be in the church to be saved but one can be saved outside the church. Some of them teach that they do not believe that instrumental music should be used in worship to God but those who use it will not be condemned. Some of them teach salvation is in Christ but turn right around and say one does not have to be in the Lord's church to be saved. Double talk, double talk, double talk!

Some of our compromising brethren use double talk. They say we should not have fellowship with false teachers and false doctrine but they will appear on programs with false teachers and those who fellowship false teachers. Some will say one may appear on programs with known false teachers but such does not mean they are fellowshipping them. Yet these same brethren will teach that Joe Cook VanDyke of Florence, Alabama was fellowshipping the Methodist church when he met with and spoke for them. Double talk! Yes, false doctrine and taking a false position breeds double talk.

A Letter from brother Hugo McCord

(Editor's note: The following is a letter written to me dated January 11, 1997. I do believe it is the most clear, precise, concise to the point explanation of Scripture I have ever read. I asked brother McCord to explain Ephesians 5:11, Romans 16:17-18 and II John 9-11. Please read it and, as a faithful member of the church, go thou and do likewise. Thanks brother McCord for your scholarship.

Dear Brother Malcolm:

Thanks for your good letter. I rejoice that you take every verse of the Bible seriously.

If Paul were here, I believe he would say that his explanation of Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 16:17-18 was given in I Timothy1:19-20; II Timothy 2:16-17, 4:14.

If John were here, I believe he would say that his explanation of II John 9-11 was given in III John 9-10.

If one holds that "the doctrine of Christ" (II John 9) is an objective genitive, "the doctrine about Christ," misusing v. 7, he nullifies Matthew 7:21; Mark 8:38; Luke 6:46; and John 12:48. If one holds that "the doctrine of Christ" (II John 9) is a subjective genitive, "the doctrine that Christ taught," he makes all Bible verses harmonize.

I do not comprehend how faithful preachers would appear on lectureships with liberal preachers without sounding a protest both to the lectureship director and to the liberal preachers.

Where is the Outrage?
Kerry Duke

People can gradually be conditioned to accept almost anything. The Clinton scandal is a good example. Stories about affairs with other women have surrounded his public image for years. In early 1998 he vehemently denied having an affair with a White House intern. Months later he "confessed" to the affair. In spite of having disgraced the highest office in the nation and having lied to the entire country, he blamed the investigators and refused to resign. Many Americans supported his decision. In an attempt to cause him to resign, Congress released to the American public a flood of detailed, graphic material describing the President's lies, perjury, and adultery. The independent counsel's 400-page report and the videotape of the President's testimony before the grand jury contained explicit descriptions of the President's sexual wrongdoing and clear proof that he lied under oath. Surely, some thought, either he will resign to avoid further embarrassment or the public will be so outraged that they will demand his expulsion from office. But neither occurred. Instead, many Americans made excuses for his behavior or dismissed it as irrelevant to his job.

The release of such material to the public 50 years ago would have shocked America to its moral core. But 50 years ago a common standard of decency and a sense of shame restrained public display or acceptance of such behavior. Similar material would not just have shocked Americans then. It would never have been aired publicly, and this difference explains the current complacent attitude of many in our country.

The rebellion against authority in the 60s and the sexual revolution of the 70s have had a lasting impact on our culture. This effect is especially evident in television. A few decades ago television shows began using more and more profanity. Soap operas became more and more vulgar. Now there is no limit to what can be viewed in the living room by way of television. The restraints of decency and dignity are gone. The most perverted and vile life-styles are portrayed as normal, while honest and upright living is mocked. No longer do people recognize that "it is a shame even to speak of those things that are done of them in secret" (Eph. 5:12).

Do we really wonder why many people are not bothered by the President's behavior? After all, they watch hours of the same or even worse behavior on television every day! How can people who have grown not just to tolerate but also to enjoy watching adultery and lying on television be expected to show outrage over the same in Washington? When the independent counsel's report and the videotape of the President's grand jury testimony were released, warnings were issued regarding the sexually explicit material they contained. But these Warnings meant no more to many Americans than ratings of movies. Americans have grown accustomed to sin. While some were disgusted with the vivid descriptions of the President's adultery, many saw this material as a ho-hum, boring report. Compared to what they see on television, the material seemed mild. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett said that the last 10 to 20 years of television has been a "lead up act" which has softened the American public to excuse the President's behavior.

