Why Was Monica Seles Stabbed?

By Kenneth D. Sits

A few weeks ago, the number one ladies tennis player of the world, Monica Seles, was stabbed while playing in a tennis tournament in Germany. During a break between games, an unknown man ran out on to the court and stabbed her between the shoulder blades. This criminal was wrestled to the ground while Monica moaned in the center of the court at the net. Fortunately, Miss Seles will physically recover from her stab wound.

Why was Monica Seles stabbed? Has she been involved in some outrageous crime worthy of death? No! Has she been on the fringe end of some political or religious group, making people violent from controversial viewpoints? No! Monica is quite reserved, seemingly as harmless as a fly. The man who stabbed her told the media why he did it. He stabbed Miss Seles because he wanted Steffi Graf, the number two ladies tennis player of the world from Germany, to once again be the number one player. Can youbelieve that! This man was willing to kill Miss Seles for Miss Graf to be number one again. He was willing to kill in order to have what he wanted. I am sure that every superstar in modern athletics has been checking his back-side since this incident has occurred.

Friends, these kinds of incidents continue to escalate around the world. Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:1-4, “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (NKJV). When men turn their backs on God’s inspired Word and determine to live only for themselves, society deteriorates to the level of “every man out for himself.” When immorality runs unchecked, when standards are ignored, when “kill or be killed” is the motto of the day, death and destruction will always be the catastrophic result.

I have heard several people say, “Why has God given man all those laws? He must be a mean God, ordering people around like that!” Why you ask? To protect us from ourselves. Moses told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:24, “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is this day.” When man hates God and his laws of righteousness and morality, he often turns into a brutal, selfish, uncontrolled maniac who will have his way, regardless of who or what is standing in his way. What else could possibly explain the infamous L.A. riots last year? Over 50 people lost their lives because total selfishness and ungodliness was on parade.

When you consider that listing in 2 Timothy 3:1-4, you can find a lot of people who fit those wicked character descriptions. You don’t have to look very long to find many who live only to please their passions and pleasures. They have lost respect for authorities figures and reject the Bible as God’s word. Even within some churches of Christ, strife, contention and worldliness have become the order of the day. Paul told Timothy to turn away from such people (v. 5). The church of Christ must stand up against those who are filled with themselves, serving only them-selves. Jesus teaches us in Matthew 16:24, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow Me.” If people would follow after the King, society wouldn’t have to carry guns for self protection. It wouldn’t have prisons filled with rebellious, evil people. It wouldn’t have Monica Seles with a knife wound in her back.

That evening, most of the sportscasters that I saw seemed visibly shaken and unsettled by this incident. Steffi Graf went and saw Monica Seles in the hospital, obviously an emotional wreck over what happened. Many shake their heads and wonder what this world is coming to. Jesus has been trying to tell us for almost 2000 years. Isn’t it time that all of us take his words of heavenly wisdom to heart? Now is the time to examine ourselves in light of the wickedness revealed by Paul in 2 Timothy 3. How do we compare? It’s not too late to change with Jesus’ help.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 11-12
August 5, 1993

I Will Behave Myself

By Al Sandlin

I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. 0 when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord (Psa. 101:2-8).

Let us pause for a moment of consideration of this great Psalm of David. How easy it is and how frequently we tend to blame others for our misdeeds and poor judgments! Not so with David. This man after God’s own heart takes total and complete responsibility for his own behavior rather than placing the blame on someone else.

Let us notice the sequence of things here. He first makes up his mind that the way of integrity shall be the norm for him. His declaration is, “I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way” (KJV). “7 will give heed to the blameless way” (NASV). When an individual makes up his mind to behave in a certain way, with determination he accomplishes that goal. David’s assertion is one thing, but to follow through is quite another matter. The all-important ingredient here is the resolution of the will of the individual to follow a specific course of action.

Coupled with this resolution to do right must be the de-termination to seek the right way, the way of integrity, the way of blamelessness. In all of life’s situations, the resolution demands that the right way be sought out and then perform-ed. The man of honesty will soon learn “that a man’s way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). So a righteous man is made to acknowledge as did David in Psalm 19:7-8, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.”

Wanting to follow in the way of righteousness not only teaches one that he must pursue after God’s way, but also that prayer to that end is a necessity. Look at a prayer of David in Psalm 25:4-5, “Show me thy ways, 0 Lord; teach me thy paths. Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.” Again, in Psalm 27:11, “Teach me thy way, 0 Lord, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.”

