Prejudice Blocks The Channels Of Love And Blurs The Eyes Of Reason

By Jimmy Tuten

Our society is pressure-filled, problem-racked and sin-soiled. There are failures, disappointments, rudenesses and unkindnesses that affect us. Some are psychologically bruised and battered. Hearts are bleeding from wounds that are raw and constant. There are those whose actions belie their claim to be Christians and who, instead of being the preservatives that the “salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13) should be, are heaping affliction upon affliction. Like beasts of the field there is the rushing in to viciously attack and destroy the spiritually wounded and the afflicted. Why do some of our brethren ignore Galatians 6:1-2 and similar passages with their guerrilla like tactics? Because of prejudice! Prejudice blocks forever the channels of love and it blurs the eyes of reason. As long as prejudice exists there is no hope in this life or in the world to come. Prejudice cannot see things as they are, because it is always looking for things that aren’t. It sees what it pleases, but cannot see what is plain.

The dictionaries define “prejudice” as “preconceived judgment or opinion, especially an opinion or learning adverse to anything without grounds, or before sufficient knowledge.” The Bible speaks of dealing with one another “without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21). The expression, “without preferring” is from the Greek prokrima, denoting pre-judging (akin to prokrino, to judge beforehand), being put aside, by unfavorable judgment due to partiality (Vine, Thayer, etc.). Prejudice is that action which forms conclusions without sufficient evidence while ignoring and disregarding all facts. It squints when it looks and lies when it talks. Prejudice is a sin that needs to be conquered by all. If we can conquer this we will probably be victorious, for truly the proverb is correct: “conquer your passions and you conquer the whole world.” There is little or no hope for the Christian who judges matters before getting all the facts and condemns others in violation of the principle: “doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (Jn. 7:51)

One must not confuse prejudice with “preference.” Just because we have likes and dislikes that are peculiar does not mean that we are pre-judging. Real prejudice is the abandonment of valid processes of correct reasoning that leads to sound conclusions. This, in turn, causes one to preclude the possibility of advancing knowledge beyond those conclusions. A prejudiced person always knows all there is to know about the matter.

Prejudice is one of the most vicious characteristics of humanity. In view of it, steadfastness against it is one of our greatest needs. But there are sacrifices involved in eliminating prejudice: the sacrifice of personal ambition for principle’s sake, the bridling of the tongue by eliminating from our vocabulary prejudicial statements, half-truths, “preacher” pronouncements that stigmatize brethren and assassinate character, and the wresting of Scripture. When will we learn that many souls in sadness will learn in the day of judgment that “behold, I thought” is the pavement that leads to hell? We must believe all that God says and do all that God says. The Jehoiakims of our day must cease their spiritual and mental pen-knifing of the word of God and put an end to all the common talk floating around. We are to prove all things and hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21). We are not to believe everyone that speaks, no matter what position he holds. Rather, we are to “try the spirits” (1 Jn. 4: 1). Concerning men, our Lord says, “doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? ” (Jn. 7:5 1) ” He that answereth a matter (i.e., returneth a word, jt) before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him,” indeed! (Prov. 18:13)

How Prejudice Comes

Prejudice does not come through heredity, i.e., the transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring by means of genes in the chromosomes, or from characteristics inherited. genetically by an individual. Neither does prejudice come instinctively (inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species). Various publications in the field of psychology that deal with behaviorism point out that the following factors contribute to prejudice:

(1) Early impressions and experiences that mold our ideas, ideals and attitudes.

(2) The culture in which one lives. This would include the religious, the social, etc.

(3) Associations with people who are of the disposition to be closed-minded.

(4) False generalizations such as thinking that all Christians are radical because one or two are radical. Well might it be said: the problem with most folks is not their ignorance as much as knowing so many things that are not so!

Some Examples of Prejudice

Prejudice in spiritual matters is illustrated in Acts 4:13-22. Peter and John had to give an answer before Jewish leaders because they had healed a lame man. The Jews could not fault the miracle or fault the teaching that the miracle confirmed. Facts demanded that they accept both the miracle and the message, but prejudice dictated otherwise. They were commanded and ordered “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” We may be amazed at their prejudice, but remember that their tribe did not die out. As a matter of fact, instead of accepting the truth many such persons have been known to cancel their subscriptions to sound publications rather than accepting the truths they contain. Truly, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine. (2 Tim. 4:2).

