The Proclaimer
PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST TO A LOST AND DYING WORLD
Edited and Published by Jack Critchfield
| Volume 5 Issue 11 |
November, 2001 |
In This Issue:
Straining Gnats And Swallowing Camels
Getting To The Root
Need A Personal Tune-Up
Practice What You Preach
Success In God's Eyes
A Talk With Mothers
Straining Gnats And Swallowing Camels
Jack Critchfield
We have all seen them around the house. Those pesky little flying creatures that land in the coffee cup just about the time you go to take a drink. I don't know about you, but when that happens, I am going to pour out the coffee, wash out the cup and then refill it. After all I don't really want to swallow a gnat.
Often we find the same thing in the church. Those pesky little gnats flying around bothering everyone. When this happens someone (usually several) get busy and start "straining out the gnat's." Yet many times while they are "straining out the gnats," they will swallow a camel. Now I am quite sure that God would want us to strain the gnats, but not at the expense of swallowing a camel.
Some would not consider missing a service of the Lord's church, but seem to consider it beneath their dignity to speak to certain members of the congregation. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 13:1-2, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Many times the one who is snubbed is perceived as having done some kind of wrong. I use the word perceived because many times the wrong never happened except in the mind. Yet when a wrong is truly done and that person comes and asks for forgiveness some think nothing about harboring a grudge against that person and making the conditions of repentance as hard as possible. But Jesus said, "…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:15).
The Apostle John wrote in 1 John 4:21-22, "If someone says, 'I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him; that he who loves God must love his brother." When this is brought up, it will receive a flippant answer something like, "Well it says I have to love him, but I don't have to like him!" Dear friends, the "Random House Webster's College Dictionary" (1997) defines hate as "(1). To dislike intensely or passionately; (2) to be unwilling; (3) to feel hatred; (4) intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility; (5) the object of extreme aversion or hostility." Do you see how many times the word "dislike" is used? Hatred and dislike go hand in hand. You simply cannot, by definition, dislike some one and love them at the same time.
Many others have swallowed the camel of unfaithfulness. They have a stronger love for their friends and family than they do for the Lord (John 12:42-43) and will not stand apart from them. Are you more interested in your religious 'party' or denomination than you are in teaching the commands of God (Matt. 15:3-9)?
There are many camels out there waiting to be swallowed. Jesus taught that we must not swallow the camel while trying to strain the gnat. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" (Matt. 23:23-24). Straining gnats is important but so is NOT swallowing camels. Either one will choke you to death!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Harper
Recent discussions within political circles have focused on the question of whether or not our government should fund what has come to be called "stem cell research." After having previously stated that he would oppose such research, our President announced last week that he would allow it, on a limited basis. Lost in the discussion of whether or not our government should fund it was whether or not it should be done at all. Just like the debate over the government funding of abortions now almost 30 years ago in which the discussion was renamed a question of "individual rights" instead of the real - and much more important - question of life or death, the debate about when life begins has been sidelined and it is made to appear that the only real question is whether or not we should use government money to do the inevitable research. No serious consideration is made about the life and death aspect of this - at least when talking about the embryos. The only time life and death is brought up is when the proponents use the emotional appeal that this research will "save the lives of many who are now suffering" such diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, among others, or even those with spinal cord injuries that have made them paraplegics.
For those of you older than I, you are no doubt wondering how our society got to the point where the lives of the innocent are no longer even considered when their destruction affords just a remote possibility that the lives of the now-living will be made more comfortable, or maybe even extended for a just a few more years. According to the arguments of many well-heeled and "respected" proponents of stem-cell research, the sacrifice of these embryos will help to end debilitating diseases and extend life for many people now, and in the future.
Did I miss it, or did they forget to mention that it would also cost the lives of many innocent lives in the process? Did I somehow miss hearing that to get the desired results - none of which are guaranteed - all of these "embryos" (humans) will have no choice but to give up their future for others? Did I miss hearing them say that they are going to take the life of another without their consent so someone else who has been deemed more worthy of life or even just a better measure of comfort may benefit? Did I miss that?
Of course, I did not miss hearing that because no one is saying that. No one is saying that what they are doing is taking the life of one that another may live longer or more comfortably. That would not sound nice. So, we call it "stem-cell research" and it sounds like a noble endeavor. Call them embryos instead of humans (like calling "it" a fetus instead of a baby) and it adds to the scientific nature of the debate. Only backward and ignorant people would argue against science! Those who want to "sidetrack" the debate and talk about the life or death aspect are only delaying the inevitable and are hindering discoveries that could save the lives of millions. Or so we are told. Once again, only the lives that may be saved are mentioned, with no hint that lives will not just be lost, but literally and forcefully taken without their consent. In another time, that used to be called murder.
