The Gospel and Strife

[Resource Manager]

1. “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36)

 

The problem: is not the Lord Jesus hers saying that times are about to change, and mat their safety under bus care while they Here under his protection on the earth, can no logger be guaranteed them, and so they will be wise to go about armed in future?

 

In answer we say. No. Even if the Lord were advocating that they should be armed, two swords among them would be totally inadequate. Moreover, there is no trace of any evidence that the disciples thence­forth did go about armed, or on any occasion sought to defend them­selves by the use of force. Further, even if both these great difficulties were ignored, the command (if it is a command); would have no bearing on enrolment in state armies to pursue the policies of non-Christian governments and engage in shedding the blood of one’s fellow-believers, in other words, it is difficult to think of a passage less suited to promote the idea that it is right for the Christian to serve in the armed forces of a nation.

 

But this is not all. The disciples had evidently acquired two swords without confessing the matter to Jesus, apparently believing him to be ignorant of it, and feeling that it would be better if he were not told! Now, however, he appears to be authorizing the use of them, so there is no harm in confessing: ‘‘Lord, we have got two swords already!” All commentators appear to be agreed that when Jesus answered this with “It is enough!” he was saying, “Enough of that! There is nothing more to be said” or words to that effect. And however much they may vary (and they vary a great deal) as to what Jesus did mean by the sword, the fact that they agree on this is sufficient to rule the verse out as evidence in favour of joining armies, or even of engaging in violence at all. Here is a dramatised summary of the dialogue:

 

The Lord Jesus: You had no difficulties when I sent you out without resources, did you?

 

The disciples: None.

 

The Lord Jesus: Now, though, take your purse and wallet with you, and if you do not have these, then sell your cloak— to buy a sword! For I am about to he arrested.

 

The disciples: Lord, we have two swords!

 

The Lord Jesus: Enough of that! The subject is closed.

 

This must mean that they had completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying. For what it is worth—though without admitting that it is at all necessary to explain the passage fully in order to show its irrele­vance to our problem—here is one reconstruction of the situation:

 

The Lord Jesus: I sent you out without resources, and you suffered no harm. Did you have any reason to complain?

 

The disciples: No.

 

The Lord Jesus: Then, would it, do you think, now be a good idea, in view of the difficulties ahead, that you should spend whatever you had in your purses, and even one of you sell his garment, so as to prepare yourselves? (suppos­ing that the Lord had observed the tell-tale bulges where the furtively hidden swords were imperfectly concealed, and had seen the shivering disciple whose cloak had been sacrificed to the supposedly good cause).

 

The disciples: That is just what we have done. Lord. We hoped you would understand! We have two swords! (having failed to perceive the sad irony in the Lord’s words, and walked straight into the trap).

 

The Lord Jesus: You do not yet understand. We will let the matter rest there.

 

If this is the right answer the disciples are not being told to buy swords at all. They are being rebuked for having done so without authority. And in any case the ultimate disapproval comes when one of the swords is actually used, and the Lord gives his verdict on the act in words already quoted:

 

Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matt 26:52).

[Resource Manager]

2. The conversion of the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10)

 

The problem: Cornelius was in charge of 100 men in a crack Roman regiment. His conversion and baptism are not said to have required him to resign his career. Must we not conclude, therefore, that he was permitted to continue it?

 

The facts stated are correct, but the conclusions are drawn from silence, and not from any statement in the Scriptures themselves. Were this passage alone on the subject this might not be unreasonable, but the supposition is not .strong enough to upset the position already established. The baptism of Cornelius is not recorded to discuss the problem of the Christian and the State, but that of the Gentile and the Gospel, which would only be confused by a discussion of the problem of violence. Cornelius is described as he is. so as to emphasize the high standing of one who must stoop so low as to allow himself to be baptized by a fisherman lodging with a tanner in a Jewish seaport. We might have wished that his military involvements had been discussed, but it would not have been appropriate. We are similarly not told in another episode whether the Philippian convert remained a gaoler afterwards (Acts 16:19-40). This is confessedly a defensive argument, hut when it is seen that it is defending against a hypothetical objection a strong case already developed, it is adequate.”

