The Sin of Nit-Picking
David Hill

Jesus said: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye (Matt. 7:3)? That's nit-picking as the Lord defined it. He is not, nor am I considering the literal picking of lice eggs from one's head, but rather in a figure of speech considering the manner in which one judges another. You have, no doubt, used the figure of speech many times. And it is used some with regard to brethren in the Lord's church. Today it is often the time one hears the statements "don't judge me!" or "who are you to judge me?" It has been said when a brother calls into question the activities of another brother, "He (the questioner) is a nit-picker." Is it mote-picking to question another (I John 4:1)? What does the Bible say?

First, Jesus did not forbid judgment, but demanded "righteous judgment" (John 7:24). The very obedience required to enter the Kingdom of God demands judgment. On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, the apostle Peter charged those present with the murder of Jesus Christ. Did he judge them? Notice they made a judgment about themselves; "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do" (v. 37)? The Holy Spirit inspired Peter to make a judgmental statement and the people passed judgment on themselves. So the Lord does not forbid judgment. He demands proper judgment.

I am not talking about judgments in matters of faith. We can know those matters clearly from God's divine revelation. For example, when a brother begins teaching one church is as good as another, that's a matter of faith (Eph. 4:3-6). May I call the false brother's name in an effort to warn others? I had better (Rom. 16:17, 18). When do I call the false brother's name? That to some degree is a matter of judgment. However, when I appear with the false brother on a program or in a gospel meeting I must make it clear that I am not in fellowship with him and his false practice. Why? Because souls are in jeopardy, and my influence could mislead an innocent man, woman or child and ultimately cause them to lose their souls. The essentiality of baptism is another matter of faith, the purity of worship is another, proper fellowship another, etc. Outside of direct contact or fellowship with the errant brother, when do I call his name? That is a matter of judgment and should be done with love in hope of restoring the brother and warning fellow Christians. However, when one persists in fellowship with false teachers refusing to warn but rather running with the false brethren, then a judgment must be made about the brother and his activity (II John 9-11). What is the scriptural time limit? There's not one. That is where good judgment must be used (II Thess. 3:15).

In recent years some have condemned others for calling names of false brethren too fast. Yet, those same brethren call names of false brethren at a later time, so it would be assumed that only they know the proper time to call names. Were they directly inspired in this matter? Some of these brethren have made it clear that they will have no fellowship with the ones they consider too fast. Is that proper judgment or is that nit-picking? It reminds me of the old Hanes brand inspector #12 advertisement where the lady says, "It doesn't say Hanes until I say it says Hanes". Some of my brethren apparently believe that one is not a false teacher until they say he/she is a false teacher. That's silly and that is divisive nit-picking, and when they divide brethren over it they are sinning.

Some preachers (this is mostly a preacher activity) say "I find nothing wrong with what brother X preaches, I just don't like the way he goes about it." Uh-oh, we've got a problem here. Especially when those preachers will talk against (essentially not fellowship) brother X in any way. They refuse to cooperate with him, announce his Gospel meetings, and discourage others from participation in any activity with this brother; now we have discord being sown and all personality-related. I wonder how they preach I Corinthians 1? That is nit-picking and it goes on all the time with brethren refusing to say anything about it. In fact most will let "their preacher" affect their response and activity in such matters. The Proverb still says God hates the sowing of discord among brethren (Prov. 6:19).

Today in the Lord's church there are many who preach, believe, and practice the truth, yet are divided over personalities, papers, popularity, and schools. Some will even identify themselves as "I'm in the ABC school camp," or "I take the John Doe position on non-faith issues." They will cut, bite, devour, and yes, even cause division when there should be none. They will call another man's position in a matter of opinion damnable while they do just exactly what they wish to do in fellowship even to the excusing of false fellowship and worldliness. This is mote-picking—nit-picking of the worst sort and they will give an account some day (II Cor. 5:10). Now, more than ever, is the time to put away party lines and join hands in the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 16:13).