How did we get to this point? Is it because society has accepted abortion? We could argue, very powerfully, that this had a lot to do with our current situation, for abortion has indeed lowered the value of human life a great deal in these past 30 years. The world has obviously forgotten (or never known) the Scriptures, that teach us that life is contained within the womb, with the psalmist recognizing that he was in his mother's womb by the power of God's wonderful creation (Psa. 139:13). The world has forgotten the wonder of human conception and birth, with the wise writer reminding us, "As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything." (Eccl. 11:5) Man, in all of his wisdom, has never discovered - and never will - the force behind the bones growing in the womb. That belongs to God, and no matter how diabolical our "research" may get, man will never be able to create life, as God is able. But abortion alone is not the cause for our current situation. No, it goes back much farther than that.
The reason we are at the point we are now is that, sometime long ago, someone decided that man was not created by God at all - he just "evolved" from inanimate particles into the now imminently-complex collection of living cells of which we are all compiled. The first consequence of this belief was, of course, God being removed from the picture, but it was certainly not the only consequence. Just as destructive to mankind was the idea that began to be fostered, promoted, inculcated, and finally accepted amongst society that we humans were just another animal. Following the logical path of reasoning, many have recognized that if this was truly a world of "survival of the fittest," then taking the life of another human being was just as insignificant as killing a deer or squirrel by a game hunter. After all, we're just animals who have evolved a few steps above these others. This idea has been heightened in the past few years by those who have argued for "animal rights" in the same sense we humans have individual rights to life and freedom, the only difference being, they will argue that it is cruel to take the life of unborn eagles or sea turtles, but no such outcry is made when an unborn human is sliced, diced, and its skull crushed, only to then be sucked into a bag and disposed of in the nearest dumpster. Inexplicably, this type of behavior is designated "freedom of choice."
How did we get here? Slowly, step by step. We first got rid of the idea that God had anything to do with man's creation, paving the way for the next step of promoting the evolution of man from "primordial ooze." Since we are nothing but the next step up from other animals (in the eyes of evolutionists), then the next step is treating humans no better than animals, aborting them at will and eventually experimenting on them while indefensible embryos. What's next, experimenting on them outside the womb, putting the adults to death who are not "viable living beings" and using them for further research? Do you think that won't happen? I didn't think we would get to where we are now, either.
The Burns Park BEACON
August 12, 2001
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Need A Personal Tune-Up?
Lower the Volume and Listen
Warren E. Berkley
This may seem to be a statement of some prejudice. Exceptions to this rule must be granted. But I believe men have a special sense of knowledge about automobiles. Call this "mechanical aptitude," but when fully developed it is more like a hunch or intuition. Men with this skill can smell and predict trouble with the water cooling system and hear when a plug is bad. They can feel things like wheel alignment and bad shocks. I worked on my own cars back before auto computer boards and gradually picked up little feelings and insights about typical car trouble. Men with this wisdom know, a good habit to follow is - periodically turn the AC and stereo off and just listen. You may hear something that needs attention. (One time on a cool autumn day my wife called from her cell phone. She had turned the AC and stereo off. She was a little alarmed in reporting to me that she heard this winning sound she hadn't heard before. It was the engine!).
In our personal lives - this may also be a good habit. Lower the volume and listen. The noise of your sometimes chaotic daily life; the clamor of competing loyalties and demands; the intimidating resonance of pressures and problems. Turn it all down and listen to what you are thinking, planning and feeling. Focus on your relationship with God; examine your present obedience and growth; face the realities of your temporal existence and destiny. When you turn down the noise and listen, you may learn that something needs to be tuned up!
I believe David wrote about this in Psalms 119:59 - there he said, "I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies."
From Expository Files 8.5
May, 2001
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jerral Kay
A fountain pen salesman persuaded a merchant to order 500 dozen pens. He was writing the order in his notebook when suddenly the merchant exclaimed, "Hold on! I'm canceling that order!" Then he turned to wait on a customer. The salesman left the store perplexed and angry.
Later, the merchant's bookkeeper asked, "Why did you cancel that fountain pen order?" "Why?" responded the merchant, "because he talked fountain pens to me for half an hour, using a number of forcible arguments, and then booked my order with a lead pencil. His practice did not agree with his profession."
Does your Christian practice agree with your profession? Be on guard, as you'll be tested when you least expect it!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Justin Monts
How do you define success? Some define success as making a lot of money and marrying a good-looking man or woman. With God, however, success is measured in a much different way.
The Lord instructed Joshua, "This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success" (Josh. 1:8). True success is an approval that based on obedience to God (Acts 10:34-35). Having the greatest riches or the most popularity is meaningless in view of eternity. Are we living by the Book? That is the question to ask. If we are, then we are successful.