Denominationalism thrives on prejudice. A few years back I was baptizing someone in the Gulf of Mexico after a worship period in Lecanto, Florida. Some sectarian people (young men who were swimming, actually) started berating us and when I rebuked them, they then started making fun of us. Since that time I have noticed that some brethren continue to sink to new lows in their denunciation of those who disagree with them. Some even are wont to compliment the denominational people on their agreeable spirit, cooperation and ability while condemning those of us who challenge their damnable doctrines. Such men will wake up in a devil’s lake of fire and brimstone because they have fought against doctrine and made fun of the truth of Jehovah. It does not please men to have to say this, but we had better wake up to the danger of prejudice in our lives, to the fact that the present “Christians in most denominations ” philosophy does not automatically make denominational people an alternate faith among true children of God (Eph. 4:4-6), and opposition to truth (whether among sectarians or brethren) makes one an opponent to the faith as that of Elymas himself (Acts 13:8-13). Need it be said that like Saul of Tarsus, these men’s opposition springs from ignorance and unbelief fed by their prejudice?

Prejudice In Others And Its Results

Prejudice is a dangerous leaven that destroys even the vessel that contains it and contaminates all who come in contact with it. There is littleness and meanness about prejudice that genuine wisdom cannot endure. Knowing full well that the complete warning of the matters now presented will not be sufficiently recognized in our day of a divided church and party spirit, I offer them with some hope.

(1) Family ties sometimes create prejudice. John the Baptist struck hard at the stubborn sins of the people of his day with vigorous denouncement. His words were sharp and cutting, but they cut to the heart of their prejudices as they called for fruit worthy of repentance. This fire and brimstone preacher cried out, saying, “begin not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Lk. 3:8). The people of John’s audience could not see that family ties (Abraham’s seed) did not eliminate personal accountability for sin (Ezek. 18:4-20).

Many people in denominationalism still move upon this basis. Some in the church are doing the same thing. There is not a single nitch to be found anywhere in heaven on the basis of family clan, literally or spiritually. Sometimes members of one’s personal family (in total disregard for honesty, decency and the word of God) have acted with impunity and maliciousness, while at the same time thinking that being a member “of the family” grants them immunity. In the spiritual realm brethren have been known to act in the most unchristian manner because of spiritual family ties (God’s family, the church) and geographical influences. They are striking examples of the worse phases of the “party spirit” which blinds to truth, hardens from conviction, destroys tenderness. Prejudices make cruelty and spiritual crime impossible. We can’t be wrong, we belong to the Church of Christ. Scarcely any evil force has exerted in the times in which we live so baneful an influence.

(2) Jealousy sometimes creates prejudice. My mind goes back nineteen hundred years to the town of Antioch of Pisidia. Paul and Barnabas have preached in the synagogues. Some are receptive (Acts 13:43-44). The next Sabbath presented a different and terrible situation. “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45).

Look at the rocks of heartache and sadness that have been scattered on the highways of life that have resulted from jealousy. The Bible and history alike are filled with such examples.

(3) Supposition sometimes creates prejudice. Paul’s voyage to Rome was preceded by events precipitated by suppositions that festered into prejudice. Prejudice caused the Jews to falsely charge Paul with having taken a Greek into the temple and defiling it (Acts 21:28). This false charge would never have been made if supposition had not entered into the picture. The accusers had “supposed” that Paul had taken Trophimus the Ephesian into the temple because they had earlier seen them together in the city. How much trouble would be eliminated if somehow, by some miracle, all our suppositions could be wiped out. “But, I thought” is still heard today as justification for sinful actions. The Bible still says “prove all things.”

As for the fruits of prejudice, their numbers are legion. There is blind indifference (Matt. 13:14-15), mockery (Matt. 13:54-57), dishonesty (Matt. 28:11-15; Acts 13:6-11), and much more.

Who Is Effected By Prejudice?

If the object of the prejudice is a person, he becomes the victim! How difficult it is not to become bitter and disillusioned. But some have and are known to have “quit the Church” because of it. In our self-righteousness we condemn these discouraged ones for their apostasy in our attempts to justify our own placing of offences before them. Both the offender and the offended stand condemned. The words of the Lord in Matthew 18:5-7 should be committed to memory by each child of God.