[Resource Manager]

3. ‘‘Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain” (Matt. 5:41)

 

The problem: Jesus tells us to allow those who conscript our services to give them more, rather than less, than they ask for. Does not this mean that we must accept rather than refuse conscription?

 

The verse is misapplied to such a situation. If the authorities should press us into some service, as service considered, when they encounter us as civilians, then we should do the service if it is not offensive in itself to the laws of Christ. But if the authorities should demand of us a blanket allegiance which would bind us to their military machine, we cannot grant it without wholly repudiating the right of the Lord Jesus so be consulted in connection with our every action. If the words do have a bearing on our situation in times of war. it is that they ask of us, w hen we have made our position plain, to be more than ready to accept burdens laid on us, in the matter of acceptable service, as the price of your exemption, even if the burdens are onerous and unreasonable.

 

(*It needs a more accomplished historian than the author to decide whether there is adequate evidence about the attitude of the earliest Christian commu­nities to the question of military service. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 2nd Edition. 1974, contains these comments: “In early times, when the form of civil government was essentially pagan, some ecclesi­astical enactments were made which seemed to forbid Christians to take part in military service, while Tertullian and Lactantius also expressly condemned it. On the other hand, there were numbers of Christians in the army from the 2nd century onwards.” This is embarrassingly vague about the period with which we are concerned, but appears to support the view that the very earliest Christians did not regard it as right to participate in war. For a fuller treatment of this question see J. B. Norris. The Christian and War, especially pages 15-20.)

[Resource Manager]

4. John the Baptist and the Soldiers (Luke 3:14)

 

Soldiers also asked him saying. And we, what must we do? And he said to them. Do violence to no man, neither exact anything wrongfully; and be content with your wages (Luke 3:14 R.V.).

 

The problem: Does not this indicate that the soldiers were accepted by John as legitimately employed, and that their work as military men posed no obstacle to their baptism?

 

Once again the example finds us on the defensive, the main plea remaining that soundly established principles cannot be upset by using the silence of a story against them. We do not know how the soldiers lived when they left John, and all the encounters in these verses smack of open-air repartee (on the part of the people) rather than of a reasoned discourse on the way of life. What we do know, however (and this is important), is that the soldiers must have rejected John’s instructions had they continued a life of violence. It is in any case entirely unsatis­factory to use this example as though it illustrated Christian practice, since John was only the forerunner of Messiah, and not an exponent of Messiah’s teaching to the world, and the men appear to have been “soldiers on the march” (see Cambridge Bible on the verse in question), probably merely throwing out their questions as they paused idly to listen to John preaching, and given an answer which would leave them much to think about as they went their way. There is no evidence that they sought, or were offered, baptism as disciples.

 

Certainly one would not use this passage as evidence in favour or’ what has been advanced in this essay; but neither could one justly use it as evidence against. The one positive piece of teaching by John which emerges is that men ought not to engage in violence, and this is exactly what has been said here.

[Resource Manager]

RELATED PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN AND THE STATE

 

In what follows “the State” is taken to include such organizations as Trade Unions, not because they are strictly speaking controlled by the State, but because they wield, sometimes supported by state legislation, powers of a very compelling kind which make them part of “the powers that be” within the sense of the present work.

 

Trade Unions and Related Organizations

 

Just as we have found reason to be grateful for the willingness of men whose views we cannot share to put their lives at risk in causes from which we have profited, so we cannot doubt that the earlier struggles of the Trade Unions for fair wages and proper conditions, for what were then called “the working classes”, have brought real material blessings to many of us.

 

Partly because of their success, times have greatly changed, and it now lies in the power of Trade Unions to go far beyond bargaining for living wages and humane conditions, so that they can actually contribute to the rise and fall of governments. Though we are com­mitted to accepting humbly the rule of whatever powers may be in office, it would not be proper here to pass judgements for or against contending parties, when employer is ranged against employee, or citizens against governments. All that we have to do is to consider whether it is proper for the Christian to use industrial pressures to Setter his lot in life.