People have become desensitized by the steady compromise of morals. Their threshold of moral shock is beyond outrage over adultery and lying. Their level of toleration is so high that virtually anything is acceptable. Like many physical illnesses, this condition was not reached overnight. It began when otherwise good people gave in to pressure to be like the world, and it became worse when those same people did not correct this mistake. It continues because few raise their voices against worldly vices and because many enjoy them. The result is a country without shame. Tragically, the words of Isaiah describe many in our society: "they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not" (Isa. 3:9). Godly people share Jeremiah's grief over the degradation of Judah in this age. He asked, "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush" (Jer. 6:15).

The Bible teaches and history confirms that nations which lose their moral foundation are headed for ruin (Ps. 9:17; Prov. 14:34). The only hope for this nation is Christians who preserve an element of moral strength and integrity. We must not be afraid to show outrage over sin. We must brace ourselves against a society that is shocked only when we express shock over sin and that is outraged at us for being outraged over evil. We live in a world where people "call evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20), a world in which men "love darkness rather than light" (John 3:19). By our words and our lives we can make a difference, but only when we remain strong in the Lord and watch for any temptation to compromise. We must test or "prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:21-22). By so doing we will grow in the Lord and avoid being blinded by sin.

An Infidel Who Got His Wish
Kerry Duke

The infamous and blasphemer Robert Ingersoll said, "God cannot send to eternal pain a man who has done something toward improving the condition of his fellow-man. If he can, I had rather go to hell than to heaven and keep company with such a god." He got his wish on July 21, 1889. On that day, like the rich man in Luke 16, he "died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments" (v. 23).

Like many today, Ingersoll was stubborn. He had his opinion about how we should live, and he would not let anyone, even God, tell him otherwise. But his idea of improving the condition of mankind was not God's. Atheists and infidels do not improve the condition of mankind; they make it worse. They hurt the human race by telling people there is no God. They harm mankind by saying each person can and should decide for himself what is right or wrong. They make life dangerous by teaching and convincing some that man is just another animal.

In 1833 Noah Webster said our Creator knew that "human reason, left without a divine guide, would fill the world with disorder, crime, and misery." Webster was right. Men have for centuries arrogantly claimed to know what is best for man. However, they always end up making life worse. David said, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God" (Ps. 9:17). Men are too ignorant and selfish to give moral direction to the human race. "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23).

God alone has the power to decide how men should live. He also has the sole right to decree who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

Endnotes
¹The Best of Robert Ingersoll, Roger C. Greeley, ed., p. 37.
²Preface to the Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments in the Common Version, with Amendments of the Language, by Noah Webster.

What Would the Devil Have Done?
Kerry Duke

God commanded the Old Testament Israelites to slay the men, women, and children in Canaan. Atheists have ridiculed this account, charging that a loving God ordering such a massacre is absurd. One noted atheist sarcastically asked that if a God of love ordered such an execution, what would the devil have done if he had been giving the orders? Could he have commanded anything worse?

Atheists are hypocritical in making this charge. They say there is no God, no heaven or hell, and no right and wrong. If they are right, then what is wrong with any kind of killing? Of course the Canaanite people were wicked and deserved to be punished (Deut. 9: 4-5). But what about the Canaanite children? Though other answers help to alleviate this difficulty, we must ultimately fall back on the truth that God has the right to take life as well as to give it (Gen. 50:19-20).

I would like to pose the atheist's question to some religious people. In light of some of their doctrines, I ask, "What would the devil have done?"

1. If babies are born sinners, what would the devil do if he were in control of nature? Could he do any worse? This doctrine, believed by many churches and taught in the New International Version of Psalm 51:5, is false (Ezek. 18:20; Matt. 19:14; Deut. 1:39)!
2. If, as some argue, Jesus made over 100 gallons of alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana, what would the devil have done if he had been there in person? How could he have done a worse thing? This wine had to have been unfermented grape juice ("wine" is often used in this sense in the Bible—Isa. 65:8), since Jesus would have sinned if He had given the people alcohol (Heb. 2:15; Prov. 20:1; 23:39-35). But Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15; I Pet. 2:22).
3. If, as some contend, the Bible sanctions abortion, then what kind of book would the devil write? How could he allow anything worse than the murder of children before they are born? The Bible is clear on this subject: life begins at conception (Luke 1:36), and taking innocent life is murder (Exod. 20:13; Gen. 9:6).

The atheist's question does not show that the wars against the Canaanites were immoral. But it does show how wrong these religious doctrines are. When they are taught, the devil must be really happy.

Some Old Testament Preachers Who Said "All is Well"!
Ronald D. Gilbert

There have been men since the beginning of time who were willing to distort the truth. In the days of Jeremiah some said "peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:14). During the days of Isaiah some wanted "smooth things" spoken unto them. "No go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits" (Isa. 30:8-10). Many times God's people did not want to hear the truth. This however, did not relieve the prophet of speaking forth the Word of God.

