You can’t help but notice in Acts 2, when over 3000 people obeyed the gospel, that there was an instant bond. We are told that, immediately, they made it their aim to be steadfast in the apostles’ teaching, in fellowship, breaking of bread and praying (vr. 42). Then we are told that they sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need (vr. 45). Not only did they do these things, it also states, “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,” (vr. 46).

One can’t help but appreciate the closeness the brethren had with each other. But what caused this? The answers lies within their conversion. When people are converted to Jesus Christ they learn what love and selflessness truly is. They heard about the life of Jesus (vrs. 22-36). They were made aware of His sacrifice for those who didn’t care for Him, and that He willingly went to the cross to provide man with the opportunity to go to heaven.

It’s amazing what a common faith does. This is something that the world will not fully grasp. John the apostle, spoke about the fellowship that saints have due to their common fellowship with the Lord (I Jn. 1:3-7). Because of such, brothers and sisters in Christ are able to provide many things for one another.

Here is a list of the things members can do for each other due to this common faith:

1. Assist brethren through their prayers (Jas. 5:16).

2. Support each other with burdens (Gal. 6:1).
    
3. Share the laughter and the tears (Rom. 12:15).

4. Speaking words of encouragement, knowing we all need to be built up (Rom. 14:19).

5. Genuine love for one another (I Pet. 1:22).

6. Ready and willing to do good for your spiritual family (Gal. 6:10).

7. Looking out for the spiritual wellbeing of all the saints (Jas. 5:19-20).
    
8. Appreciating the value and equality of every member (I Cor. 12:12-14).
    
9. Being with those who promote peace with each other (Rom. 12:18).
    
10. Having a wonderful, supportive family, knowing that every member faces temptations (I Cor. 10:13).
     
11. Walking with those who are longing to spend eternity in heaven with all the faithful (II Tim. 4:8).
     
12. Reminding one another of the benefits of having access to all the spiritual blessings that are only found in Christ (Eph. 1:3-4).

Christians are so blessed to be called children of God (I Jn. 3:1).  As such, they all belong to a spiritual family that is to be appreciated by all. The question is, who wouldn’t want to be part of a family that enjoys all the things listed?

Chuck

Yes, it is that time of the year where the winter clothes are put away and the summer clothing comes out (what little there is). It used to be that skimpy clothing was only worn on the beach. This is no longer true as similar attire can be found at the grocery story, on the street and even at school. Sadly, the line between the way saints dress and the way the worldly dress seems increasingly less distinct.

The obvious reason has to do with conformity (Rom. 12:1-2). When the majority of the world approves of immodest apparel, those opposed are viewed as oddballs, weird, strange or out of touch. Christians are viewed this way because they are making a big deal out of that which is not a big deal to the ungodly.

Children of God should not just to familiarize themselves with I Timothy 2:9 but need to actually think about what it means. If someone were to ask you, “What is immodest apparel?” most people would probably name revealing articles of clothing. This response is not wrong, but we should give the issue a little more thought so we can understand what God views as immodest apparel and why He is concerned with it.

Consider the word licentiousness (lasciviousness in some translations) (Gal. 5:19). This term helps explain the concept of “immodest apparel” and is described as a work of the flesh. The word means filthy, unbridled lust, shamelessness, wantonness. Also the idea of exciting disgust. This not only has to do with moving one’s body to incite such feelings but also with what one wears.

Those wearing immodest apparel may argue that they cannot control those lusting after them. There is some truth to this, but those who lust after others are without excuse (Matt. 5:28). It is naïve to think that what we wear or do not wear will not impact how we are viewed. Remember, there is such thing as the attire of a harlot (Prov. 7:10). As the temperatures rise, may we all remember who we are and how we are to let our light shine (Matt. 5:13-16).

Chuck 

Over the years people have posed many hypothetical situations to me to get me to admit there are exceptions to the rule. They argue this on the assumption that if there is an exception to the rule, then the rule is invalid. This logic is simply not Biblical.

For example, the Bible clearly reveals that when people want to become a Christian they ought to be baptized immediately (Acts 2:42; 8:36; 22:16). But what if someone is in prison and there is no place to baptize them right away – does the prisoner invalidate his baptism by making arrangements with the prison officials? Of course not! The individual wants to be baptized right away but cannot, so he is immediately doing what he can to set up the baptism. This exception does not invalidate the rule.

What about the subject of divorce and remarriage? The Lord makes it clear that husbands and wives ought to remain married for life (Rom. 7:2).  This is true even if one is a Christian and the other is not (I Cor. 7:12-14). The only way anyone could remarry, according to the Lord, is if the mate dies or if a spouse is unfaithful. In the case of adultery, the innocent party can put the guilt away. Only the innocent can remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

When you show people that the only divorce sanctioned by the Lord is caused by adultery, all kinds of hypothetical situations are posed. What if the husband is beats the wife and kids? What if the husband abandons the wife? Is divorce permissible in these cases?

What does the Bible say about the husband that beats the wife? In Romans 13:3-4, the apostle Paul told the brethren that governing authorities are to be a help to those who do right. They are also there to punish those who do evil. If you and your children are being harmed, it is your right to be protected. Being separated from your mate for a period of time is approved by God (I Cor. 7:5). (This text was specifically dealing with a mutual agreement to separate for a time to devote self to fasting and prayer).