 

The answer must be that, like our predecessors who lived through the bitterness of the earliest strife, we must not use such methods, any more than we would use military ones. If in New Testament times, slaves were exhorted to be obedient to their masters, serving with loyalty both bad and good, so it would have been necessary to exhort she wage-slaves of the industrial revolution that they, if they professed the name of Christ, should accept their lot if it could not peaceably be improved, abiding contentedly in the calling to which they were called.

 

Anything approaching duress even on employers alone would have been unlawful to a brother or sister in Christ, and to extend this to the brutality of “non-violent” picketing and harsh condemnation of “blacklegs” and “scabs” even more reprehensible. And if this was so then, how much more so now when, without our adopting any political stance, it is very plain that fighting for larger shares of what is available, even if this means danger to the country, or gross unfairness to those who cannot so fight, is a dominant motive, hard to justify even on human standards, and impossible to tolerate in members of the body of Christ.

 

It follows that the militant activities of Trade Unions must be repudiated by believers desiring to live consistently with their faith. It also follows that, since increasing numbers of unions, are engaging in such activities, the believer cannot really feel comfortable in voluntarily assuming membership, and is far better outside than inside. There used to be professional associations which did not call themselves Trade Unions, particularly in the medical and educational disciplines, which refrained from militant attitudes and were much more concerned with matters of ethical practice; and it was then reasonable to consider that these were not Trade Unions, and were not, at least automatically, to be condemned. There may still be something of this attitude remain­ing, in spite of the general deterioration in attitudes in recent decades, and it may still be considered possible to be a member of a professional association without even appearing to be involved in industrial strife, though this becomes increasingly dubious as militancy invades ever these areas.

[Resource Manager]

It is for this reason, and others, that precise advice as to whether or not it is allowable to join such associations cannot always be given, and rigid disciplinary attitudes should not be taken up. What can be said with confidence, though, is that the believers understood in these pages, should make it very plain to both employer and colleague tha­ne or she does not intend to be invoked in any agitation of a militant type, whether with a union or not. The believer will not willingly go on strike, and only if his employer asks him to stay away (as the less of two evils for the employer himself) will he absent himself during strike periods. He will certainly not engage in picketing. If a member, he will contribute to Union funds only those sums exacted from him and will make no voluntary contributions whatever, especially to the “political levy”, or the equivalent by whatever name it may be called.

 

In fact, if the machinery exists for this, he should seek to avoid membership altogether. Provisions do exist in British law at present, for believers even in businesses where “closed shop” provisions apply to plead conscientious objection and be allowed exemption, provided that the equivalent to his union dues is paid to an approved charity Some of those concerned to judge in these matters have sought to limit exemption to those whose churches have laid down a rule that its members must not join such associations. Our own community has not made such an absolute rule, nor would it be right that it should, and therefore the employee has to be answerable to his or her own conscience in making the decision whether it is morally impossible to join the union. If such a decision is reached, then our community should give every possible support to the one whose conscience is so moved, but at present, for as long as it is possible to be a sleeping member of a Union, when this is required as a condition of employ­ment, without participating in its activities, the decision has to be an individual one.

 

The situation is constantly changing. Unions may well become more militant and more demanding on their members. Closed shops may become more rigorously enforced, and conscience clauses may be withdrawn or become unworkable. There is no use in pretending that things cannot get worse than they now are, and limiting advice to matters relevant to our present situation. There may be Scriptural grounds for believing that the saints’ lot will become much harder before the Lord’s return. Oppressive and tyrannical workers’ move­ments, possibly supported by governments of the same temper, may bring about hardship much greater than has recently been our lot, which must be endured in patience and faithfulness until the Lord returns. It seems likely enough that the “grey areas”, within which it becomes a matter of conscience whether we associate with a union in any way or not will turn a distinct black, and leave the faithful disciple with no choice but to withdraw. This, in its turn, could usher in a period of temporary hardship of a kind which the saints in the western world have not known for a long period, perhaps of the kind repre­sented in the Apocalypse in symbol in the terrible words, “that no mar might buy nor sell except he had the mark of the Beast”.