Some of those affected react by becoming aggressive and by lashing out at all who give indication of prejudicial action. Show me the preacher or Bible class teacher who has not felt, at one time or another, the sting of prejudice and I’ll show you a person who is not preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God (Lk. 6:26). Young preachers, listen to me (for I have been there): do not seek revenge for abuses heaped upon you as a fruit of prejudice. Smother your hurt and turn the other cheek. Just keep on preaching the truth wherever brethren will let you preach, and wherever you can by keeping in mind that one cannot neglect his responsibility before God. Besides, vengeance belongeth to the Lord (Rom. 12:19). Learn this now and you will have fewer sleepless nights and less gnawing at the lining of your stomach. Some older preachers need to heed this advice too.

Some victims are guilty of resorting to compromise and appeasement. Though they know exactly what is going on in the brotherhood or within the local church, rather than be labeled or stir the water, they remain silent as a tomb.

How sad. The fruits of the assassinators of character keep enlarging because too many will not honestly face up to the prejudice that has permeated their lives like gangrene.

Look at the subject himself. His personal prejudice pours forth thorns and thistles, for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts (Matt. 9:4). There cannot be sweet water pouring forth from a fountain that is corrupt (Jas. 3:11). Denominational people have proliferated books that were designed to attack Christians unmercifully (Campbellism Exposed, A Review of Campbellism, etc.). Sectarians have said in debate (as they condemn us to hell), “I know of only three things born of water: a tadpole, a mosquito and a ‘Campbellite.”‘ Most of us have been accused of not believing in the Holy Spirit because we opposed Calvinism, teach water salvation because we advocate baptism for the remission of sins, etc.

Our brethren’s prejudices have been known to surface too. “You’re an anti,” “top Water,” “do nothingers,” “legalists,” “too dogmatic,” etc. Yes, the sin of prejudice lurks in the dark corners of many a heart. Modern language labels it “politics.”

What Can We Do About It?

First of all make an honest effort at self-examination (2 Cor. 13:5). Recognize your own prejudices (we all have some, whatever be the degree of them) and strive to eradicate them. If you cannot rid yourself of them, then do not act on them. Encourage others to do the same. It takes a wise man to know when he is fighting for a principle, or merely defending a prejudice. In short, don’t air your prejudices; smother them. Experience has shown that brethren have a lot to say about the need for preachers, but then turn right around and nail them to the cross of prejudice.

Christians as soldiers of the cross are to be steadfast in the face of prejudice, resisting it at all times. He is to be unmoveable in all things that are absolutely right and cannot be wrong. Through the ages this admirable quality has always been approved, appreciated, and applauded by the sons of men. Prejudicial persons will not deter steadfast Christians for a single moment. In the face of joy or grief, prosperity or poverty, or acceptance or prejudicial rejection, we are to exemplify the virtue of opposing all error and supporting all truth.

In 1777 a baby boy was born in the commonwealth of Virginia. At an early age, he along with his parents moved to the commonwealth of Kentucky. While yet in his early adult years he became widely known as a fluent, powerful, and adept orator. He eventually became a congressman, and sometime later Secretary of State of our United States. Eventually he had ambitions to become president. On one occasion a bill came before Congress which involved Texas and the servitude of slavery. He was informed by this political advisors that if he voted a certain way in regard to the bill he should never expect to become president. Henry Clay, the aspiring statesman, turned to his counselors and stated, “I had rather be right than President.” How badly do our brethren need to know the value of sacrifice of personal ambition for principle’s sake! No prejudice has ever been able to prove itself in the court of reason.

Just as a river is not turned into light and power until a dam is placed across it, so no life ever grows great until it is steadfastly focused, dedicated, and disciplined. There is a dire need in the church in our generation for men of conviction. Whether in regard to people or principle, there has never been a greater need for steadfastness in the service of the Savior.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, pp. 675-676, 693, 695
November 21, 1985

Have Ye Not Read?

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: The KJV refers to the apostle, “Simon the Canaanite” (Mk. 3:18). Was he a descendant of the Canaanites who were the original inhabitants of Palestine?

Reply: The two references which list the second Simon (the first being Simon Peter) refer to him as “Simon the Canaanite” in the King James Version (Matt. 10:4; Mk. 3:18). These same two references list him as “Simon the Cananaean” in the American Standard Version. The footnote reads, “Or, Zealot.”