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The world has been sliding into the realm of no limits in morals and ethics. We are now getting into epidemic proportions. There is a breakdown of the home, people living together out of wedlock, nakedness and nudity is all about, TV is largely given to glorifying sin and rottenness, filthy speech is the American way of life, people living together in adultery, and in far too many cases, the church takes little or no stand with supposed preachers of the Gospel.

The church of Christ to a sizable degree has been sliding with the world about us, and the slide has been in the wrong direction. Some congregations today are in the process of dying for the lack of plain gospel preaching, doctrinal preaching, and loose living. What the brethren do not want in teaching and preaching has led to a mixed-up brotherhood like a ship at sea without a compass.

Our colleges and universities which are supposed to be Christian have contributed to the trouble we face today. We know not of a single school of higher learning among us today that has not been tainted with liberalism in one way or another. Monies borrowed from the U.S. Government by these institutions as well as accrediting associations have truly contributed to the condition and work of these so-called Christian institutions. Good Christians have sent their sons and daughters to these schools only to have their faith wrecked. These young people come back home or go out into the world with a different view of the Lord's way as set forth in the Bible because of faith-wrecking professors in these institutions who sat at the feet of vain philosophers and instructors and soaked in poison and some of their godless nonsense. We have those among us today who teach that the church of Christ is just another denomination, that one can be saved without water baptism, that the church of Christ is a product of men and not of God, that instrumental music in worship is a matter of choice and not a matter of faith, etc. Much of this kind of thing came from college and university professors in our schools. We would be much better off for our children not to have a college or university education than for them to attend schools that will wreck their faith which in turn will send their souls to eternal hell.

Are we for Christian education? We certainly are since we have been involved in such for nearly 40 years. We need schools that will train preachers, elders, deacons, and their families in the way of the Lord. They need to be trained to be strong in the Lord and the power of His might (Eph. 6:10-17). Individual Christians as well as congregations need to get behind schools which are sound in the faith in all aspects. The brotherhood is calling for preachers from all directions and their call cannot be met because of a preacher shortage today. We have around 14,000 churches of Christ and only around 6,000 preachers. Brethren, this should alarm all who love the Lord. We must train more preachers of the Word and such cannot be done without the support of the brotherhood.

Why would anyone who claims to love the Lord fight against the training of sound gospel preachers? True Christian love does not act in such a way (I Cor. 13:4-7). Some would be happy if schools like Tennessee Bible College would go out of business and cease to exist. Only envy and jealousy would seek for such to happen. If we are to train faithful gospel preachers and workers, then the faithful Christians of today must open up their hearts and support such. Just a few dollars each month from a few dedicated Christians would get the job done.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Malcolm L. Hill

There has been much stir in certain quarters of our brotherhood over the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. This is not a new issue within the body of Christ. It goes back decades. Much fuss has arisen over the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some among us today believe that the heart is baptized in the Holy Spirit when one becomes a Christian. All that we know within the body of Christ do not believe that this baptism carries with it miracles of any sort. They believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Acts 2:38. They tell us that baptism in the Holy Spirit does not carry any degree or power of the Holy Spirit. This does not bother us. If the time comes that brethren believe miracles, the gifts of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in I Corinthians 12:8-11, revelations, hints, nudges, etc., are given by the Holy Spirit today, then we will mark those who so believe and avoid them. We have no problem with those who believe the Holy Spirit dwells in them and is given to them at baptism. Some brethren are willing to split the church over the way a man states his case in the usage of words. Semantics is one thing but false doctrine is another. Let us not divide the Body over how people say things.

Unity and Monetary Gain
David Hill

Everyone recognizes the peace that comes from unity. At least most folks do. The psalmist observed how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalm 133). Most brethren would agree to this inspired Psalm. But too often the things of the world and the selfish cares of men enter and division results. Greed has always been a powerful weapon in the devil's arsenal. Balaam was condemned for it (Jude 11) and the writer warned of those who would run after the same error. We know that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (I Tim. 6:10), therefore, unity can be disturbed by one's interest in monetary gain.

The fact that we are living in a worldly, increasingly secular society cannot be denied. The facts are all around us. I remember a rather graphic old expression, "he would take the money off his dead mother's eyes." Today, many would do it if they could. The love of money and monetary gain is all around us. The apostle Paul warned a young preacher about the love of money (I Tim. 6:10). A preacher? Yes, a preacher, because they can be caught in this spiritually deadly game. So interest in monetary gain is not limited to the world, it's in the church, too.

