Excessive Caution

I probably do not have to tell you that there are many churches across this country who are more than willing to follow the denominational pattern of offering food, fun, and  entertainment to draw people into the building, in the hopes they can "sneak" some teachings of Jesus into their lives while they are stuffing their faces and laughing at the clown shows. I also probably do not have to tell you that many churches have gone even
further than the denominational pattern and have thrown open their doors and minds to the practice of "open fellowship" in which they use the recently debated "don't ask, don't tell" method of accepting members into the fold. [Don't ask them about their beliefs and practices, and don't tell them that there is only one way to heaven.] Like Israel of old, who looked around and asked for a king to be "like all the nations" (1 Sam. 8:20), some church leaders see only the increase of numbers as the only factor worth consideration and think nothing of the consequences of such a pattern, rushing headlong into error, patting themselves on the back for having "expanded their fellowship."

Many brethren who are firmly set on following the will of God have looked at this lack of restraint within these churches and have recommitted themselves to upholding the truths of God's word in the face of an overwhelming move to go beyond the pattern for the Lord's church. Contributing to the push for accepting and then implementing these
unauthorized beliefs and practices is the simple lack of knowledge of God's word by a great number of brethren. After the great conflicts of the '40s, '50s, and '60s, it seems the amount of teaching on establishing Bible authority has trailed off considerably to the point it is mostly unheard, and the result is a generation of disciples that cannot
answer for what they believe and practice, or why other practices and beliefs might be condemned by God.

Because of this lack of knowledge, we have - on one hand - those who are wanting to go beyond the pattern and limits of God's authority, but are not getting answers from Scripture about why such would be against the will of God, and - on the other hand - those who are going too far in restricting what might be done, also without Scripture to back it up. We are starting to see both ends of extremes fighting for the right to either tighten the restrictions unnecessarily, or loosen them where God has not approved.

We often hear about the "liberals" and the ones who are wrong for going beyond the pattern and authority of God's word, but what about those who are excessively cautious, to the point they do not allow or approve even the things God allows for fear they might "look like the liberals"? Is it any less worthy of condemnation to restrict where God has not restricted? Yet very little is said about this.

Let's stop and think about this for a minute: I have heard some brethren say they will not have home Bible studies simply because there is a "house church" movement going on in this country that takes away the oversight of local church elders and puts it in the hands of designated men [or even women]. Some have recognized the trend toward
apostasy and, lest they be associated with that movement, have forbidden individual home Bible studies unless an elder is present. I have heard others argue against using certain types or methods of teaching only because they know of a "liberal" church that uses that type or method of teaching. I have heard some preach long and hard about displays of emotion within the worship assembly because they fear looking too much like the Pentecostals. I have heard some complain that using anything more technologically-advanced than a blackboard with chalk, or maybe even the old bed sheet charts, smacks of liberalism and they fear where the church is headed when they see preachers using computers, projectors, and Power Point presentations.

The basic problem with this way of thinking is that it uses the wrong standard of authority! Instead of looking to God's word to know what He commands or permits, one is looking at the denominations or the "liberals" to see what they are doing, and then running in the opposite direction so "we don't look like them," never stopping to investigate whether or not it might be actually within the bounds of authorized practice. It seems some are so intent on "not looking like the denominations" that they will even go so far as to do nothing so they don't even appear to be like those in error. Friends and brethren, this is no better than the one who sets aside the word of God to go beyond the word of God! The two go hand-in-hand into error because neither uses the word of God as the standard for what is believed, taught, and practiced.

I know many individuals who are part of denominational groups that meet on Sunday and Wednesday for Bible class studies and to worship. Will we cease doing that merely because they practice it? I have seen song books in these denominational buildings; will we stop using them, too? Will we cut out all displays of emotion for fear of looking
like the Pentecostals or the charismatics? If so, how can we truly "worship" since worship, by definition, is the reverent love shown to God? Isn't love an emotion? Will we be satisfied only when our "worship" is cold and devoid of emotion? Do you see where this line of reasoning goes?

I am very wary when someone wants to change for change's sake, and I am certainly cautious when things just do not seem to be "right." But when things don't seem "right," it is then that I must pick up God's word to see what God says about it. I do not avoid doing something just because it is not "the way we've always done it," nor do I do something just because "everyone else is doing it." The standard is God's word, and must always be.

If we want to know what is right in the sight of God, we must study God's revealed word to see if He has commanded it or forbidden it. If I fail to find that, I must then see if there is any divinely-approved example that allows it, or some text that would necessarily infer it to be acceptable to God. Lacking any of these, I cannot teach or practice it with any assurance that God will approve.

On the other hand, when I find that God has given a command that is not specific about how it is to be carried out, I must not bind my own traditions or practices and forbid others from doing it in some other way than what I have done or want to do. When Jesus sent the apostles out to teach (Matt. 28:19, 20), He did not say how it was to be done, so we cannot forbid one from using television, radio, or the Internet just because they didn't exist back then. Also, we cannot forbid doing things just because we might "look denominational." Some take this so far they end up doing nothing at all for fear of being confused with the denominations. I can see that this will lead some to remove the name of Christ from their signs simply because some who teach and practice error also use it. [Just wait! The day will come.]

Should we be cautious? Yes! Peter (2 Pet. 2) and Jude warn us of false teachers who will secretly bring in false doctrines and deceive many. The only way to defend against this is to know the truth, and it is our duty to prevent the spread of error. But, as we do this, let us not go so far in our effort to defend the truth and withstand error that we start forbidding even the things that are lawful. We do no better by forbidding lawful things than those who promote the unlawful things. Stick with the word of God as your guide, and that alone.

-- Steven Harper

Truth - is as old as God -
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity -- Emily Dickinson