 

In anticipation of that possibility—to rate it no higher—it seems prudent to keep as far as we can away from voluntary association with movements which might take such a turn and find us invoked from within. At the very least, it behoves us to make our position in conscience very plain at the earliest moment: then, at least, the powers which may arise will not be able to accuse us of changing our views with the change in climate.

[Resource Manager]

Jury Service

 

The Brotherhood has never unanimously condemned service on Juries. The ground for this is partly the pragmatic one that the law does not provide for conscientious objection, and partly the feeling “as, in view of our duty to serve the state in every lawful way as part of our commitment to our Maker, we ought to accept the charge of weighing evidence—for that, the argument runs, is all that is involved —and guiding the judge as to whether we support the view that the person charged committed the offence alleged, or guiding the Coroner that death (for example) was due to one cause or another. The sentence, or the verdict—the argument continues—is for the judge or the coroner alone, and for this the jury has no responsibility. The validity of these arguments appears to strike different people in different ways. It must be said clearly, though, that the absence of any legal exemption would not be a valid reason for undertaking the duty, if it were decided that a question of conscience existed. In such an event, consequences are a secondary issue for “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

 

The point would become relevant only if one’s attitude to jury service were a matter of enlightened preference rather than of principle and that each one has to decide for himself.

 

The second argument, then, is the one on which the decision hinges. Is it, or is it not the case, that a jury merely examines the evidence, and is not concerned, with the sentence? In one sense it is the case: the sentence is pronounced by the judge. In another it is not: the judge has no alternative than to pronounce guilty or not guilty as the jury shall determine, and the sentence he may pass, though some discretion as to its severity may rest with him, arises as a consequence of the jury’s verdict. The jury is not merely assessing facts, it is in practice judging a person; and it might be thought that we, who are strongly advised against taking our causes before the world’s courts, are not consistent if we help to make those courts” decisions for them.

 

At the very least, some readers might decide, the authorities should be told of the scruples of the potential juror, should be given to understand how unsatisfactory a member of a jurymen’s panel he is likely to be with his distaste, to put it no more strongly, against pronouncing “Guilty!” against a fellow-man, when his whole case before the judge­ment seat of his God is that, for him, mercy shall triumph over judge­ment. It is not impossible, and is indeed by no means unprecedented, that in such cases the authorities would decide that it is both charitable and prudent to exempt the believer from service.

 

This seems to be one of the matters on which the Christadelphian conscience—rightly, in this writer’s view—has quickened over the years of our existence There are increasing numbers of our member; who now feel that it is hard to reconcile detachment from the world’s political, lawmaking, and punitive processes with a position in which he joins with those who do not share his faith in assessing the guilt or innocence of other men, and in contributing to the ultimate result when the sentence is passed on those judged guilty. The fact that juries can sometimes make recommendations to mercy is itself an indication that it is not with mere facts that they are concerned.

[Resource Manager]

Police Service

 

Many of the duties of a policeman in Britain (at least) have in the past been purely of an organizational kind, such as that of controlling traffic. Even with the advent of traffic wardens some such duties no doubt still exist. But the primary task of the police is the maintenance of law and order, in pursuing this he must yield his judgement to that of his superiors with the same completeness as a soldier to his officers, and is subject to their decision as to whether and when force must be used. It is only a matter of degree that in Britain the police are not usually armed with firearms: they may and do carry weapons of some kind, and in the increasingly violent world around us their need to respond to violence with force has never been clearer than it is to-day.

 

We cannot make any valid distinction between ordinary full-time police and special police either, save that the latter from the very occasions which call on him to put on his uniform is more likely to be involved in violence from the start than the former. The one does as a vocation what the other docs in emergency: but when once either has taken the free-willed step of going into action as a policeman, he has surrendered his freedom from that point on.