How can unity and monetary gain be coupled together? Well the way I submit it to you is that love of money and monetary gain can destroy unity among brethren. As we have already observed "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." The heart is turned away from the spiritual when it turns to a love of money (Matt. 6:24). And so it is in the church, when one directs his/her attention to money, they of necessity turn from God. It is at the close of Matthew 6 that we have it summarized God's way, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (v. 33). That is to say that if we seek God first the money that we need and the food we need along with the clothing will all be supplied. Do you believe it?

Specifically, monetary gain enters into the hearts of some brethren as they work for the Lord in special areas. It has happened that missionaries find the hearts of the brethren opened to help the less fortunate areas around the world and the raising of funds is easy. It is at this very point that some turn their hearts to flight of fancy and imagine all the money that they can make in a work they enjoy. Of course the brethren show them great respect for it is true that in many cases the missionary is going into areas where they, the brethren, would not want to go. It is too often the case that brethren, even overseeing brethren, are afraid to ask questions about the money—where it is going and how much is on hand. This has been a problem in two ways. It has happened that some brethren have let missionaries practically starve to death on the field, but it has also happened that brethren have provided wealth for individuals to live a high life on the field. It is the latter that sometimes brings division.

A brother becomes jealous of his position, and when another good work appears on his horizon, jealousy sets in and competition follows. These brethren must have a reason to attack a good work, so they invent an issue to divide supporters. The alleging of missionary societies, any number of supposed issues have been raised to confuse brethren and maintain their support. As a personal example, I've even had people say to me, we can't support TBC because TBC doesn't support XYZ school. How confusing is that? A school should raise money from brethren and give it to another school? In most every case where this has been said to me, I supported the school mentioned so far as their doctrinal teaching and stance for truth, and I have said so. Their response, "I was told you don't support XYZ and are not in fellowship with them." What is this? The very point I'm making, that someone or ones have "poisoned the well." They have planted divisive things in the minds of individuals to create division and to advance their own cause. Surely the Lord is dismayed with me and any other person who would divide His Kingdom for our own personal gain.

You may take the above and plug in brotherhood journals, personalities, camps, colleges, preacher training schools, individual mission efforts, and you will find some brethren dividing over nothing but monetary gain. How sad it is but it is true. If you will be a good student of people and watch, sadly, you'll find the above to be true too often! The old saying "there is no competition between lighthouses" is true here. If a brother is preaching and teaching the truth I need to support him where I can. It may not be monetarily, but through prayer and encouragement I need to be supportive. We're on the Lord's side! The devil has always sought to confuse, divide, and destroy the people of God (I Cor. 14:33; James 3:16).

Today, the Lord's people need to be united. There is plenty of false doctrine attacking the church without selfish individuals inventing new troubles. Why can't we put our individual differences (matters of opinion) aside and work together? In a now-fading generation, I remember a brotherhood that encouraged preachers to be gentlemen. They may have disagreed on this or that point, but they regarded their fellow preachers with respect. I believe that code of conduct has faded and is continuing to fade. Should we encourage each other? Yes. May one question the other on a point? Sure. Do either of the above imply disfellowship? It should not! John the baptizer even questioned the Lord's work (Luke 7:19), but both were in fellowship and John did the forerunning work that God sent him to do.

It may be that we need to grow up and be men (I Cor. 16:13). It may be that some need to purify their hearts (James 4:8). Whatever is needed let's not divide over monetary gain. Doing so is most certainly a lack of faith! Let's enjoy the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

Are All Issues on the Same Level?
Kerry Duke

Offenses

Some violations of law are more serious than others. This truth is exemplified in the Old Testament, observed in human laws, and confirmed in the New Testament.

Transgressions of the law of Moses were not all on the same level of gravity. They were not equally serious; some were more and others were less consequential. This is evident from the varying degrees of severity in the penalties attached to different infractions of the law. More serious punishment was given for more serious violations; less severe penalties were given for less serious trespasses. The severity of the punishment was an indication of the seriousness of the transgression.