In order to accomplish this behavior in blamelessness, David says in Psalm 101:3, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.” Prior to David becoming involved with Bathsheba he did not have this determination, else his sins of the flesh would not have brought him down. The lust of the eyes has been a problem with mankind ever since Eden. How keenly aware is David of the power of sight. Paul said, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (I Thess. 5:22). Especially in our day, our grit must equal that of David if we are to resist the temptations thrown in our path by Satan. The books, movies, plays, magazines, provocative clothing, et al, of our day are, in so many cases, designed with an appeal to sensuality through sight. Be careful little eyes what you see!

Notice in Psalm 101:3 that he hates “the work of them that turn aside.” He does not hate the doers but that which is done. We too, must be sensitive to the need of a soul, that is, to be saved. In James 5:20, the statement is made, “Let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” So many times it seems next to impossible to separate the doer from his deeds. It is imperative, dear Christian, that we develop a tenderness for lost souls. Would you be a Christian unless someone had a love for your soul? Are we so selfish that we have no interest in the eternal destiny of others? The person under consideration in verse 3 is the one who has fallen away; not the wicked per se. He mentions the utterly wicked in vv. 7-8.

Finally, in order to behave wisely, we need the influence of the faithful on our own lives. Psalm 101:6 (NASV), “My eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; He who walks in a blameless way is the one who will minister to me.” We are known by the friends we keep. Had you rather be around the faithful or the worldly? The idea in this passage is to watch and make their ways of faithfulness my ways and to surround myself with them and their good influence. May God help us to be serious about the lives that we live while here upon the earth. Let us pray that he will lead us in the paths of righteousness and that as he leads us, we will gladly and willingly follow and bring along any and all that we can persuade on this side of eternity.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 11
July 15, 1993

Hard to be Understood

By Paul J. Casebolt

The apostle Peter said that in Pauls epistles there were “some things had to be understood” (2Peter 3:16)

I do not understand that Peter was paying Paul a “left-handed” compliment, and neither does Peter mean to discourage us from trying to understand divine revelation. He is simply stating some facts, and when we look at the context of his statements, it is easy to understand why some of Paul’s writings may be hard for some people to understand.

Peter had just made the statement that “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (v. 15). In the earlier part of the chapter, Peter had been speaking of God’s longsuffering and how it could lead people to repentance and salvation. Consider the conditions under which Paul wrote on these things, including events which must precede the second coming of Christ.

At times, Paul had to explain the differences between the law of Moses and the law of Christ to fleshly Israelites who were rooted in traditions and customs which often contradicted the very law which they claimed to observe. They were so “high minded” because of the advantages which they had over the Gentiles, that they failed to benefit from those advantages (Rom. 3:1,2; 9:4,5). The Jew was so busy excluding the Gentile that he (the Jew) denied himself of those promises to be found in Christ and the gospel of the new covenant.

Throughout the Old Testament, the Gentile could not understand why God was longsuffering toward his people and suffered their manners through several instances of apostasy (cf. Jer. 50:7; Rom. 2:24). Neither could the Jew understand how that God’s longsuffering toward them should lead to the salvation of Gentiles, and ultimately to the salvation of the Jews themselves (Rom. 9:22-26).

The difficulty of the Jew to accept God’s longsuffering as a means of salvation for the Gentiles is seen in the objections of Peter’s Jewish brethren when he went to the Gen-tiles in Caesarea (Acts 11:1ff), in the objections at the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:5), and even in Peter’s own “dissimulation” (Gal. 2:12).

When Paul has to write through and around such prejudice and tradition, it is no wonder that some of his epistles may contain “things hard to be understood”not because the gospel is hard to understand, but it is hard to get it into hearts that are filled with prejudice and unbelief.

To the Jews who sought justification by the works of the law of Moses, it was hard to explain justification by faith not by faith only, but by an obedient faith which works by love. And it is still hard today to explain to souls steeped in the doctrines and commandments of men how that we can be saved by “grace through faith” and by works which make our faith perfect (Eph. 2:8-10; Jas. 2:14-26).

Circumstantial evidence may indicate that Paul is the author of the Hebrew epistle. But whether or not that is true, this epistle serves to explain why it is hard to explain some things to some people.