What if a mate abandons their spouse or family? Paul wrote that the loyal mate is not under bondage to them (I Cor. 7:15). In other words, they are not obligated to grab the children and chase them from one state to another. If they want to leave, let them leave. But again, the rule of divorce does not change.

Whether we are talking about baptism, marriage or any other law of the Lord, it is easy to come up with unlikely, hypothetical situations. You might even be aware of a few truthful, unusual circumstances. Still, there is no getting around what the Bible teaches. It is good for couples to work out their differences. God’s stance on divorce has not changed even though most people disregard what He has said.

Attempting to be exempted from God’s word is a waste of time. It is like when someone mentions Proverbs 22:6 and tells me that if a child is trained up properly, they will be faithful to the Lord. This is often true, but finding an exception to the rule does not mean the rule should be discarded.

Keep in mind, that there isn’t really any exception to the rule. To train a child up in the way of the Lord, and when they are faithful, the rule is true. When you teach someone incarcerated and they want to be baptized immediately, the rule is still true. When a mate is put out of harms way, yet their mate still hasn’t committed adultery, the rule is still true. Let’s not fall for the vain attempts to justify not doing what we are told in the word of God.

                                                                                          Chuck

Ever notice how easy it is to look like the bad guy when someone is in the wrong and you point it out? As you read through Paul’s short letter to the Galatian brethren, you cannot help but feel bad for him.

This letter was written by godly inspiration to help the brethren stay faithful and beware of evil influences (Gal. 1:6-9). You really get an idea of what the apostle was going through when he stated, “Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). Understand that the impact of those words are magnified when we note the attitude the brethren had towards Paul at one time. In the previous verse, the apostle said that there was a time that the brethren there would have plucked their own eyes out for him (verse 15).  

We might think that we can handle rebukes from someone that we care for. Maybe, but maybe not. Do not think that it becomes easier to accept correction from someone because you are close to them. When pointing out error, our ultimate goal should always be to do the will of God. Therefore, if we are told that we are coming up short in our service to the Lord, we should gladly accept what we are told by recognizing that it is a message from the one who we want to please (Heb. 11:6).

Contrast the reaction to the rebuke Peter gave Simon (Acts 8:20-24) and the rebuke Stephen gave to a crowd of Jews who claimed to be very religious (Acts 7:51-59). More often than not, we should be prepared for unkind words after rebuking someone. This harsh feedback often causes the person offering correction to doubt themselves, their approach, etc.

We certainly need to use good judgment when correcting others, but those who want to go to heaven will also want people to be open and honest with them. Criticism is not always an easy pill to swallow, but I pray that we do not fall victim to wanting it always sugar coated!

Chuck

During discussions about the church, people have occasionally told me that Alexander Campbell started the church of Christ in the 1800s. How do you answer this? This is a great question and with any good Bible question, we shall do our best to give it a Bible-based answer.

Before I get into the scriptures, let me give a brief history lesson about Alexander Campbell. Alexander’s father (Thomas) was a Presbyterian preacher. Thomas was dissatisfied with the Presbyterian beliefs and desired a more Biblically-oriented belief system. Alexander was also a Presbyterian and had similar concerns about the group’s teachings.

Alexander soon joined a local Baptist church. The longer he preached, the more convinced he became that there should not be any religious sects and that we should simply be Christians (Acts 11:26). This drove a wedge between him and the Baptists. Eventually, Campbell came across an independent group called the Disciples of Christ. Alexander Campbell’s plea was that of his father: “Where the scriptures speak, we speak, where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

I say all of this to point out that Alexander Campbell, like some before him and some after him, encouraged people to get back to the scriptures. Nobody alive in the last several hundred years can reinvent the wheel though. This is to say that no matter what Campbell did, he was not going to be able to start the church of Christ. Alexander Campbell could not have founded the church of Christ because Jesus did that roughly 1700 years before Alexander was born (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18).

What is a good way to answer the accusation that Alexander Campbell started the church of Christ?  I would start by reading the verses that were listed in the previous paragraph and then consider the travels of Paul in the book of Acts. People should see that when Paul went into a city, he taught the gospel, converted people and helped establish local churches (Acts 15:41; 16:5; etc.).

Remember that when Paul traveled to these different cities, he went into the synagogues to teach. This indicates that these cities already contained religious people doing what they thought was right in the sight of God. Those who accepted the teachings Paul spoke were converted (Acts 18:8). What would people, who rejected what Paul taught, say about him? Could they accuse him of starting his own religious sect? They could, but they would be wrong.

I do not want to leave the impression that I am putting Alexander on par with Paul. What I am saying is that neither Paul nor Alexander Campbell could start the church of Christ. There were some in the first century that wanted to put Paul in a position of authority that only belonged to Christ (I Cor. 1:11-14). You cannot stop people from believing and teaching things that are wrong. I am no more a member of a church that was started by Alexander Campbell than I am of one started by the apostle Paul!

If some man establishes a religious organization rather than seeking only the one that was established by Christ, that organization is a religious sect ( a denomination, if you will). Whether you talk about the Presbyterian Church or the Baptist Church, neither one were started by Christ. The churches that follow Christ are of the church that belongs to Christ (Rom. 16:16). This question is important for all of us – do you belong to the church you read about in the Bible, or do you belong to one you read about in some history book that was created by some man?

Chuck