The law made a distinction between sinning through ignorance and sinning presumptuously. Numbers 15 is a case of this difference. A soul that had sinned through ignorance was to make an offering for his trespass when he realized his error (vv. 24-39; cf. Lev. 4). But a presumptuous sin was treated differently (vv. 30-31). Sinning "presumptuously" is literally sinning with a high hand (cf. Proverbs 6:17- "a proud look" literally high eyes; also note the words "sin willfully" in Hebrews 10:25). An example of this sin follows: a man caught gathering wood on the sabbath was put to death (vv. 32-36).

The law also distinguished between different kinds of killing. Premeditated killing of innocent people or cold-blooded murder was punishable by death (Deut. 19:11-13; Num. 35:31). But causing a death accidentally or killing a man unintentionally in a fight was not a capital offense (Deut. 19:4-10; Num. 35:22-25). The cities of refuge were given to protect those who unintentionally caused the death of someone.

Some transgressions of the law rendered a person "worthy to be beaten" (Deut. 25:1-3). This passage limits the number of blows to 40. A man who falsely accused his wife of not being a virgin when they married was to be chastised and fined (Deut. 22:18-19). So while some sins were worthy of a beating, others were "worthy of death" (Deut. 21:22). A man who falsely accused his wife deserved to be beaten and fined, but he did not deserve to die. A murderer deserved more than a beating and a fine; he deserved to die.

The law of legitimate retaliation demanded "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exod. 21:23-25). Retribution was permitted on a graded scale according to the injury caused.

The laws of our land reflect this principle. Some violations of the law result in a fine or community service; others result in prison or in execution. Most people recognize that the death penalty is overly severe punishment for a minor traffic violation and that a ten dollar fine is too light a penalty for a rapist or a murderer.

The home should reflect this scale of gravity. Children need to be taught that some things are very serious and that others are less serious. If parents spank their children and severely reprimand them for the slightest mistakes, the children will tend to be insecure, easily provoked, and apathetic. If, on the other hand, parents give a mild reproof to a serious and dangerous behavior, the children tend to be selfish and rebellious. Parents should teach by word and by example that some things are more serious in their nature and in their consequences than others.

Even Pilate understood this difference, though he did not act consistently with this knowledge. He knew and even argued that Jesus had done nothing wrong. He certainly knew Jesus had done nothing to deserve death (Luke 23:22). He tried to strike a compromise with Jewish leaders by offering to chastise Jesus and then let Him go. Even chastisement would have been unjust, but death by crucifixion was even more unjust, and yet this is the decision the Roman governor reached.

In a famous day of battle with the Philistines (I Sam. 14), King Saul ordered his men to refrain from eating until evening. His son Jonathan was unaware of the command, not being present when it was given. So Jonathan and his men ate some honey. When his father discovered what his son had done, he ordered his men to put Jonathan to death, but they refused. Jonathan said all he did was eat a little honey. The law said that a murderer deserved to die, but a man who violated such an arbitrary and unfair law as this was certainly not deserving of execution.

Not only are some sins worse than others, but some states of sin are worse than others. Some sinners are worse than other sinners. Manasseh led the people of Judah to do "worse than the heathen" (II Chron. 33:9). Omri did worse than all the kings that were before him (I Kings 16:25), and Ahab did worse than Omri (I Kings 16:30)! Jeremiah told the people of Judah, "Ye have done worse than your fathers" (Jer. 16:12). Paul said that a man who will not provide for his family is "worse than an infidel" (I Tim. 5:8). He also observed that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse" (II Tim. 3:13). Jesus said the Jews who rejected Him were worse off spiritually than they were before He came (Matt. 12:45; cf. John 15:22, 24), and Peter said of apostates: "the latter end is worse with them than the beginning" (II Peter 2:20).