The term “Canaanite” which is applied here to Simon, has led some to suppose that he was either a descendant of the original Canaanites or a citizen of the town of Cana. Neither is correct. The word “Canaanite” or “Cananaean” has political, rather than geographical, significance. The Greek word would be better translated “the Zealot,” and Luke refers to him as such (Lk. 6:15; Acts 1:13). Probably this name is given to him because he had belonged to the Jewish party known as the Zealots. Josephus refers to them as the “fourth sect of Jewish

Philosophy” (the others being the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes). See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (XVIII, ch. 1, 1, 6). He tells us that Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37) was the founder of the Zealots. This party despised foreign rulers who demanded tribute. They revolted against the Roman government in A.D. 66, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Evidently Simon had been a member of this party before he became a follower of Christ. Other than his name, we know nothing more about this apostle.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, p. 677
November 21, 1985

Moral Courage

By Mike Willis

Sometimes the world considers those who are Christians to be spineless, and weak men. Indeed, some men think that “going to church” is for women and children. Quite the opposite is true. Being a Christian demands backbone and courage, strong moral fiber, a willingness to stand up and be counted. Those who are Christians develop a strong moral constitution and display a moral courage which is generally absent in worldly men.

Examples Of An Absence Of Moral Courage

One of the best ways to learn what is meant by words is to present an illustration or example of that of which we speak. Contrasting the presence and absence of a virtue will sometimes bring out more clearly what attributes of character are being discussed. Here are two examples of an absence of moral courage!

(1) Pilate. When Jesus was taken before Pilate to be “tried,” Pilate displayed an absence of moral courage. Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea; he was the highest official representative of Rome who was responsible for administering justice and keeping peace. When Pilate tried Jesus, he found Him innocent of any wrongdoing saying, “I find no fault in this man” (Lk. 23:4). His responsibility at this point was to protect the innocent Jesus from the Jewish Sanhedrin and mob. He should have dispersed the crowd and taken a stand for right, even if he had to employ his Roman soldiers to enforce it.

Like many politicians, however, Pilate lacked the courage of his convictions. He sought to avoid having to take a stand on the issue of Jesus by sending him to Herod. When Herod returned Jesus, Pilate tried to pacify the Jews by releasing a prisoner for them, offering Barabbas and Jesus. He expected that the mob would prefer that Jesus be released rather than Barabbas. When they chose Barabbas over Jesus, his plans were foiled. He then sought to appease the Jews by scourging Jesus (Lk. 23:16), but the Jews still wanted Jesus dead. Finally, Pilate gave in to their will, trying to release himself from the guilt of his sin by washing his hands of the matter (Matt. 27:24). His display did not excuse his sin of lacking the moral courage to do what was right. He gave in to the mob rather than defending what was right.

(2) Peter. Peter displayed an absence of moral courage on two separate occasions in his life. When Jesus was being tried, he denied Him three times, because he lacked moral courage (Matt. 26:69-75). The second occasion in which he displayed an absence of moral courage was when he withdrew from associating with the Gentiles in Antioch because Jews came from James (Gal. 2:11-12). On both of these occasions, Peter lacked the courage to stand for what he knew was right.

Examples Of Moral Courage

(1) Paul. On the occasion when Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when certain Jews from James arrived in Antioch, Paul displayed his moral courage. He wrote, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:11-12). Paul had the moral courage to publicly confront Peter to his face for his sin. Earlier when some Jerusalem Jews tried to compel Titus to be circumcised, Paul “gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). Here is a display of a man with moral courage.

(2) Nathan. Another example of moral courage is displayed in the prophet Nathan. David fell into sin by committing adultery with Bathsheba. When Bathsheba discovered that she was with child, she told David. In order to cover his sin, David brought home from battle Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, hoping that he would think that the child was his own. But Uriah would not allow himself to enjoy the pleasures of his wife while Israel was in battle. In desperation, David made him drunk and sent him home, but again his plan was frustrated. Finally, to cover his sin, David ordered the murder of Uriah by placing him in the front lines of battle.

The Lord sent Nathan to David to confront him with his sin. The prophet was to confront the King of Israel, the absolute dictator of the nation who had already had one man put to death to cover his sin. Nathan had the moral courage to do what the Lord commanded. He confronted David with his sin, pointedly saying, “Thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7). His moral courage is an admirable trait.