[Resource Manager]

WHY SHOULD WE PROFIT FROM SERVICES WE WILL NOT JOIN?

 

We have seen already the blessings attached to living in the countries we do, which we accept gladly when it pleases our God to move the authorities to grant them to us. They include the freedom won by the country’s armed forces; the protection afforded by its social laws; the precision for superannuation secured by its national insurance, and the conditions and rewards of labour secured by the trade unions. They include, too. the freedom from molestation provided in large degree by the vigilance of the police. The law and customs of our country deny us nothing, despite our conscientious objections, which they afford to those who fight and vote, and live the full lives of citizens, and participate in the collective bargainings of trade unions and employers’ organizations.

 

We think first of the help available from the police. There is the general security which the police afford to all, without having to be asked; but it is also possible to ask for protection of our homes when we are absent, or of our persons if attack is threatened. Of course these, too, will be granted if the intrusion or the attempted assault take place when the police are on the watch; but may we actually invoke them if we have personal reason to fear danger or break-in?

 

Two reasons might be given in support of the view that we ought not: the first is that, if we will not engage in force on behalf of our country, we have no right to request that the forces of that country shall use force or the threat of force in our protection. The second is that if we truly trust in God we should have faith to believe that He will afford us all necessary protection without seeking to take our own means to this end.

Both points are worthy of serious consideration. If we take the second one first, however, it has to be recognized that there is no firm promise that the saint will be protected from the designs of violent men. One of the most disconcerting passages in Scripture is that part of Hebrews 11 where, without warning, the experiences of faithful men who experienced great deliverances are merged into the afflictions of those who endured great hardship:

 

Time will fail me if I tell of men who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight the armies of aliens. Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance: so that they might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trials or mockings and scourgings. Yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword ... (Heb 11:32-37. R.V.).

 

We must rule out. therefore the idea that perfect faith necessarily protects the saint from malevolent harm. Sometimes by God’s provi­dence it has done so, and Hebrews gives a heartening list. But some-limes in God’s inscrutable wisdom it has not, and the same Letter gives a grim picture of those who encountered terrible suffering, which they endured because of their unswerving faith in future blessing. There can therefore be no guarantee that faith will protect the modern believer from suffering and loss. It is true that loss at the hands of a burglar or a thug is not brought upon us because we are believers: such things can happen to a person of any kind, whether believer or not. But it no more shows lack of faith to take reasonable precautions against such things happening than does looking to right, left, and right again before crossing a busy road. The question is not whether reason­able precautions should be taken, but rather what precautions are truly reasonable to a man or woman of God. Further, though we must guard against special pleading here, to invite the police to take care of vacant property is a general service to all householders or tenants, and is to public as well as private advantage. The reporting of any theft, or the like, serves the same end, and might even lead to the discouragement of such crimes.

 

Again, no decisive answer is possible. Paul tells us to be obedient to the powers that be because, in a passage already quoted.

 

The powers that be are ordained of God ... Rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good ... (Rom 13:1-4).

 

And if he can say this, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that benevolent worldly governments, if they choose to protect the interests of the saints, can be allowed and invited to do so. Paul certainly availed himself of such protection in Jerusalem and Caesarea as a privilege which belonged to him as a Roman citizen, and whereas u would lie outside the purpose of Acts to describe whether he would have done the same in a purely civil situation, there is nothing impossible or inconsistent in the thought.

[Resource Manager]

Paul’s Citizenship

 

Paul’s example is worth considering a little further. He insisted on his right to be protected against further flogging after the lawless episode in Philippi (Acts 16:37). He avoided a repetition of the infliction by declaring his Roman citizenship in Jerusalem (Acts 22:24); and he saved himself from the further machinations of the Jews by choosing a trial in Rome to which that same citizenship entitled him (Acts 25:11). In none of these circumstances did he use his privileges to bring about the suffering of any other, hut in all of them he did use them to secure favourable treatment for himself as a minister of Christ. If it pleased Rome to honour his Roman standing, he would gratefully accept the favour in Christ’s name.

