Truth Magazine

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?
2. If applauding is an expedient, where is it lawful?
3. If applauding is merely praising God, do you regularly substitute it for a prayer or song?
4. 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?

 

19. 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?

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

22. 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

By J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911)

Since the publication of my recent article on the unscriptural marriage of divorced persons, I have received a number of communications from different parts of the country, expressing approval of what I have written, but calling for additional light on the subject.

One brother propounds the following question:

“If the husband leave the wife without sufficient cause, and marry again, does this adulterous life, on his part, give the wife a scriptural ground for divorce and the right to marry again?”

I think there can be no doubt that it does; for in this case adultery is unquestionably committed by the husband, and this, according to the Savior’s teaching, justifies the wife in contracting another marriage.

Another brother suggests an inquiry as to the proper method of proving the charge of adultery, when preferred as a ground for divorce. Certainly no man can be permitted to divorce his wife on a charge of adultery unsupported by valid proof. Suspicion, or his own unsupported assertion, is not sufficient. The elders of the church must be satisfied that the charge is true, and the grounds of their decision must be such as to place the fact beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. If, in a suit before the civil courts, the charge of adultery is perferred, and is proved to the satisfaction of a jury, this is ordinarily sufficient evidence, and no further inquiry need be made, except when there is good ground to think that a fair trial in court has not been held.

When this charge is not preferred before the courts, but the divorce is obtained on other grounds, the plan-tiff holding, however, that this crime has been committed, it is the duty of the elders to decide on the truthfulness of the charge and act accordingly.

The responsibility of the preacher who performs the ceremony is an unscriptural marriage, is also made a subject of inquiry. A marriage of a member of the church to a divorced woman once took place in a church where I was an elder. The elders learned from common rumor, some week or two in advance of the wedding, that it was to take place, and they promptly gave the man the proper advice and warning; but he persisted, and was excluded from the church. The preacher who performed the ceremony was a member of the same congregation, and was waited on to know why he had made himself a party to the sinful transaction. He solemnly asserted that he was ignorant of the fact that the woman had been divorced, and on this statement being made to the congregation, he was excused. A preacher who lives in a city, or in a place of common resort for wedding parties, is constantly liable to be led unwittingly to participate in such marriages, and it becomes him to be on his guard. It is very easy, as a general rule, to learn the facts in the case, and when a stranger proposes to be married to a widow, who is also a stranger, the inquiry should always be made whether she is a divorced woman, and, if so, the grounds of her divorce.

Again, I am asked, whether a couple, who are known to be unscripturally married, but who come with letters of commendation from a sister church, should be received into the fellowship of the congregation. Without hesitation, I answer, no. In such a case it is known that the church granting the letter has done wrong in so doing, either intentionally or through ignorance, and if we receive the parties we are participating in the wrong. When a church letter is presented, it furnishes prima facie evidence of Christian character, and it must be accepted in the absence of conflicting evidence; but when the congregation into whose fellowship admission is sought, knows to the contrary, or has good reason to suspect the contrary, she must go behind the letter and judge for herself as to the reception of members into her body.

I hope there will be re-awakening of consciences among preachers, church officers, and church members, on this important subject. The church cannot afford to be stained with the guilt of adultery. If she dares thus to become defiled, her Lord will repudiate her as an unclean thing, and the world will scorn her as a painted hypocrite. It is a shame to Protestant churches that the law of Christ on this subject is more scaredly regarded and more strictly enforced by her whom we sometimes call “The Mother of Harlots,” than by our-selves! Let us be abashed and humiliated, until we reform, and can lift up our heads and declare that the Protestant world has returned to the Word of the Lord on this vital element of social and religious life. (Reprinted from The Apostolic Times 8 Feb. 1877.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 22
July 15, 1993

By Olen Holderby

I know that much has been said lately on this subject, especially in the gospel papers; and, I very well may not have read them all. However, I shall run the risk of being repetitious in order to say some things that need to be said.

This writer is convinced that many problems which con-front brethren today are caused and propitiated by the claim, “We all cannot see the Bible alike.” Many of us have for years found this claim to be quite common in regard to our religious neighbors. When such people could think of no other answer, we expected to hear, “But, we do not all understand the Bible alike.” In recent years this same claim is being heard more and more from the lips of our own brethren. To this writer such a claim sounds like a page out of a denominational publication; and it ought to be returned to its source. It seems that such a claim is made in an effort to bolster the idea that we must have “unity-in-diversity.” If the claim is true, the alternative would at least be acceptable. But, is the claim true?

