Download (ELBulletin02-19-12.pdf, PDF, 382.94KB)

Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek [or gentle] and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls”

This expression is more than a self-effacing platitude; it embodies the very pith of the Lord’s charge. Like connective tissue between vital organs, it links responsibility to rationale. It explains why Jesus is the only logical Teacher: because He is already what each of us must become.

Our charge to take on the “yoke” of Jesus is not a call to religiously correct formalism. It is a summons to yielding, deliberate reformation of character. It is an invitation to fulfill God’s purpose for His elect: “to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). And who better as an Instructor, than the Son, Himself, who has already yielded to the Father’s will in total self-sacrifice? “Tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), Jesus is the ultimate role model.

                We sometimes stumble over the terms meek and gentle. Although they are used interchangeably by translators, they do not represent identical ideas. Gentleness is not the equivalent of meekness; rather, gentleness is a result of true meekness. And contrary to popular opinion, a man made meek is not a man made weak. Weakness, whether moral or physical, is no virtue.

The very concept of meekness is based on the recognition of strength. But great strength glorifies God and man only when it is controlled to some useful end. And such is the essence of meekness: strength under control. And Jesus is the benchmark. He came to earth as “God manifested in flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16), yet humbly submitted to the scorn of men. Not  because He was weak, but because His infinite strength, inherent in Godhood, was controlled to serve the purposes of the Father. When we make a deliberate, rational choice to allow our lives to be used in the service of God, we understand the principle of being His yokefellow.

To put on the well-fitted yoke of God is to recognize two essential facts. First, God’s will is not an arbitrary, burdensome code, but a reflection of His own moral nature – and is designed for our ultimate good. Secondly, His yoke can only be put on voluntarily. No one is forced or coerced into discipleship. It is only through the determinate will of the individual that he lays aside his own agenda and steps into the harness of tamed strength. And that may be precisely why so many of us fight it.

If only Christianity were about “doing Bible things in Bible ways,” we reason dubiously, discipleship would be a snap. If its focus were only the performance of public acts of worship, faith would be nothing more than learning ritual. And that’s where logic become illogical. If religion is not rooted in our hearts, if we haven’t given our whole hearts to the Lord, what would possibly motivate us to maintain the routine?

But yielding one’s whole heart to another, even to the Savior, is tough. It is a learned response, stemming from a realistic perspective of one’s proper place in this world. We are not little gods ruling our little corner of the cosmos. We are created beings. We are made from dirt. It is only through the creative genius of the One True God that we have life and breath at all. Jesus was “lowly in heart.” Although He was no ordinary man, He still had “emptied Himself” of all the glories of heaven and took the form of a man. He lived in humble circumstances, yielding Himself even to the cross (Phil. 2:5-8). If one who was “God manifested in flesh” can be humble in the Father’s service, how much more are we to “have this mind” as Paul charges?

Like Jesus, each of us must “empty” himself. Of pride. Of self-importance. Of selfishness. Of unrestrained lusts. It is only when we’re stripped of Self that our strength is “tamed” and fit for the service of God. We can only put on God’s yoke when our own has been consigned to the scrap heap. As Paul explains it, “What things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. But indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8-9).

 - Steve Dewhirst

by Jeff Kingry

 For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men?
For if I yet pleased men,
I should not be a servant of Christ.”

Galatians 1:10

Diogenes of Sinope (412?-323 B.C.) was a Greek slave, considered by scholars to be a notable Greek philosopher, generally considered by historians as the founder of the school of Cynics. However, to all of us who have suffered such oafs with good humor, Diogenes is and will always remain the original world class curmudgeon.

Diogenes did not conceal his disdain for literature and the fine arts. He laughed at men of letters for reading of the sufferings of Odysseus while neglecting their own, and at orators who studied how to enforce truth but not how to practice it. According to a popular story, Diogenes walked through Athens in broad daylight carrying a lighted lamp, saying that he was looking for an honest man.

He wore coarse clothing when he might have worn soft, ate from the side of the road when he could have sat at rich men’s tables, and slept on the hard ground, in the open streets, or under porticoes, spurning offerings of a bed in his own room by his many rich Athenian admirers.

Diogenes is said to have been sought out by Alexander the Great, who venerated the aging cynic. Accompanied by his usual entourage of sycophant groupies, having just conquered the entire Aegean peninsula, the youthful general opened the conversation with, “I am Alexander the Great.”

The philosopher cracked open one eye, for The Great Alexander of Macedonia had found Diogenes catching a nap in a hillside field of lentil. The old man looked up drowsily and answered, “And I am Diogenes the Cynic.”