Jesus told Pilate, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11). The Jewish leaders took Jesus to Pilate and the governor's soldiers drove the nails in His body to the cross, but Judas Iscariot was guilty of "the greater sin." Judas had been with the Lord personally for over three years. He had walked and talked with Jesus. He was one of twelve special men who had the opportunity to personally witness the teaching and miracles of the Christ and to be privately instructed by Him. Judas also received power to work miracles himself. His sin was greater because it was more deliberate; Judas had greater awareness of who Jesus was and thus his sin was greater. Jesus taught that greater opportunity and knowledge mean greater responsibility. He said of Capernaum, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee" (Matt. 11:24). One who knows the will of God and disobeys will be beaten with "many stripes"; one who does not know (in a relative or comparative sense; he has to know some things or he would not be accountable) and disobeys will be beaten with "few stripes" (Luke 12:47-48). The scribes and Pharisees who took widows' houses and tried to cover up their greed by saying long prayers received the "greater damnation" (Matt. 23:14).

Jesus' teaching on unjust criticism underscores this distinction (Matt. 7:3-5). The mote represents a comparatively small or minor fault, and the beam represents a fault which is much greater. But how could these figures have any meaning if every fault is on the same level of seriousness?

The book of Hebrews compares the seriousness of breaking the law of Moses with the seriousness of rejecting the law of Christ (2:1-4). One who despised Moses' law "died without mercy," but one who turns away from Christ will receive "much sorer punishment" (Heb. 10:28-29). Turning away from Christ is "much more" serious than turning away from Moses (Heb. 12:25).

The New Testament also shows that a greater degree of severity or strictness will be applied at the judgment to teachers (James 3:1). Teachers of the Word will receive greater judgment because they have led others by their life and teaching.

The book of I Corinthians reveals that some sins are more consequential than others. Their spiritual childishness led the Corinthian Christians to have contentions with each other, to turn the Lord's Supper into a common meal and embarrass poor members, and to speak out of order in the worship assembly. Paul used instructive discipline or verbal reproof in addressing these problems. But he did not use words alone to deal with the problem of a fornicator in their midst; he said to "put away" that person immediately (I Cor. 5). The sin of fornication is more grave, and action taken against it is more urgent. Also, when Paul reproved them for suing each other, he asked, "Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (I Cor. 6:2). If all wrongs are on the same level, why did Paul refer to these as the least or the smallest matters? He is not talking about mere questions of law, but actual cases where one member had wronged another member (I Cor. 6:7). The transgression, however, was not severe enough to warrant taking the offender to court.

Obligations

Just as some transgressions are more serious than others, some duties are more important than others. This fact is established in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

This issue could not have been raised more directly than when a scribe asked Jesus, "Which is the first commandment of all?" (Mark 12:28). The Lord immediately answered that the first of the commandments is to love God with all of one's heart, mind, soul, and strength and that the second or next one in importance is to love one's neighbor as himself (Mark 12:29-31). "First" obviously means first in importance, not first in time; this meaning is clarified further by Jesus' statement that no other commandment is "greater" than these (v. 31). "But," someone responds, "loving God means keeping His commandments (John 14:15), so obeying God in worship, for instance, is the love this verse requires." This generalized view of this passage will not work. It ignores the distinction Jesus makes: these two are greater in importance than other commandments. How can they be greater if all other commandments are already included in the first? Besides, the scribe correctly saw the comparison, adding that observing these two statutes "is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Mark 12:33). Jesus did not disagree; in fact, He said the man was "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34).

Jesus indicated a scale of importance among the requirements of the law: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23). Being just, showing mercy, and having faith are "weightier" or more important matters than tithing the smallest increase of crops. This list of weightier matters is reminiscent of Micah's declaration of what God desires in us: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8). These virtues are contrasted with great offerings and sacrifices (Micah 6:6-7). Justice, mercy, and faith with its attendant humility are weightier matters that take precedence over the positive requirements of worship. One view of this verse objects to this idea of the "weight" of these duties, arguing that the context concerns the "heavy burdens" the scribe and Pharisees were placing on the people (Matt. 23:4). This interpretation points out that the word for "heavy" in verse four is the same word that is translated "weightier" in verse 23 (barus). This position further contends that since God's commandments are not grievous or burdensome (barus - I John 5:3), how could Jesus say they are barus or weighty? But this rash and short-sighted attempt to circumvent the plain import of our Lord's words will not stand in the face of the facts. The word barus does mean heavy, but it is, like many other words, used in both a negative (I John 5:3; Matt. 23:4) and a positive (Matt. 23:23) sense. Jesus, not the scribes and Pharisees asserted that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters—of the law, not their traditions, The Lord did not condemn the act of tithing herbs; in fact, He said this should not be ignored. But He did say that justice, mercy, and faith take precedence.