(3) Daniel and the Three Hebrew Children. The moral courage of Daniel and the three Hebrew children, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, is displayed on several occasions in the book of Daniel. When taken into Babylonian captivity, these four Hebrew slaves were given the opportunity to serve in responsible positions under the King. For three years, they were expected to eat the King’s meat (which included unclean meat) and drink his wine. These men “purposed in (their) hearts” not to defile themselves. What moral courage they displayed in this decision. As slaves they could have been summarily reduced to menial labor, put in prison, or killed. Nevertheless, they had the courage of their convictions and God blessed them.

Later, Nebuchadnezzar issued a decree that all of the province was to fall down before an image at the sound of the music. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused to violate the commandments of God saying, ” . . . be it known unto thee, O King, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:18). What moral courage they displayed! The Lord delivered them from the fiery furnace into which they were cast.

On another occasion, Darius ordered that men cease praying to anyone except him for a period of thirty days. Daniel refused to compromise himself. He continued to pray three times a day, as he was accustomed to doing. Because of his disobedience to the king’s commandment, he was put into a lions’ den. The Lord delivered him. We admire his moral courage.

Our Forefathers Displayed Moral Courage

Those who have moral courage are not all gone. Many of the generation immediately before us have displayed the courage of their convictions in standing for the truth. During the 1950s and later, many congregations became involved in church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, old folks homes, etc.), the sponsoring church form of church organization, and church supported recreational activities. Some among us recognized that there was no Bible authority for these activities and had the courage to challenge those who were involved in them.

Church historians estimate that nearly 90 percent of the churches went with the liberal brethren. Those who stood for the truth paid the price. One preacher wrote that he had fifteen meetings cancelled; many preachers were fired. Those who took the lead in writing against these unscriptural activities suffered ridicule and slander because of their opposition. Their attitudes were condemned, internal church problems where they preached were used to destroy their reputations. Nevertheless, they had the moral courage to stand. We are the heirs of their work. Many of us have a place to preach and worship because that generation of preachers had the courage of their conviction.

I have no appreciation for men who have never engaged in spiritual battle standing back and criticizing these brethren for how they conducted the battle. Like the armchair quarterbacks, some brethren who have never been involved in spiritual conflict know better how to fight the good fight of faith than those who have experienced the ordeal. In the calm and peace of a settled congregation which was won through the labors of these men, they pass judgment on how they fought for the truth. At a relatively young age, they pass judgment on their elders. Such manifests poor grace! Those men who endured the conflict are worthy of honor; we should render honor to those to whom it is due, not be party to destroying their good reputation.

The Need For Moral Courage Today

There will always be a need for moral courage among Christians. Here are some areas of application in which we need Christians with the courage to stand for their convictions today.

1. Christians willing to suffer ostracism because these practice moral purity. Christians are tempted to be conformed to this world. When the world sees a Christian who refuses to be conformed, his distinctive morality is a rebuke to their ungodliness. They do not like the fact that a Christian does not participate in their filthy jesting, drinking, cursing, drugs, dancing, mixed swimming, free sex, pornography, etc. They will ostracize him. Consequently, we need Christians with enough conviction to suffer ostracism, willing to be different for Christ’s sake.

2. Preachers willing to preach what needs to be preached. Sometimes preachers need to display more backbone. Some churches are at peace where sin is tolerated. Social drinking, mixed swimming, masonry, adulterous marriages, and other common sins are ignored. When a preacher moves into such a congregation, he sometimes learns that the elders’ children and other relatives are involved. Sometimes he is remarkably silent about such sins. He is afraid to stir the water for fear that he will lose his job.

I appreciate the gospel preaching of the New Testament which was geared to the need of the moment. Peter said to the Jews on Pentecost, “. . . ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:23). Paul reasoned with Felix of “righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). Felix trembled. Their preaching comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comforted!

The kind of preaching which is unwilling to address the problems of sin in a congregation will not save the souls of those who are involved in those sins. Preachers need the moral courage to address those sins and seek to lead men to repentance, even if their preaching creates turmoil and conflict. If men are complacent in their sin, they need to be stirred to repentance. The preaching needs to be explicit enough that the sinner understands his condition before God. If the preaching leaves the sinner thinking that he is saved, it has not accomplished its purpose.

