by Greg Tidwell

How can I know I am saved? In answer to this question, some have looked to themselves, seeking to earn or deserve salvation. This is legalism, and it is wrong.

Salvation is by the grace of God. As we sing in the old hymn: "Jesus paid it all. All to Him I owe." There is nothing I can add to the work done for me by Christ. As the apostle wrote: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8,9).

Grace, however, is conditional. Not everyone will be saved, but only those who accept God's free gift through repentance and faith, as expressed in the good confession, in baptism, and in the faithful life which begins with baptism's new birth.

The Community Church movement, however, cheapens grace by teaching a gospel devoid of penitent faith. Using "grace" as a catch-phrase, they dismiss any call to obedience as "legalism".

Perhaps no holy word has been more desecrated in the current apostasy than the word "grace". Sometimes I hear people complain that the Community Church teaches too much about grace. This, however, is not possible. As we sometimes sing:

"could we with ink the ocean fill, and were the skies of parchment made; were every stalk on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade; to write the love of God above would drain the ocean dry, nor could the scroll contain the whole, though stretched from sky to sky."

The problem is never that truth is taught too much, but rather that what is taught is not true. God's grace, in Scripture, means forgiveness of error. In the Community Church movement, grace has come to mean acceptance or indifference towards error.

While the Community Church confesses Christ with its lips, its heart is far from him. For healing to come, hearts must be changed. There must be both repentance and the fruit appropriate for a penitent heart.

The Bible is a book of grace, revealing our Lord as the loving husband who buys back the unfaithful wife. This is the power of the restoration principle: not that we are perfect, but that we aspire to the perfect standard. If we are faithful in the small things, God's grace will permit us to be faithful in much.

The Community Church Movement, however, does not stress repentance, but rather acceptance as a response to grace. This emphasis comes through clearly in the hallmark question of the Community Church Movement: "Is that a salvation issue?" Implicitly, this question consigns most, if not all, doctrinal and moral matters into the dustbin of irrelevance.

Selective obedience is the greatest legalism threatening the church today. Rather than believing God's objective way of salvation, the Community Church movement has presumed to decide for themselves who is saved and who is lost. Setting themselves up to decide which commandments are required and which are optional, they set themselves up to play God. The way of faith accepts God's right to command without question. The concept of selective obedience springs from a lack of faith.

In contrast to this infidelity, the Bible shows clearly that repentance is a salvation issue. A Christian, bought and paid for by the blood of Christ, is not free to indulge in selective obedience. If it is the will of God that I sing to him without instrumental accompaniment, for example, I disobey God's will in this matter at the risk of my soul. Every aspect of our obedience to God is a salvation issue, not only the things which are culturally convenient, but (more importantly) those aspects of obedience which cause us to deny ourselves.

None of us is perfect. We are not perfect in our doctrinal understanding, so we continue to study the Scriptures. We are not perfect in our attitudes nor in our actions, so we continue to repent and to rely on God's mercy. We are sorry we have failed in our service to God. Loving the Lord, we want to please him in every way.

The Restoration ideal is simply applied repentance, recognizing that God's way is right and must be followed in all things. Such obedience is not legalism. It is humble service before a gracious God.

by Tim Hall

""Fail" is a word that makes me cringe. My experiences as a student in school were often made tense by the prospects of failing an exam, or even failing a class. I certainly did not want to be a failure, though I'll have to admit I failed on a few occasions.

There's a distinction that we must be careful to make: "failed" vs. "failure". The old adage is true which says "to err is human". But no one has to accept being a failure. It just doesn't have to be.

Some of the most famous people in history have failed on numerous occasions. Abraham Lincoln tried his hand at political office many times, and many times failed in his quest. But who would look back over his terms as President of the United States and call Mr. Lincoln a failure? Rather, he set the standard for all who would follow him in that office.

Some of the greats of baseball have also made marks at failing to hit the ball. Ever heard of Babe Ruth? Few have struck out more times than this legendary player. But only one has hit more home runs, and that's the thing for which we best remember Babe. He did not allow his many times of striking out to consign him to "failure" status. He kept on swinging.