Concerning the priesthood of Christ, the writer said, “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing” (Heb. 5:11). The fault was not with the writer, but with the hearers. Jesus himself resorted to parables in his teaching because of blindness and hardness of heart (Matt. 13:13). I have no trouble explaining the joys and heartaches of a preacher to another preacher (or his family), but at times find it next to impossible to ex-plain those emotions to others.

And let us remember that Peter said there were “some things” hard to be understood, not all things. And the ones who wrested these things were unlearned and unstable readers who did the same thing with other Scriptures.

If we have an “honest and good heart” (Lk. 8:15), we can understand the “mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). And the more we “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of.. . Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18), the better we will understand.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 10
July 15, 1993

Applause During Worship Or After Baptism

By Don R. Freiling

There is concern about seemingly innocent changes some want to make in our observance of solemn but happy events (or our worship) to avoid what they call “Church of Christ ritualism.” Changes are sometimes refreshing, but care needs to be given that scriptural principals are not violated as we all strive to avoid ritualism and rote.

Who could object to a different order of worship as long as everything is scriptural? However, a distinction must be made between authorized scriptural worship and cultural (or traditional) expedients that accomplish authorized scriptural worship. Wherever worship takes place someone must choose between scriptural alter-natives. Someone must select a way to successfully accomplish what the Lord wants us to do. However, if these means of doing things are done repeatedly, some may assume they are the only way one can worship. One must respect the thunderous silence of the Scriptures while conscientiously and consistently applying principles of hermeneutics to please God and not to go beyond what is written (2 In. 9).

It is not popular to oppose “new ways of doing things.” Those of us who oppose applause in worship (or after a baptism), may bring some form of ridicule upon us. Let’s be above this and react like mature Christians as we study this subject.

Applause After Baptism

The subject of this discussion is applause after baptism. I would be opposed to it primarily because there is no Bible authority for it and it violates the sacred principle of keeping sacred things from becoming common or secular. I would also be opposed to it if it offended anyone else or if the elders of the local church opposed it.

Let’s first define the subject. We are concerned with the twentieth century custom in the USA of groups or assemblies that express their approval for someone’s performance by clapping their hands for an extended period of time. Usually, the louder and the longer the applause the more approval one shows. We will therefore define applause as an extended clapping of the hands  like one would observe at a basketball game or at a theatrical performance of actors on a stage.

Is Applause After Baptism Authorized?

Where in the New Testament is any applause mentioned at all  much less in regard to worship or baptism? If the subject is not mentioned in the Bible and therefore from the mind of God then it must be from the mind of man. If there is no Bible authority for applause after baptism  no command, no example of its use by New Testament Christians or if there is no implication from which a necessary conclusion can be drawn, then it must be avoided. Why would anyone want to lead God? We all must be lead by God? Why would anyone want to establish an example in the minds of our youth or others that could and would lead them down some other wrong road in the future? Why not stick to what we know for sure is right and leave off what is not even mentioned in the New Testament?

Remember the lessons about observing the silence of the Scriptures. We cannot presume God likes what we like. Instruments of music are presumed to be pleasing to God because they are pleasing to us. There is only silence regarding applause after baptism.

Reports have come to our attention of a belly dancer and a gymnast performing their specialty in religious services. Both acts were rendered to the glory of God. How would you reserve worship for only acts prescribed by Bible authority? Wouldn’t you eventually rely upon the time-tested rule of respecting the silence of the Scripture?

Do you recall that Nadab and Abihu sinned when they failed to respect the silence of the Scripture (Lev. 10:1-2)? Do you recall the teaching of Hebrews 7:14 where the tribe of Judah was excluded from priesthood duties by the silence of the Scripture? Do you recall the teaching of Isaiah  quoted by Jesus in Matthew 15:9  that using doctrines of men in worship makes that worship vain?

Some say that applause is only an expedient way of expressing joy. Remember: Expedients must first be lawful (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Are there not specified ways to express our joy or approval? James says “sing” (Jas. 5:13). Paul suggests “amen” (1 Cor. 14:16) and he wrote a letter to those of whom he approved, expressing his joy (Philippians, Thessalonians, etc.).

Who says applause is expressing joy? If God said it, where did he say it? Is the “non-traditionalist” who wants to add applause after baptism doing it just to be different? Is the “non-traditionalist” making laws to allow for his own preferences or traditions? Perhaps the “non-traditionalist” isn’t operating in the arena of expedients but has added something the New Testament says nothing about.