Alexander then asked him, “Honor-able Diogenes, I have heard of your integrity and character from my tutors, and your wisdom is legendary wherever my travels have taken me. Good sir, in what way may I serve you?”

Diogenes, squinting up at Alexander hovering over him replied, “You can step out of my sunlight, youth.”

Alexander is said to have been so struck with the Cynic’s self-possession that he went away remarking, “If I were not Alexander, I should wish to be Diogenes.” Easy enough for him to say.

But in Alexander’s entourage was a former teacher of Diogenes, a certain Aristathenes. When the older teacher heard his former student snub the king, he went to Diogenes with not a little concern to offer him some political guidance. He found Diogenes grumpily gathering pottage by the wayside.

“Hail, old friend. You know, if you could learn to flatter the king you would not have to eat lentils,” Aristathenes greeted him.

Pointedly ignoring his former tutor, Diogenes continued gleaning, and after the obligatory timed comedic pause, flung over his shoulder, “Aristathenes, old friend, if you would learn to be content with lentils, you would not have to flatter the king.”

The older I get, and the more I realize how little of life is benefited by our obsession in meeting the expectations of other people, Diogenes’ Cynicism does begin to possess a certain rough charm. At least the old man retained his dignity and independence, in the face of a foolish and corrupt world, intact with a sense of humor.                                                   Ω

Download (ELBulletin02-12-12.pdf, PDF, 355.55KB)

Scripture exhorts, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you then want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil”  (Rom. 13:1-4).

The biblical charge is clear, but the application is puzzling. Which government are we to honor? The government of the United States Constitution or the government as it exists in fact today? Let’s dispel some popular myths:

1) It was never the intention of our founding fathers to create a government that would “take care” of people. The intention was to create a system that would guarantee our individual liberties, so that we might take care of ourselves! Government’s “care” of citizens is the guise under which we’re being moved closer to socialism and government dependency.

2) We do not live in a democracy. Our forbears established a republic. The difference is this: in a true democracy, each citizen votes on each issue. Sounds okay, but the downside is that the actions of  true  democracies  have historically become little more than mob rule. Instead, wise men established a republic, a form of government in which citizens are represented by elected officials charged with defending the public interest. The notion of living in a democracy is advanced for the purpose of pressuring elected officials into bowing to popular opinion, often shaped by a liberal media, rather than standing on principle. It’s been an effective ruse.

3) Our Constitution gives us no rights at all. The premise of those who framed our government was that human rights emanate from the Creator, not man. The Constitution does not create rights, but rather, limits the extent to which government may infringe on those liberties given to us by God. (It should be noted that this principle is not based on scripture, but on 18th century political philosophy.) In recent years the trend has been to remove God from the picture and portray government as the giver and arbiter of freedom.

Believe it or not, my comments aren’t meant to be political, but historical. Even a mediocre student of history can see that our government today is but a mere shadow of its original design. All governments evolve with the changing winds of popular thought. So to which government do we owe our loyalty: the original or the evolved version?

Our nation was built on the belief that God rules in the affairs of men. Today our public schools distribute contraceptives, but will no longer allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles. The Bill of Rights prohibits government from taking our goods without “due process,” but today we have a punitive tax system that requires us to work five months of every year just to meet our tax liability. And while our tax system is technically a “voluntary” proposition, just try volunteering not to pay. The constitution limits government’s ability to intrude on our private affairs, but bureaucracies such as the IRS, EPA, and OSHA are “omnipotent” agencies answerable to no one but themselves.

I love what America once was, but I’m not much impressed with what it is becoming. Nevertheless, I am not relieved of my God-given obligation to live under its jurisdiction. The apostle Paul’s charge in Romans 13 is timeless. Each disciple of Christ is responsible to respect the authority of his government, whether he likes it or not, whether it’s fair or not, and whether its present manifestation is consistent with its original intent or not.

God’s plan is that we should live as honorable citizens. Certainly within the parameters of law we may exercise ourselves politically. But we must not get so preoccupied with government that we forget the real “powers-that-be.” Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). We belong to a kingdom which cannot be shaken (Heb. 12:28). And although our nation seems at odds with its original design, we must never lose sight of our mission, our destiny, our God.

- Steve

Download (ELBulletin02-05-12.pdf, PDF, 196.25KB)

In one stanza the writer expresses a fear of death, but follows by saying that if we could see beyond the sky we likely wouldn’t fear at all. That’s exactly right. As Paul promised, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18).

How do we view eternity, or do we view it at all? Do we long and pant for it, or does it seem too remote to consider in the midst of everyday concerns? Brethren in Thessalonica steadfastly believed in the Lord’s return, even while having some misunderstandings about it. Clearly Paul, and later Timothy, had taught them of the hope of eternal life in Christ, and they were anxious for it to be a reality. Their faith and hope were admirable. Paul had to remind them that the Lord’s return, though not imminent, would surely come. In the meantime, they had to be reminded of how to live as disciples in the present. But their faith in Christ was known everywhere.