An Old Testament passage which clearly taught a scale of importance among divinely given obligations is Hosea 6:6: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." The first part of this verse is an ellipsis; an emphasis is placed on the virtue of mercy. God is the speaker. He desires that his people show mercy to others, and He desires this characteristic more than their burnt offerings. The statement is not one of exclusion but emphasis; God does not say sacrifice is unwanted by Him but that it is less important than mercy. The last part of the verse is parallel to the first: the "knowledge of God" is "more" (that is, more important) than burnt offerings. This knowledge of God is the practical acknowledgment of God in daily living (Hosea 4:1-6), not mere intellectual understanding. This knowledge, which is essentially the same as mercy in the first part of the verse, is more important than public worship at the temple. "Mercy" and "the knowledge of God" are parallel just as "sacrifice" and "burnt offerings" are parallel. We should not look at this verse with an either/or model, as if we must choose one to the exclusion of the other, but from a greater/lesser perspective in which both are duties but one (mercy) takes precedence over the other (sacrifice). This same comparison appears in the Psalms (Psa. 50:8-14; 51:16-17). It is also stated in Proverbs 21:3: "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." For some reason, many men tend to focus on questions that arise concerning public worship, and yet God has always placed more emphasis on justice and mercy in our lives as a whole.

It is significant that Jesus cited Hosea 6:6 twice in response to the extreme doctrinal positions of the Pharisees. The first example is in Matthew 9:10-13. The Pharisees criticized Jesus for associating with tax collectors and sinners, showing an extreme in their application of God's teaching in the Old Testament on fellowship. Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6, showing that the principle of showing mercy took precedence even over divinely sanctioned worship, and, by implication, even more so over Pharisaic traditions. The second case is Matthew 12:1-8, where the Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of violating the Mosaic sabbath labor law by plucking grain on the sabbath. Jesus cited Hosea 6:6 in defense of the disciples because the principle of mercy was an overriding truth in this instance that qualified the sabbath restriction.

Application

(1) In light of these passages, the idea that all sins and doctrinal errors are on the same level of seriousness cannot be biblically maintained. Also, the belief that all duties given by God are on the same level of importance and that no obligations take precedence over others is incorrect. There are degrees of culpability just as there are gradations in the scale of duties.

(2) The Bible gives the framework for recognizing and applying this scale of the gravity of sins and the priority of obligations. There is no excuse for being arbitrary about this issue, and yet this happens too often. When someone asks, "Why don't we make an issue out of...?" and we respond "Well, that's not a big issue" without stating (or perhaps even knowing) why the matter is not significant, we are just giving our opinion, not Scripture. We should be able to give Bible justification for saying that certain issues outweigh others.

(3) The fact that some sins and errors are worse than others and that some duties are more important than others should help leaders in the church and in the home. Elders are confronted with numerous issues involving sin and error among members. They cannot deal with every problem, so they must either deal with the ones they select on an arbitrary basis or deal with situations according to their level of seriousness as the Bible teaches. To do the latter, they must have a grasp of how the Bible ranks sin and error in terms of its gravity. The more serious the sin or error is, the more urgent and severe they should be in dealing with it. Parents also need a good foundation of Bible understanding on this subject to avoid being too easy on more serious issues and too harsh on relatively insignificant matters. But again the key is recognizing the Bible as the standard for determining how serious a matter is. Parents should be more strict on the things the Bible emphasizes and decreasingly less severe as the Bible is decreasingly less emphatic.