The Sanctity of God

Next, does clapping the hands in applause violate the sacred principle of respecting the sanctity of God? We all agree that God is holy and separate from sin. The Hebrews author said, “Let us have grace whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28-29). The Jews of Ezekiel’s day were reminded that their punishment in captivity was the result of their false worship  serving God “their way” and not his way. Ezekiel 44:23 states that they were destroyed because they did not make a distinction between the holy and the unholy, the sacred and the secular (the common).

The plain principle here is that we should not make our worship secular, common or unholy. We all know that Israel was destroyed because of “the sin of Jeroboam with which he caused Israel to sin” (1 Kgs. 12:33; 13:34; 15:30,34). What sin? The sin of worshipping God Jeroboam’s way, not God’s way. When Jeroboam failed to respect what God said in one act of worship, it was a small matter not to respect what God said in regard to any other matter  even moral matters.

Some see worship as sitting in a seat in an auditorium, watching and listening to someone sing (or lead) songs, read Scripture, pray or preach. They judge the performance of such as they would actors on a stage. The pro-per view of New Testament worship has God as the audience and those who assemble for worship on the stage. God is judging us when we worship. We are to praise God in “spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:23-24).

What distinguishes a public service dedicated to worship Almighty God from a public assembly to hear a political or motivational speaker?

Terry Varner relates a couple of interesting anecdotes from secular history that relate to this point. About 260 A.D. there was an elder of the church at Antioch named Paul of Samosata. This man was eventually chastised because of his false, heretical teaching. He loved “exorbitant praise and applause” for what he did both within and without the assembly. If there were any who did not applaud him or who did not in the custom of his day shake their handkerchiefs or who did make loud acclamations but rather heard him with composed attention and reverence, these were reproved and abused by him (Credibility of Gospel History IL, p. 666ff).

Another anecdote illustrates my concern. In 1903 in the Warlick-Stark Debate on the use of instrumental music in the worship, Stark thought of worship as the emotion of the soul and that it might “produce singing, shouting, praising, leaping, dancing, hand clapping, or thanksgiving and such should not be suppressed by man made rules” (emphasis mine, DRF). We should not fail to note the extent to which such thinking led their children and grand-children in this day. The “progressive brethren” of a hundred years ago would cringe to see their own fruit listening to homosexuals preach abortion rights in their pulpits. My opposition comes from respecting the thunderous silence of God’s word  not man made laws. If applause after baptism is a “liberty or expedient,” what else could a “liberty” legalize?

Object of Applause

Applause must have an object. One does not applaud just for the sake of applauding or praising God spontaneously by himself when he is alone. Perhaps those who have favored applause after baptism did not realize that they were showing approval for someone’s actions. Where does one get the idea we should applaud such “performances”? If it is from the Bible  where? If it is not from the Bible then it came from the mind of man. Our choice is man or the Bible. If one objects and claims he is not applauding that person for something he has done but only praising God, we must ask a question. Do you regularly stop what you are doing and just clap your hands together for an extended period of time just to praise God or to express your joy about something without a human object? If people do not normally and regularly applaud just to be applauding then the necessity of a human object of the applause must be recognized. If it’s all right to applaud one’s baptismal performance, what’s wrong with recognizing our appreciation for a fine song leader, prayer, or one’s comments before or after the Lord’s Supper? Conversely, could we “hiss” or “boo” a lesser performance by our brethren? Let all be done orderly and decently (1 Cor. 14:40).

Sometimes we get caught up in something before we think much about it. Sometimes we are hardened in what we did because we are told it was wrong by someone we don’t really like very much or in a manner that we object to. Let’s be humble and think.

Some have used Old Testament passages that refer to a “clap of hands, trees, or rivers, etc.” as a way to express joy after baptism. Remember that one cannot use the Old Testament as authority without bringing in animal sacrifices, polygamy and priests (Gal. 5:3). Also, note that many of the passages are figurative saying trees, rivers, or nations clap hands. In 2 Kings 11:12 there was a clap of the hands at the anointing of a king. This was not applause as we know it today and it was not an act of worship or used in connection with a spiritual event. David danced when the ark was moved to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14). Who would justify a dance around the Lord’s table? Whatever condemns the dance for us today, condemns applause.

Some say applause is authorized under the generic command to be joyful. If applause is authorized why are not whistling or shouting authorized, too? Would you like to worship next to someone who wants to praise God with applause or whistling or shouting after he partakes of the bread, and again after he partakes of the fruit of the vine?