The apostle Peter - did he not fail on many occasions? Granted, his heart seemed to always be in the right place, but how often he missed the mark! Jesus once told him to "Get behind Me, Satan" (Matt. 16:23, NKJV) for resisting the plan of God. He earned a place in the Hall of Shame for denying Jesus three times in one conversation. But who could match Peter's contributions to the early growth of the church? Yes, he failed; no, he was not a failure.

You and I will also see times at which we fail in our various quests. But are we failures? Only if we allow that title to stick inside our minds. As long as we determine to keep on trying, we can, with the help of God, rise above past failed attempts. "Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory . . ." (Eph. 3:20,21). It's not about us, you see; it's about God, and His willingness to use flawed and broken vessels to accomplish His will.

Don't dwell on the times you've failed in the past. Instead, focus on God's promises to be with you in the future, and to give you the power you need to succeed. It's the difference between realizing you've failed (inevitable for any of us) and considering ourselves failures (a choice we need not make).

by Mike Benson

My mind reels every time I read this story. The day had finally arrived for Jacob. For seven years he had looked forward to making Rachel his wife (Gen. 29:18). He had served the better part of a decade for his bride-to-be and it had seemed but a few days to him (v. 20).

Following the "wedding reception" (v. 22), Jacob's father-in-law, Laban, brought his new bride to him in the evening. The newly-married couple then spent their first intimate night alone (vv. 21, 23):

"It was the custom to have a great festive week after a wedding, beginning with a banquet on the nuptial night, with many male guests invited. At the proper time, when the wedding formalities had been observed, Laban presented his daughter to Jacob as his wife.

Although Leah was veiled, Jacob never questioned that it was really Rachel. The two sisters were no doubt sufficiently alike in stature and general mien, probably even in tone of voice, that the deception was fairly easy to accomplish on the unsuspecting Jacob. When he took her into his chambers and into his bed, it was dark, and no doubt much of the conversation that night was in whispers and in brief words of love. Probably also Leah had been arrayed in Rachel's clothing and perfumes. It was not until the morning that Jacob actually saw he had been grievously deceived" (Henry Morris, "Jacob and Laban," The Genesis Record, Baker, 461).

Amazing, isn't it? Rather than sleeping with Rachel, Jacob had spent the first night of his honeymoon alone with Leah (v. 17) — and he didn't even know it!

We can only imagine the anger and shock that he felt at the moment of discovery. The Bible says, "So it came to pass in the morning, that behold, it was Leah. And he said to Laban, 'What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served you? Why then have you deceived me?'" (v. 25). Jacob's kinfolk had conspired against him (1), and he found himself in bed not with the beautiful daughter of Laban, but with the tender-eyed(2) daughter of Laban. He must have been hurt.

May I suggest that Jacob is not the only person to have ever experienced this kind of "morning revelation"? Every day, newlyweds around the world awaken to the realization that they've married the wrong person. Like Jacob, they discover that they've joined themselves to someone far below their expectations:

"I never knew he had a drinking problem..."

"I always assumed she would attend worship with me..."

"I never realized he had such a temper..."

"I never imagined she could be so careless with money..."

"I never noticed when we were dating that he could be so possessive and controlling..."

The truth is, we ALL eventually "wake up" and find ourselves in this kind of circumstance (cf. Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8,10). Imperfections that were once hidden [or overlooked] inevitably come to light and the honeymoon draws to an end. But what happens at this juncture is critical, because when we experience real disappointment in our mates, the relationship then takes one of two directions. Either the union begins to dissolve and divorce ensues, or else we commit ourselves to making the marriage succeed (Matt. 19:6; cf. Rom. 7:3). Jacob decided to take the latter approach. Despite his frustration, he was able to "work through" (vv. 26-30) his unique marital problems and find an acceptable solution. Granted, the Patriarch lived under a different law and dispensation than we do today (cf. Gal. 6:2), but the principle remains the same. We can bemoan the fact we didn't marry a "Prince Charming" or "Cinderella", or we can make adjustments and bring real substance to our vows.

Dear reader, what will you do when you experience disappointment in your marriage? How will you respond when you realize that you've married "the wrong person"? Will you work like Jacob (cf. Luke 9:23; cf. Eph. 5:25, 28-29; Titus 2:4), or will you run?