 

But he would have had no redress had Rome chosen to withdraw the privilege. He was in fact subjected to lawless assault by his fellow Jews, and endured it in patience and faith. What Rome was willing to give him without sacrifice of principle on his part, he was willing to take and use to the glory of God, but it rested with the authorities whether or not favours should be granted.

 

The overall conclusion, therefore, is that if the believer invites the police to help protect his property (assuming their willingness to do so), he does not thereby violate his duty to Christ. Whether he will choose to do so is entirely a matter for himself, and no one has the right to sit in judgement on those who prefer to leave themselves entirely in their Maker’s hands without availing themselves of such aids.

 

Of course such problems as the protection of property would not have affected Paul, who had “suffered the loss of all things, and did count them but dung that he might win Christ”. They would not have affected his Master either, who “had not where to lay his head”. That we should need protection in matters of property at all is a measure of the fact that practically none of us has “left all and followed him”. We have followed the majority of disciples of all ages, in seeking to a life of diligent discipleship with living a domestic life, with God’s free permission: in which we seek to “provide things honest in the sight of all men”, earning and eating our bread in thankfulness to God. Mo doubt a richer reward awaits those who, like the apostles, left all and followed their Master, but most of us have set our sights lower, and chosen to accept something of God’s earthly blessings now in this time.

 

This is an issue which goes so far beyond the limited horizons of the present work that it cannot here be developed further; but when we have been considering the extreme sufferings of the apostles, and even earlier faithful men and women, it is seemly that we should beat in mind our own limited deprivations, and our own light afflictions, so that we may be prepared, if need be, to accept the loss of the temporal blessings we now possess, and the advent of afflictions such as have not been seen in our lands for centuries. If it is needful that, from our present comforts, we should reason out the case we would present before those who would examine us, in times of war and other strife, it is also needful for us to take private stock, so that should there come, as there came on Job, whirlwinds and raiders, even grievous bodily affliction, we might be prepared to say as he said,

 

The Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:21).

 

This is but one aspect of the far-reaching topic of the Christian and This World:

[Resource Manager]

The Christian and This World

 

This is a subject in itself, it is introduced here only to emphasize one important additional point. The assumption made throughout this essay is that the true believer belongs to a class apart, the chosen, separated, people of God. His refusal to participate in warfare and strife of other kinds arises partly from the fact that such things are contrary to the spirit of his calling, and partly because the kingdom of this world is not his kingdom. He is a citizen of another country, that is an heavenly, from which he takes his orders and draws his inspiration.

 

Both reasons lead to far-reaching consequences far beyond the question whether the believer does or does not fight. They affect his role in the world as a whole. They have been seen to be related to his behaviour in relation to his employer and fellow-employees. But they are also related to in every association with people around him: his marriage “only in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39): his business activities of a kind which do not compromise him with the tactics and strategy of this present evil world: his friendships, his recreations, his purely social con links with the world around him.

 

Conscientiousness in Christ

 

They are related to his consistent discipleship in matters which do not involve the state: his loyalty to his congregation of believers, his communion in Breaking of Bread with his fellow saints, his Bible reading freely and without the constraint of others’ watchful eyes. In his own home, his family devotions and his own prayers. Conscientious objection alone is a barren and negative thing, it is conscientiousness in Christ which issues in the only proper attitude to warfare and strife

 

There is a conscientious separateness from the world in many of us activities which stops short of Pharisaism, but sees its first loyalty to its God and Lord, and to the congregation of Christ of which we are members. The world has its “good causes” which it pursues with its own brand of zeal, with its politics, its lobbyings and pressure-groups its ecumenical common enterprises. We need to exercise the utmost care lest we be deceived by the apparent goodness of the causes pursues in such ways, and its evil communications corrupt our good manners.