Among the Corinthians, we read of some less-fortunate but, nonetheless, successful Christians. "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are" (1 Cor. 1:26-28). Sometimes, rather than act jealous toward those who "have it all," we should just be thankful for what we lack.
Those who were "unpopular" were more inclined to obey the gospel. On the other hand, the rich had to be reminded "not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches, to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share" (1 Tim 6:17-19; cf. Lk. 6:24). Such was not the case with the poor. In contrast, God had chosen them (Jas. 2:5).
When we stand before God in the judgment it will not matter what the world thought of us. How successful we were according to its standard is meaningless! Did we obey the Lord? This is the question to dwell upon and consider. Not long ago I came across a shirt which read, "He who dies with the most toys, still dies." And when all is said and done that is the plain truth (Mk. 8:36). Our condition before God alone determines success or failure (Eccl. 12:13-14). May each of us see things as God would have us to see them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
James B. Lusby
Every mother wants to be counted worthy of praise. She looks to the day when her children will be adults and when others will say, "I hope I am able to raise my children like she raised hers." God expects every woman to be counted worthy of praise, and she will be if she fears the Lord. "Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain; But a woman that feareth Jehovah, she shall be praised" (Prov. 31:30).
Praise that comes to mothers who raise faithful children is not something that is an accidental extolment. It is earned. As a worshipper of the Lord, a righteous mother will not fail to lead her children in the "paths of righteousness." She is not content to let them be "tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine" but she nurtures them "in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4). "She looketh well to the ways of her household" (Prov. 31:27). And when her children are grown, "they call her blessed" (Prov. 31:28).
It is often said that people are largely the products of their environment. Such a statement is all too true with reference to children. Parents mold the minds of their children. The distinguished psychologist Frances G. Wickes in her book, "The Inner World of Childhood," points out that in most case studies of disorders in childhood the disturbances can be traced back to the home atmosphere. Parents should realize that "they themselves are the principle cause of neurosis in their children." Thus it is the home atmosphere that furnishes the patterns for the child's later life. If the child is led by the right example he will have a normal development and a "sense of security in the fundamental relationships of life." "It is not a question of good and wise counsels, but solely of deeds, of the actual life of the parents. Exempla-docent -- example is the best teacher!"
Much of the faith in the Lord that children possess has been instilled in them by the devotion of God-fearing mothers whose examples of faithfulness have been indelibly etched on their minds. The great orator Daniel Webster said, "If we work upon marble, it will perish; if we work upon brass, time will efface it; if we rear temples, they will crumble into dust; but if we work upon immortal souls, if we endue them with principles; with the just fear of the Creator and love of fellowmen, we engrave on those tablets something which will brighten all eternity." This principle is exemplified in the life of young Timothy. To him Paul wrote: "Having been reminded of the unfeigned faith that is in thee; which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice; and, I am persuaded in thee also" (2 Tim. 2:5).
No mother should think that her children will "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" if she only sends them to "church" and does not fear God enough to set the correct example before them by attending herself. Ann Landers, in her syndicated column for women, gave this advice for rearing children: "Teach your child to love God and to love his fellow man. Don't 'send' your child to a place of worship -- 'take' him there. Children learn from example. Telling him something is not teaching him. If you give your child a deep and abiding faith in God it can be his strength and his light when all else fails."
If children see their mother fail to attend the services of the church due to lack of interest and dedication, they will be inclined in the same direction. "A child may know a principle of arithmetic so he can repeat it from memory, but until he has seen a problem solved by the use of the principle, he will not know how to use it himself. So parents are to give instruction, and then guide the child in the use of that instruction until it has become a part of his character..." (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1951). Is it not a fact that children, more often than not, imitate what they see, rather that what they hear? Be not deceived! Children will pick up the habits of an unfaithful mother.
A few years ago the late Judge Sam Davis Tatum of the Juvenile and Domestic relations Court of Nashville, Tennessee, observed that of 9,500 boys under 17 years of age who had been in the courts of Davidson County there was not one whose parents attended Bible study and church services regularly. Oh, how many children after reaching the age of accountability, die in a sinful state because of an unfaithful, unworthy mother!
May each mother strive to measure up to the divine standard and set the correct example before her children. Let her prove worthy of her offspring. "A worthy woman who can find? For her price is far above rubies" (Prov. 31:10).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from Evil. It will be health to your flesh, And strength to your bones."
Proverbs 3:7-8
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jack Critchfield, Editor & Publisher
403 Coit Way, Salinas, Ca. 93907
(831) 772-9557
jcritch@a1above.net