/1 I find it noteworthy that Jacob earlier in life had deceived his father (Gen. 27:1ff), Isaac, about his own identity. Now the tables have been turned on him in return (cf. Gal. 6:7).

/2 The word "tender eyed" in Hebrew means weak-eyed, a turning eye, or cross-eyed. Evidently, Leah had a problem with her sight and the disfigurement made her face unappealing.

(When Tolerance, Affirmation and Inclusion Become Everything)

by Barry Newton

"How could those who were claiming to follow God do such a thing?" Such musings have often been associated with reflections on the history of the Crusades or how the majority of Christendom within Germany simply went along with Hitler. Closer to home, we find ourselves shaking our heads in disbelief at the previous racist policies of certain Christian universities.

It is easy from our vantage point beyond the cultural pull which created those events to proclaim, "such things should never have happened!" Although we would be right for saying so, such pious observations are not enough.

If we grasp the lessons of history, the more responsible position is to ask, "what cultural currents are seeking to drag us down through paths of darkness?" Is our sense of right any better attuned to God's ways than those previously caught in culture's undertow? The good news is it can be if we so choose.

Turn on prime-time TV. What constant drumbeats do you hear regarding how people ought to live? Much of the postmodern spirit driving our age is organized around exalting tolerance, affirmation and inclusion. These sound like good values, perhaps even Christian values. Instead of being hateful and mean-spirited, is not tolerance the high road? Instead of caustic derogatory attacks, is not affirmation the right path? Is not the equality of inclusion a more noble way than the discriminatory policies of exclusion? Such questions can easily represent how the prophets of our age might present their case. How should those who claim to follow God respond?

My previous dualistic questions obfuscate several items, but most importantly they obscure our need to answer the question, "What is the highest value we should be pursuing?" The postmodernists would answer: In the absence of any absolute truth, the best any of us can strive for would be to accept and affirm the personal validity of each other's ideas and lifestyles. There you have it - tolerance, affirmation and inclusion all wrapped up together. The package is then gift-wrapped with a bow claiming, "this is what it means to be a loving person."

On the other hand, those who faithfully follow God have an entirely different answer to what is most important. Because God has revealed truth to us, the disciple responds that the highest value entails loving God with all of one's being (Matt. 22:36-38). This includes obeying God (1 John 5:3).

Unfortunately humanity has not loved and obeyed God as it ought. The cross of Christ proclaims that Jesus' death was required to atone for our sinful actions, words and lifestyles. Fortunately, those who will rely upon Christ through obeying the gospel can become a part of God's redeemed, saved and holy community.

What does all of this mean? Everything is not equally valid. Everyone is not included in God's community. There should be remorse for wrongs, not affirmation. God is calling everyone to repent. The good news is that God has made the salvific blood of Christ available to all of humanity.

If tolerance, affirmation and inclusion are not the ultimate values, in some manner does this mean that the path of loving and obeying God justifies mean-spiritedness? Never! To obey God includes seeking the well-being of others in the same way you seek your own well-being (Matt. 22:39). Thus, if loving someone might require confronting that individual with his or her sinfulness, such truth should be presented in love, not caustically (Eph. 4:15).

To avoid looking like foolish 21st century Christians who were swept away in the undertow of our secular culture, we need to proclaim Christ crucified and its corollaries. The necessity of Jesus' death upon the cross on our behalf testifies that God does not tolerate sinfulness, that those outside of Christ stand condemned and are excluded from fellowship with God, and that everyone is in need of transformation. The message of Christ crucified undermines the driving secular values of postmodernism.

The tide is powerful. God, however, is greater. Those who profess to follow God need to be in step with God, not drifting with the world. Will we do any better in living for God than some who have gone before us?

Phil sent me a newspaper article, "Oak Hill drops 'Church of Christ'," published Sept. 6th in the San Antonio Express-News. People will have plenty to write about it, pro and con, and I'll probably add my piece as well, eventually. But suffice it to note it's a sad day, a sad if not final note, to what has been a discouraging path. Phil wrote a piece about this moment, and I have posted both the newspaper report and his piece here. Read and weep.