3. We need enough moral courage to confess Jesus. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38). Sometimes men have the opportunity to put in a good word for Christ and the church but do not say anything because they are afraid of how the world will react to them. We need the moral courage to speak up for Christ whenever and wherever the ungodly world speaks against Him.

Conclusion

Moral courage is a needed virtue in each of us. Like Peter, many of us stumble and fall from time to time because we fail to display moral courage. Like him, we need to repent of these sinful failures and begin anew to display the moral virtues which Christ manifested.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, pp. 674, 694-695
November 21, 1985

Reading the Rules

By Wayne Greeson

“How about a game of checkers?” I asked my wife late one evening.

“Oh, that’s an easy kid’s game. I haven’t played checkers in years. Okay, set ’em up,” she replied half jokingly.

The pieces were laid out and the game began in earnest. Only a few moves had been made when I moved one of my red checkers in front of one of my wife’s black checkers giving her a clear “jump” to take my red checker. My wife ignored the available “jump” and began to move another checker on a different part of the board.

“‘Whoa! You have a ‘jump’ and can take one of my checkers,” I said pointing to the move.

“I see it, but I don’t want to make that move,” she said.

“But you have no choice,” I responded, “the rules require you to ‘jump’ if you have a ‘jump.”‘

“But I have been playing for years and I never heard of such a rule!” she insisted.

I opened up the rules and read to her: “A player must ‘jump’ an opponent’s checker in the next square if a square beyond is vacant.”

“I guess you’re right,” she reluctantly conceded, “But that sure does make a big difference.”

She made the forced jump which opened up a double jump for me. Still surprised and uncertain by her discovery of a “new” rule, I proceeded to beat her in four games straight. Later that night, just as I was drifting off to sleep the last thing I heard was my wife muttering, “I still can’t believe I have been playing checkers all my life and I never really knew how to play.”

It was easy to diagnose my wife’s failure to know the proper rules for playing checkers. Almost everyone learns how to play checkers as a child and often the “forced jump” rule is not taught or not even known by the teacher of the game. So many grow up never bothering to read the rules because playing checkers is Sian easy kid’s game” and many assume they already know how to play.

The failure to read the rules and the assumption “I already know how to play” is not unique to the game of checkers. The same problem is often made with God’s rules as revealed in His Word. Many learn “religion” as children but are not taught correctly or not taught “the whole counsel of God.” Thus, there are many who grow up in ignorance, never bothering to read and study God’s Rule Book because they assume “I already know about religion.”

Many people are ignorant of God’s requirement that one must be baptized to be saved. “But, I have been a Christian for years and I never heard of such a requirement, ” people often respond. But simply open up God’s Rule Book and read, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

Many religious folks are not aware of God’s commands under the New Testament concerning worshiping Him in music through singing and not through instrumental music. “Well, all my life I have attended a church which has had an organ or piano, and I don’t think it’s wrong,” such folks invariably say. But what do the “rules” of God’s Word say about music in New Testament worship?

True worship is not to be done by “I think” or by my will” (Col. 2:18; Mt. 15:8-9) but only as God directs (Jn. 4:23-24). In the New Testament God commands true worshipers to “sing” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). To play an instrument in the New Testament worship is to add to God’s complete and perfect rules and is sinful (Rev. 22:18).

Imagine someone sitting down to play checkers and placing a set of green checkers onto the board in addition to the black and red set called for by the rules. The addition to the game would violate the rules and the result would not be a true game of checkers. While you can play around with the rules of checkers all you want, God will not tolerate those who play with adding to the commands of His word (Mt. 15:13-14; 2 Jn. 9).

Many Christians do not understand that Christ’s church is not a social activities center that sponsors social functions. Again the familiar refrain is heard, “But I have been a Christian for years and I never heard of any such thing. For years the church where I attended has sponsored all sorts of social activities such as banquets, softball teams, bowling teams, musical entertainment, camps, sewing classes. . . ” and on and on the list could go.

Once again it is time to go back and read the rules, God’s rules. The church established by Christ is a “spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”(1 Pet. 2:5). It is not the purpose of the church to offer food, recreation and entertainment as a social club. “(F)or the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:7). “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God . . .” (1 Cor. 11:22).

My wife’s ignorance concerning the proper rules of checkers cost her nothing but a few lost games and a bit of embarrassment. But ignorance of God’s rules will cost you your soul.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 660-661
November 7, 1985