Some Old Testament preachers were like many are today. They will preach what the people want to hear. The charge for the true man of God remains the same: "Cry aloud, spare not, life up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isa. 58:1). We are not at liberty to preach only the portions of Scripture that people want to hear. We must declare the whole counsel of God. "Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:26-27). In order to be free from the blood of men we also must declare the whole counsel of God. People do not always know what is best for them. God on the other hand knows just what we need. "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jer. 5:31). Many are naïve and believe anything a preacher says. This ought not to be. There were false prophets then and there are false prophets now. Notice what Jeremiah said in the long ago: "Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart" (Jer. 14:14). We are admonished today not to believe everything we hear. Notice what John said: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). We have an obligation to take heed what we hear and how we hear (Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18).

Sometimes men of God are mocked and they become discouraged like Jeremiah. "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. For since I spake, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil; because the word of the Lord was made a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily. Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay. For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. But the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one; therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper; their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (Jer. 20:7-11).

There are also warnings in the New Testament. Consider these verses: "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (I Tim. 4:16). "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (I Tim 4:1-3). "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears" (Acts 20:28-31). "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Tim. 4:1-4).

God has always wanted His people to have a true picture of what is happening around them. Many preachers today are unwilling to tell the brethren the true picture concerning the Lord's church. No, all is not lost! Not every preacher is a false teacher! Not every congregation is swallowed up in liberalism! But on the other hand, to paint a false picture that "all is well" is to mislead the brethren. We are in the midst of an apostasy! Many are bent on making the Lord's church just another denomination. During the 1800s some were saying, "It's not so bad. Sure there are a few who believe in instrumental music and the missionary society but not many." We lost over half of our brethren to the digressive movement while many stood by and said, "Don't be an alarmist. All is well!" Where will you stand during these troubled times? Will you say, "peace and safety, all is well"? Or will you declare the Word of God without fear or favor as the true men of God did in the Old Testament? Consider the words of Jeremiah: "Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word" (Jer. 26:2).

Love for God and Obedience
David S. Hill

The apostle John wrote, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (I John 5:3). Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Question: do obedience and love for God have any connection? Could one determine the answer just by the above two biblical references?

It is doubtful that the majority of people claiming to be religious would deny that love and obedience to God go together. Yet, the question facing all of mankind is: do we (mankind) love God? The answer in the form of a question is: are we (mankind) obeying God? Many are claiming love for God and yet American societal morality is getting worse and worse. What do you suppose the common answer would be if one asked the average man on the street, "Do you love God?" I will venture a guess that nearly 90 percent of the people asked would respond with a confident "yes." So, how is it that most people would respond in the affirmative, yet drinking, divorce, murder, theft, rape, prostitution, teen pregnancies, abortion, gambling, and state-supported lotteries are all on the increase? The Bible, which contains all the commands of God for mankind, condemns all of the above. Society as a whole could in no way be considered to love God.

Can you imagine a single person claiming membership in the Lord's church responding to a question about loving the Lord with a "no"? Everyone in the Sunday morning worship service would say they love the Lord. In fact, one of the songs used in worship with the best participation is "Oh How I Love Jesus." Most of the time nearly 100 percent of the people present for worship on Sunday morning will not be back for Sunday night worship, Wednesday night Bible study or Sunday school. Is this an example of the love for God that one would understand from reading Hebrews 10:24-25?

Many time families will plan a vacation and never even consider where they will worship during their vacation. In fact, I've heard people attempt to excuse their neglect by saying they didn't pack their church clothes. Why didn't they? Maybe they didn't because it's just not all that important to them to worship God. King David said he "was glad when they said. . . let us go into the house of the Lord" (Ps. 122:1).

The number one hanging point with most people and the church of the New Testament is on the point of entrance or baptism. Most religious people will admit that one should love God, believe in Him, and be willing to make some form of a confession. But their anger is stirred when one reads and emphasizes I Peter 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us . . ." Jesus was baptized of John the baptizer as an example to all (Matt. 3:15-17). Paul said that he was told to "arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). And this is consistent with the very first gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. Paul wrote to the Galatians by inspiration and said, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). So the Bible says that baptism saves, washes away sin, is calling on the Lord and puts one into Christ. One who loves the Lord will do and teach what the Bible teaches on baptism. Yet many are saying they believe the Bible and love the Lord, but they read, follow and say they are encouraged by Max Lucado of San Antonio, Texas, who does not believe what the Bible teaches on baptism. Others just like Lucado claim to be members of the church of Christ who follow the Bible, yet deny the Bible doctrine of baptism.