Before seeking an answer to his question, I wish to make it plain that I am not speaking of things indifferent within themselves as discussed in Romans 14. Rather, I am speaking of things commonly referred to as “doctrinal” matters, things upon which God has legislated. Some have misused Romans 14 in applying the principles there to doctrinal matters. I will not be dealing with Romans 14 in this article; however, I must insist that in order to so use Romans 14 one has to stretch both his imagination and the Scripture. If there was just one place in the “doctrine of Christ” that endorsed the idea of “unity-in-diversity,” it, no doubt, would have been produced long ago. But, no such place exists.

Now, let us go back to the statement, “We cannot all see the Bible alike.” Several reasons (or arguments) shall be offered to show that such a claim is absolutely false.

 

1. The Old Testament prophesied of the simplicity of God’s way. “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” (Isa. 7:15). This is, as all may understand, a prophecy of the forthcoming Saviour; and that Saviour is our example (1 Pet. 2:21). Again, “And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein” (Isa. 35:8). Did the prophet accurately reflect upon God’s way here?

 

2. God created man and in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). As Creator of man God well knew man’s limitations; and he knew the capabilities of man. God had this knowledge before he gave the gospel. The gospel came from the mouth of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The question is, could God give a gospel that all men could understand alike? If we say “no,” we question the wisdom, the knowledge, and the power of God. So, our answer must be in the affirmative. The next question is, did God give a gospel that we all can under-stand alike? Dear reader, if you say “no,” you question the mercy, the justice, and even the love of God for man. So again, the answer must be in the affirmative. Remembering, then, that God created man in his own image, and that God gave the gospel for man, to claim that “we cannot all understand the Bible alike” is an insult to the Almighty!

 

3. Paul called God’s giving of the gospel a “revelation” (Eph. 3:3). Of this word (apokalupsis) Thayer (p. 62) says it means, “a laying bare . . . a disclosure of truth, . . . concerning divine things before unknown.” W.E. Vine con-curs in this definition, but adds, “an uncovering . . . of `the mystery,’ the purpose of God in this age, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3 . . . an expression of the mind of God for the instruction of the church.” Brethren, think about these definitions. We have all preached the gospel as the revelation of God to man. If the gospel is the revelation of God to man (and it is), it has to uncover, to make known to man the purpose of God for this age, it has to make known God’s mind for the instruction of the church. If the gospel does not do that, it is not a revelation from God to man. Once revealed the revelation must be understandable in order to be a revelation.

 

 

4. We are commanded to understand this revelation. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words), whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-4). How can anyone read these verses and then say, “we cannot all understand alike”? Would God command us to do something which we cannot do?

 

 

5. God’s revelation to man is a complete revelation, containing all information necessary for our understanding and direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17). This revelation contains “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Again, I say, we must remember that God created man and knew exactly how to express his will so that man could understand. God implied that all men could understand the gospel when he commanded that the gospel be preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15). Further, God implied that all Christians could understand the gospel when he instructed that our lives conform to the gospel (Phil. 1:27; Rom. 12:2). Further implication for the same thing is implied in the command to study (2 Tim. 2:15). Yes sir, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psa. 119:130).

 

 

6. God has made our salvation contingent upon our understanding of his revealed will. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (in. 8:32). We are to obey the truth to purify our souls (1 Pet. 1:22); but, how can we obey that truth if we cannot understand that truth? Paul said that Timothy had “known the holy Scriptures” from the time he was a child (2 Tim. 3:15). This would, of course, make reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. It seems to this writer that Timothy had things harder to be understood than what we have today; yet, he understood them. If we cannot understand that by which we are going to be judged (in. 12:48), how can we prepare for the judgment?

 

 

6. Certain easily-understood instruction could not be followed if we cannot understand what God wants of us. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10). How could any number of people know that they were speaking the same thing, and speaking the truth, if they could not understand? How could they be of the same mind? How could I “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17) if I cannot understand that doctrine?

 

 

6. Limitations which God’s word places upon us forces the conclusion that we must understand his word. Consider again 1 Corinthians 1:10; we must speak the same thing and be of the same mind. The familiar statement of 2 John 9 further illustrates this point. If I cannot understand the doctrine of Christ, how can I know whether I am in or out of that doctrine?

 

 

6. Paul says that “we walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7); and “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6). “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). If there is no word of God there can be no faith; and I cannot please him without that faith. If I cannot understand God’s word, what happens to my faith? We can understand that if we operate in the realm of silence, we operate without faith; but, is this any worse than operating with a faith that is based upon a perversion? In what do I really trust? No longer can I say, with Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith.” For my faith in him to be real, effective, and acceptable I must understand his word.