Is it possible that in the hustle and bustle of modern life, we just don’t give the promise of eternal life the consideration it deserves? Is too much of ourselves invested in the here-and-now, to the neglect of the hereafter? James sounded the warning: “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4). It’s not that we shouldn’t enjoy things in this life, but that this life must not be the sum of our affection. There should always be a yearning for the day we will see the Lord face to face.

“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are…we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is” (1 Jn. 3:1-2).

Yes sir, change is gonna come!                 

- Steve

Responsible moms and dads feel for children what the Greeks called natural affection. (This term is used only twice in scripture, and in the negative: Rom. 1:31 and 2 Tim. 3:3). It is that strong bond that often defies articulation. It is what causes that grip of fear when one’s child is in danger, and that indescribable ache when one’s son decides he’s too grown up to be kissed in public.

Our natural affection is coupled with that noble agape love that doggedly pursues a child’s best interests. And as parents, we assume the child’s best interests are served when he is tucked securely under our wing! Both of these parental loves, good in and of themselves, complicate the inevitable flight of our fledglings. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid the pain of severance. One can only look to friends for comfort and rest assured that “this too will pass.”

But just as our lives are frequently complicated by sins and shortcomings, so this giant-step in our children’s lives can be frustrated by the sin of parental selfishness.

It’s tragic to witness a parent leading a child on a choke-chain. We see it in the dad who mercilessly drives his son to greatness in sports, in order to be a “winner” through his son’s accomplishments. We see it in the mom who pushes her daughter to use make-up and dress well beyond her years (and often beyond anything proper), in order to feel beautiful herself. We see it in the parent who denies a child the chance to attend the school that’s best for him because “it’s too far away” – not for the child, but for the parent.

This isn’t natural affection, but unnatural connection. It’s unnatural for a child not to be raised “according to his bent” (Prov. 22:6, NASB margin). It’s unnatural when a child is made to feel guilty because his interests differ from a domineering parent’s. And it’s unnatural when a child is made to feel guilty about leaving home. That’s exactly what’s supposed to happen. It’s not love that tethers a child to his home. It’s selfishness on the part of parents who aren’t willing to accept the reality of parenthood: children are to grow up, become adults, and have lives of their own. That’s the Creator’s plan.

I hated when my children left home, but I’d hate worse to have raised children incapable of living on their own. God help us to be sensible parents.     

- Steve

For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Paul referred in this language to the foundation of the church in Corinth. The foundation he laid was Jesus Christ. This is the foundation that must be laid everywhere. It is the basis of all loyal and faithful service to God.

Therefore, the design and proper action of baptism is not the foundation. What acceptable worship is, is not the foundation. The true church, its unity, its name and organization, etc. is not the foundation.

Since these are not the foundation, they are not the first things to emphasize to the sinner. Naturally the foundation ought to be laid first. We must build the structure upon the foundation, not the foundation upon the structure.

The foundation is laid when we convince a person that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed of God, the Son of God. If he believes this with an understanding heart, he knows that no other person comparable to Jesus ever lived upon the earth. He becomes fully convinced that in Him “are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden” (Col. 2:3). Being the Son of God, He is the one infallible teacher and ruler (Jas. 4:12). The Son of God could not be in error. Therefore the discerning believer will accept His word on every subject. Why? Because, believing Him to be the Son of God, he believes His word, and that His word alone is the settlement of all controversy.

When this foundation is well laid, all that is necessary on any subject is to show the believer what Jesus teaches. When he sees that Jesus teaches baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and that it is a burial (Col. 2:12), he accepts both without hesitation. Why? Because the Son of God says it. Show him that Jesus built a church, purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28), gave His life for it (Eph. 5:25-27), that it is His body (Col. 1:18, 24), and you will have no argument as to which church is right. He would not consider one built by a mere man, not for a moment. And all churches built since the apostles were built by men. Show a believer the simple worship He inaugurated and accepts, rejecting everything not authorized. He believes nothing could equal what Jesus taught. He does not believe one thing can be done to improve upon the work and worship of the church as Jesus set it in order. He has 100% confidence in all of Jesus’ methods, because the foundation has been well laid.

I believe everything I believe in religion because I believe Jesus taught it or gives evidence that He approves it. I oppose everything I oppose in religion because I cannot find it authorized by Jesus.

- Edited For Space

Download (ELBulletin01-29-12.pdf, PDF, 212.57KB)