[Resource Manager]

Separation from Worldly Causes

 

It is a terrible thing that refugees are forced from their countries by the tyrannies of their governments. It is a sad reflection of the times that there is deep and increasing unemployment in our own countries. There are no doubt innumerable causes which could produce betterment in the lot of the underprivileged, the oppressed, and the sick, and we are fully at liberty to offer our material contributions as we are moved when the occasions come our way. But it is quite another matter to become linked as organizers, or fellow-marchers, or lobbyers with those who agitate for this cause or that. Quite apart from the fact that all such activities have distinct overtones both of politics and of strife, it is not for the brother or sister in Christ to become involved in a common cause with the mixed company of people with, ideas quite alien to our own who tend to come together in such affairs. Together with some of unblemished probity and purely philanthropic aims. are as likely as not in the present climate to find ourselves embarrassingly check by jowl with some whose religion we deplore, some of no religion at all, with marxists and fascists, with drug-addicts, and with exponents of free love or with homosexuals.

 

The believer must allow others to be as they will. He must in the name of Christ say what is right in such matters, either publicly or privately as occasion arises: but he has not, and should not seek to have, any power to exert political pressure on others to conform to his teaching, which is part and parcel of his allegiance to Christ, and not an end in itself. The Lord of the believer was willing to keep company with publicans and sinners, too. Yet no publican practised his extortion in the Lord’s company: his presence shamed Levi and Zacchaeus into repentance and reform. And no harlot felt entitled to cultivate the Lord’s company and continue to practise her arts: instead those who continued with him included at least one who poured out her remorse and her love in her tears, and bestowed her best gifts of purified affec­tion on the one who said. “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much” (Luke 7:47). There is no-one to whom we should be unwilling to go with the word of life, but there is no activity which you may share with the world around us if its price is to conceal that word, or to pretend that it is all one to us whether our associates prefer this or some other way of life.

 

The Christian “Off Duty”

 

That title poses an impossibility. A Christian can never be off duty. He may be, as it were, officially engaged or in plain clothes, but his duty is lifelong, day in and day out. The on-duty robe of the saint forbids him to do duty as a soldier o’ a policeman, and this is why as is a conscientious objector in the technical sense. His public devotions are the occasions when he displays before his brothers and sisters, and before the watching world, the formalities of his faith. The soldier of Christ is on parade, and the panoply he wears consists of a girdle of truth, a breastplate of righteousness, sandals of preparedness to make known the Gospel, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, and sword of the Spirit (see Eph 6:13-17).

[Resource Manager]

Separation from Worldly Causes

 

It is a terrible thing that refugees are forced from their countries by the tyrannies of their governments. It is a sad reflection of the times that there is deep and increasing unemployment in our own countries. There are no doubt innumerable causes which could produce betterment in the lot of the underprivileged, the oppressed, and the sick, and we are fully at liberty to offer our material contributions as we are moved when the occasions come our way. But it is quite another matter to become linked as organizers, or fellow-marchers, or lobbyers with those who agitate for this cause or that. Quite apart from the fact that all such activities have distinct overtones both of politics and of strife, it is not for the brother or sister in Christ to become involved in a common cause with the mixed company of people with, ideas quite alien to our own who tend to come together in such affairs. Together with some of unblemished probity and purely philanthropic aims. are as likely as not in the present climate to find ourselves embarrassingly check by jowl with some whose religion we deplore, some of no religion at all, with marxists and fascists, with drug-addicts, and with exponents of free love or with homosexuals.

 

The believer must allow others to be as they will. He must in the name of Christ say what is right in such matters, either publicly or privately as occasion arises: but he has not, and should not seek to have, any power to exert political pressure on others to conform to his teaching, which is part and parcel of his allegiance to Christ, and not an end in itself. The Lord of the believer was willing to keep company with publicans and sinners, too. Yet no publican practised his extortion in the Lord’s company: his presence shamed Levi and Zacchaeus into repentance and reform. And no harlot felt entitled to cultivate the Lord’s company and continue to practise her arts: instead those who continued with him included at least one who poured out her remorse and her love in her tears, and bestowed her best gifts of purified affec­tion on the one who said. “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much” (Luke 7:47). There is no-one to whom we should be unwilling to go with the word of life, but there is no activity which you may share with the world around us if its price is to conceal that word, or to pretend that it is all one to us whether our associates prefer this or some other way of life.