Who loves the Lord? One who claims to love the Lord, yet denies the clear Bible doctrine of baptism, or one who follows the example of Christ and obeys its teaching (Mark 16:15-16)? How do preachers like Lucado get by with such glaring inconsistency? Because they make brethren feel good. And when someone asks about his statements in Nashville, Tennessee last year where he denied (on television) the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sin and the salvation of one's soul, Lucado responds, "I believe in baptism, it's good and is indeed taught in the Bible and everyone should be baptized." This response is good enough for many people and they don't press on to the harder questions about the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sins. Now a further question: when an individual will fellowship and allow a false teaching and a false teacher to continue without opposition does that individual love God (Jude 3; II John 9-11; Rom. 16:17-18)? Remember the Bible says that if we love God we will keep His commandments. Selective obedience is not obedience at all (James 2:10; Heb. 10:26).

An important part of the discussion of love and obedience rests in the later part of I John 5:3. There the inspired writer says, ". . .and His commandments are not grievous." Jesus Himself said, "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:30). Is this inconsistent with Christ's own words "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (Matt10:22), or Paul's inspired words, "Yea, and all that will love godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Tim. 3:12)? The key to the discussion is love. If an individual is dedicated to a cause or a relationship to the point of true love, then tasks that would normally be grievous are no longer considered that way. Many have witnessed a husband caring for an ailing wife or a wife caring for an ailing husband. When you ask them about their time invested they say, "It's not much to do for the love of your life." I've had that very statement made to me in just such a situation. This real-life example sheds light on what the last part of I John 5:3 means. If our hearts are truly given to the Master in obedient faith, then any affliction that might befall us will not be so bad, because our Lord is with us and even death itself will hasten the joys of heaven. No doubt this is the very thought behind Paul's statement, "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (II Cor. 4:17).

Finally, consider the words of the Hebrew writer regarding Christ, "Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:8-9). The things we do and say, our practices, our willingness to stand and be counted for the Lord, suffering as a Christian, etc., all mold us in the form of Christ. And if we truly love Him, the song that we sing will ring true for eternity: "The toils of the road will seem nothing, when I get to the end of the way."

Love for God and obedience are inseparable. If we truly love God, then our lives will surely show it.

Read the Book!!!
Dan Jones

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11).

The ones described as noble in the verse cited above were the citizens of Berea. This verse is often quoted in order to emphasize the wonderful attitude exhibited by these people toward the Word of God, and their diligence in studying the Scriptures in order to determine if they were being taught the truth. Through this process a number of them learned and obeyed the gospel because Acts 17:12 says, "Therefore many of them believed, also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

The unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica were another story. They did not like what they heard concerning Christ (unlike the noble Bereans, they were too filled with prejudice to see whether or not is was the truth). Motivated by envy they stirred up the people, caused an uproar and persecuted the house of Jason for receiving Paul (Acts 17:5-9). The brethren sent Paul and Silas away and this occasioned their visit to Berea (Acts 17:10). However, these fanatical Jews were unwilling to let the matter drop. Upon learning that Paul and Silas were at Berea, they came also and stirred up the people there so that Paul was sent away again, but Silas and Timothy remained (Acts 17:13-14).

Several points come to mind as we read these incidents:

1. Some, like the unbelieving Jews, will do practically anything to hinder the truth (Rom. 1:18).
2. Some are honest enough to obey the truth, even in the face of opposition and persecution (Acts 17:4-13).
3. Suffering for the truth's sake is to be expected and patiently endured (II Tim. 3:12; I Pet. 4:16).
4. Dedicated Christians will not allow anyone or anything to keep them from boldly proclaiming the truth (Acts 4:29: Jude 3).

The Bereans who learned and obeyed the gospel could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. They could have simply turned a deaf ear to the preaching they heard. They could have manifested total indifference to the message of salvation. They could even have exhibited the same warped bias as others and joined those who sought to bring harm to Paul and his companions.

But they didn't. Why? Because they were willing to read and study the Scriptures. Also, they were too honest and too humble to reject the one and only way of salvation through Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12). They did not complain that the Scriptures were too hard to understand. They did not excuse themselves with the devil's lie that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty. They listened! They read! They studied! They learned! They understood! They obeyed!

Are you like the noble Bereans? Or are you more like those who blindly refused to sincerely investigate the matter? Take no pride in the fact that you may not seek to do bodily harm to those who proclaim the truth. Rejecting the truth is rejecting the truth, not matter what form it takes (Matt. 12:30). Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11; cf Eph. 3:4). READ THE BOOK!!!