Some say “non-applause” is a “Church of Christ tradition.” There are good traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and traditions which were condemned (Matt. 15:9). The real question is, which is a Bible tradition  applause or non-applause?” Let’s not add something because we like it or because we want to start “our” tradition. Think about what your children might add to the worship (dancing, whistling, shouting, “the wave,” waving handkerchiefs, etc.) and what consistent argument you could make to them.

Some say, clapping is like tapping the toe. Singing implies rhythm. Tapping the toe or finger on a book is only an expedient way to sing together. Applause is not an expedient way of doing anything that I can see.

Some say, only legalists oppose applause. People are called legalists by those who want to do whatever they want, and cannot find Bible authority for it and are challenged by some good brother or sister to find Bible authority. Was Christ a “legalist” in Matthew 7:21-23, John 14:31-32, 6:38? Is the “anti-legalist” really just making his own laws? Grover Stevens asked of the ones calling other legalists, “Are they telling us that to keep from being a legalist we should do whatever is right in our own eyes?”

Questions:

    1. Is there any difference at all between a clap of the hands and applause? If so, what?
    2. Where is applauding authorized in the New Testament? What passage suggests it?
    3. If applauding is an expedient, where is it lawful?
    4. If applauding is merely praising God, do you regularly substitute it for a prayer or song?
    5. If applauding is just showing our joy, are we showing our joy like we do at a secular event (a play, a game, etc.)?

 

    1. Would it bother you for someone next to you to ex-press his joy for a holy, sacred event (Lord’s supper, spiritual song, prayer) in the same way as for secular, unholy events (a touchdown, field goal, or musical performance)?

 

    1. If one could applaud a person’s baptism could he also applaud that person’s prayer or song or sermon?

 

    1. Is applause an involuntary, spontaneous expression of joy that cannot be controlled or suppressed like a sneeze, a blink, a tear, or quick brief clap of the hands?

 

    1. Is applause an involuntary spontaneous expression of joy or is it a learned cultural response to performance?

 

    1. If applause after religious events or acts is no where to be found in the Bible, where did the idea originate  God or man?

 

    1. If silence gives consent, what other acts could be justified with the same reasoning?
    2. How do we know we have God’s approval for applause in connection with spiritual events?
    3. How does the New Testament suggest we show our joy?

 

    1. If applause is done to show our approval of man’s performance, how would one show his approval and appreciation for what God has done? Would one act like the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 and cut themselves, etc.?

 

 

    1. Would you condemn one’s applause after the first verse of a song (possibly not the second), then for the third, or after a prayer, or after you partook of the unleavened bread, or after you partook of the fruit of the vine, or after the sermon?

 

 

    1. Are there other acts that do not break the solemnity of the occasion of worship that would enhance the moment rather than disturb the concentration of others?

 

  1. Could one “hiss” or “boo” if an impenitent brother is withdrawn from?
  2. Should we applaud a good sermon and “boo” a bad one?

 

    1. If applauding is permitted, do we have to do it all the time? Can some do it some of the time? What if one doesn’t get as much applause as another?

 

 

    1. When one applauds another’s baptism, is he applauding one’s performance? Is he applauding to let others know he approves the baptism?

 

 

    1. What distinguishes a public service dedicated to worship Almighty God from a public assembly to hear a political candidate or a motivational speaker?

 

  1. Could the same thinking that would allow applause also allow the instrument to be used with singing?

Summary

As time marches on we observe a general wearing away of things  the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). Language changes from the formal to the familiar. Beautiful gardens grow weeds if left unattended. Cars cease to run after a time. Now wedding ceremonies have become a joke to some  they are married under water, while sky diving, at a basketball game, etc. Could this lack of solemnity be a sign of changing attitudes toward marriage, women and the home? Graduation ceremonies used to be happy but dignified events. They were joyful but solemn. Cheers from bleachers were not appropriate and not permitted. But now, graduation ceremonies differ little from athletic events or theatrical performances. Where will applauding in connection with sacred but happy events lead? Shouldn’t we make a distinction between the holy and the unholy? Will we pay the price for our failure to make this application as did the people of whom Ezekiel wrote?

One can oppose applause for religious events on any one of four points:

  1. It is not authorized by the New Testament.
  2. It brings the “holy” down to a “common” event.
  3. It might offend others or distract them from their worship.
  4. It violates the judgment of the elders of the local church.

Applause after baptism may seem to some to be just a “new” way to do something. However, serious questions should be answered before one engages in this practice.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 16-19
July 15, 1993