 

The Christian “Off Duty”

 

That title poses an impossibility. A Christian can never be off duty. He may be, as it were, officially engaged or in plain clothes, but his duty is lifelong, day in and day out. The on-duty robe of the saint forbids him to do duty as a soldier o’ a policeman, and this is why as is a conscientious objector in the technical sense. His public devotions are the occasions when he displays before his brothers and sisters, and before the watching world, the formalities of his faith. The soldier of Christ is on parade, and the panoply he wears consists of a girdle of truth, a breastplate of righteousness, sandals of preparedness to make known the Gospel, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, and sword of the Spirit (see Eph 6:13-17).

[Resource Manager]

A Way of Life

 

But these are not, like earthly weapons of war, things one leaves in the barrack row when one goes on furlough in civvies. They are to be with us all the time, which means that our objection to strife is not to be a thing of mere public application as others train and arm for war; it is to be a way of life as we forbear with our fellow-believers in meekness; or as we associate with our work-fellows in quiet humility, or as we get as near as our imperfectly tamed spirit will let us get to turning our other cheek in time of abuse. We must, if we are truly conscientious in our objection to strife, seek to be loving with our brethren and sisters even when we do not find them lovable, forbearing with our colleagues even when we find them unbearable, and patient with our wives, or husbands, and families, even when they most get on our nerves. And we must earnestly hope and pray that nothing in our behaviour will make it needlessly difficult for any of these to behave in the same way to us.

 

When we drive our cars, it is no business of ours to drive competitively, and to regard other road-users as enemies to be outpaced or outsmarted. When we wait in queues at traffic lights, road works, or fining stations, it is not for us to lose our tempers and behave aggres­sively or assertively.

 

As we pursue our daily work, aggressive ambition should not drive us to seek worldly promotion at the expense of the reasonable (or even unreasonable) claims of others. Our higher calling should be revealed in a contentment with our lot as presented to us by our God.

 

“Not to be contentious” (Titus 3:2)

 

When we engage even in religious discussion with our fellows, it is not for us to speak in condemnation of those who sincerely believe differently from ourselves. It is not even for us to judge of their sincerity. We have no right to attribute unworthy motives to those with whom we disagree. It is one thing to oppose that which is false: this we have a right and duty to do. It is another thing to presume on the indulgence of the state or our fellow men to wound with words those whom we are forbidden to fight with fists and warlike weapons. Upholders of false teaching and practices are answerable to our God for their behaviour, and not to us, and “Who art thou that judges! another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” (Rom 14:4)

 

If we conform to precepts such as these in the Scriptures with which we conclude, we shall do well, and uphold in honour and love the work of our Lord:

 

I beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, for­bearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3, R.V.).

 

Putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath ... Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and railing, be put away from you, with ail malice: and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you (4:25-31, R.V.).

 

I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 2:1-4, R.V.).

 

Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all men (Titus 3:1-2, R.V.).

 

Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other: and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. Give to every one that asketh of thee: and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:27-31, R.V.).

 

A.D. Norris

 

GospelStrifeNorris.pdf

 

 

Note to Christadelphians: "This booklet may still be in print, and along with others with this notification almost all are still in copyright. The Document scans were originally uploaded to www.god-so-loved-the-world.org and Christadelphian Bible Discussion Forum and are intended for use by fieldworkers and campaigners in preaching, where paper copies are not available. Most of the scanning errors in the original Word Documents have been rectified and file has now been reproduced here in Portable Document Format (.pdf). Christadelphians are requested to please not take advantage of this archive by downloading for personal use and avoiding paying the Publisher. If you do download any of the booklets with this notification and for the purpose of personal use would you please follow up with a donation to the original Publishers @ www.theChristadelphian.com to cover the cost of hard copy purchase."