 

Still Folks Do Not Understand

All of that, you say, is well and good; yet many do not understand, and you wish to know why. Jesus spoke of an evil heart that did not understand (Matt. 13:15); not because they could not understand, but because they had an evil heart. Prejudice, envy, and jealousy all may preclude an understanding (Acts 17:5,32; 13:40-45). Stephen gave “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” as being at fault (Acts 7:51). Jesus, perhaps, assigned the reason for most not understanding, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). And, what causes one to not know the Scriptures? The answer comes bouncing back  a failure to honestly and sincerely study the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15). When an open and receptive heart comes to God’s word, he can understand God’s word. Yes, effort is required, sometimes much effort. Not only do some people learn more quickly than others, some have farther to go than others. But, every accountable person upon God’s earth can under-stand God’s word; and every group of such persons can understand God’s word alike! If this is not so, there really is no standard at all.

The claim that “we cannot all see the Bible alike” can-not be used to justify “unity-in-diversity.” And, since we can all see the Bible alike, there is no valid reason to plead for “unity-in-diversity.”

May God help us all to have room in our hearts for an understanding of his word; for, if we do not the consequences could be terrible, both in this life and the one to come. Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 12-13
July 15, 1993

By Carl McMurray

“Therefore He was saying, `What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree; and the birds of the air nested in its branches.’ And again He said, ‘To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of meal, until it was all leavened”‘ (Lk. 13:18-21).

In the above verses Jesus compares his kingdom to two everyday occurrences in order to illustrate different characteristics of that kingdom.

In the first illustration the kingdom is likened unto a mustard seed. This small seed, about the size of a pin head, grows into a plant large enough for the birds to nest in. The words are similar to our modern day sayings about acorns and mighty oaks. The lesson is clear. From modest and humble beginnings, the gospel of the kingdom can grow to have a tremendous effect. Whether we are speaking of the kingdom’s humble beginnings in Jerusalem and subsequent world-wide spread, or whether we are speaking on a more personal level of the growth changes brought about in one’s life as he humbles his heart to God and is “lifted up” in service, it makes no difference. The changes are still tremendous in the world, in a community, or in one’s life. We can-not escape the potential for growth that is present in this illustration and we need to beware the efforts of Satan to discourage us by whispering, “Nobody’s interested” or “They’re going to do it anyway, why fight it?” We need to keep planting kingdom seeds.

In the second illustration, the kingdom is likened unto leaven or yeast. He comments on the spreading power of the yeast throughout the meal. We note that even though its work is unseen, it is nevertheless very effective. We are forced to see once again the power for growth and spreading influence of the kingdom. In the first parable the growth was observable while here it is unseen. In the first, birds came and nested in its branches, while here no more meal is added to the amount. Both of these are different aspects of the kingdom. Sometimes growth is natural and visible, while sometimes it comes about more slowly through unseen influences such as example, love, conscience or friendship.

There are two things, however, that seem to be present in both cases that catch one’s attention. In both cases there is growth. Growth means change, which is uncomfortable for many people. We like our “ruts” and our traditions. But growth also means maturity and strengthening and wisdom. The kingdom (or church) should be maturing as our faith grows season by season. Greater wisdom should be available to every congregation as the work progresses. Though our standard, the gospel, is unchanging, our methods of evangelism, our class curriculums, our gospel meetings can and should change to be more effective in getting Christ’s message out to a “changing” society. Just like the “brush arbor” meetings and millennial teaching of the 19th century were laid aside as we grew and learned, so other activities that become outdated or need correcting should be addressed. On the one hand, to be more effective in reaching out to a lost world, and on the other hand to keep perfecting our teaching so as to always be upholding the light of the first century gospel. Jesus shows us that whether by visible results or hidden influences, kingdom growth is inevitable.

The second obvious thing I see, however, brings the parables home to me. I notice that in both cases, before there could be growth, there was someone involved in the process. In the first “a man” took the seed and sowed it. In the second “a woman” took the leaven and hid it. In both cases, the seed and the leaven would have been useless if they were just left alone to grow by themselves. Someone had to get involved. Remember, Jesus did not say simply that the kingdom was like seed or leaven. He said it was like seed, sown and growing. And it was like leaven, hid-den and growing. It is the whole picture that represents the kingdom. The seed and leaven (gospel?), the growth, and the man and woman (Christians?) are all part of the picture.

Are you part of this picture of Christ’s kingdom? As the song says, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand, the cry for help goes ringing through the land,” and again, “There is room in the kingdom of God, my brother, for the small things that you can do.” God has done his part in giving us a Saviour. Mercy and peace need now to be taught in his name. Will you help . . . by your faithful attendance? By your spiritual worship? By your encouraging words? By your purposed and liberal giving? Will you teach a class? Will you serve in any number of ways that are available in the kingdom today, and by your action sow the seed or hide the leaven? May God bless you in your every effort.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 25
July 15, 1993