(4) Gospel preachers should take note of these distinctions in their preaching and writing. Preachers are sometimes accused of making too big of a deal out of minor issues. Sometimes the charge is unjust and springs from the ignorance of the critic. At other times the accusation is true. But unless we have Bible justification for saying that an issue is of major or minor importance, then we are engaged in guesswork and opinions. Christians in general need to study the Bible to see what is more and what is less serious or important, and preachers need to remember that just because a thing is true does not mean that it is as important as he has made it out to be. Editors of journals and other writers need to remember this. In writing we convey an idea by the tone and severity of an article as well as by the content of the article itself. If we are just as severe in condemning a brother on a point that we ourselves admit is not a matter of salvation as we are a man who is guilty of adultery, then we have lost sight of the principle being discussed.

(5) A practical application of this teaching occurs in Luke 10:38-42. Martha was busy with housework, which is indeed a duty of women (Titus 2:5). Mary was listening to Jesus teach. Jesus indicated that Mary chose the more important activity: "But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part..." If we would order our lives by the scale of priorities set forth in the Word of God, we would be more fruitful in the Christian life.

Juvenile Delinquency and What to do About It (Part I)
Batsell Barrett Baxter, Gospel Advocate, June 27, 1963

What Are the Causes?

Although it is somewhat presumptuous to set out to name all of the contributing factors or causes in the development of juvenile delinquency, I can at least name some that have played a prominent part. I would begin with the fact that there have been great changes in our values, in our habits of thinking, and in our way of life during the past 25 years. For example, 25 years ago teen-age young people were accompanied by chaperones on their dates. Occasionally, a parent would go along; more often it would be a brother or sister. At the least, it would be required that teen-agers double-date. Today, however, even the suggestion of a chaperone on a date is considered so old-fashioned as to be ridiculous. This relatively simple change has meant a freedom and a lack of restraint that many young people have not been mature enough to use properly.

In addition, there is a greater mobility in our society today than 25 years ago. Teenagers, by the simple expedient of using the family car, can spend an evening far from parental supervision. They can be in another town or another community and among completely strange surroundings and unknown people without any effort at all. This, too, tends to remove restraints and give young people unwarranted freedoms and encouragement to do anything that their whims might suggest.

The influence of television and movies has also been a dominant influence during the past quarter-century. Whereas in the old days a youngster might see a movie once or twice a month, he now has the opportunity to see the morning movie, the after-school movie, and the late-evening movie every day in his own home. Many of the movies present love, marriage, drinking, and life in general in a far from idealistic manner. Our young people are exposed to adult behavior of a hurtful kind much too early for their own good. This has meant an undermining of moral and ethical values. This influence has probably been stronger than any other single one in leading to the attitudes and behavior of delinquency.

During this same interval of time, drinking has become more widespread, and, because of an extensive and expensive program of advertising, more respectable. The liquor industry has announced that it will spend $250,000,000 in advertising its products this year. Much of this advertising comes into our own living rooms through television and attractively printed magazines. Undoubtedly this has had its effect upon young people. The use of dope, while not as extensive in our area as in some others, is also present here. It is possible to buy "bennies" and "goof balls" in the average city as well as in New York. Of course, other kinds of narcotics are also available here and there, at least some of the time. Dancing, with its intimate bodily contact, has been so widely accepted that only a few voices are raised to question it. Twenty-five years ago a number of churches opposed dancing, but there are only a few of us who stand in opposition to it today. Sensuous music, heard all day long from a chorus of radio stations, has also had its effect. Music touches our emotions and unconsciously determines attitudes and behavior. A constant diet of popular music, which is often suggestive and even immoral, has played a more significant role in the attitudes of young people than most of us dare to think. In this connection I would like to point out that every night club and honky-tonk and dive in America uses drinking, dancing, and sensuous music as a major or central part of its program of activities. Without exception, in the most morally degrading places in American drinking, dancing and sensuous music are used. Does this not say something? Does this not suggest to Christian parents and teenagers that such are suspect?

We in America have also been subjected to the most extensive bombardment of sex advertising in the history of the world. No other nation on earth so emphasized sex as America in our generation. It seems that no product is willing to stand on its own merits, but somehow it must bring in sex in order to get people to buy it. As a result, from the cover of almost every magazine, on many billboards, in television commercials and programs, and in countless other places semi-nude pictures exploit the young with this sex emphasis.