Concerning Judgment

Recently, I read some comments on a Facebook post with which I vehemently disagreed.  Let me clarify: I agreed with the original post, but not with some of the comments that were in contradiction with the original post.  Specifically, here is one of the comments that I disagreed with and I chose it because it depicts an attitude that needs to be addressed: “This post is dripping with judgment and dangerous over-generalization.”

The attitude that I want to address is my own, because my initial reaction was this: in making this observation and declaring judgment to be wrong, this person made a judgment.  However, I was incorrect in my assessment.  Please do not stop reading here, but rather consider the evidence included through the duration of this article.

Consider the following definition:

Judge:[1]

Transitive Verb

• To form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
• To sit in judgment on
• To determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
• Govern, rule – used of a Hebrew tribal leader
• To form an estimate or evaluation of; especially: to form a negative opinion about <shouldn’t judge him because of his accent>
• To hold as an opinion

Intransitive Verb

• To form an opinion
• To decide as a judge

According to Merriam-Webster, the main definition of “judge” is an opinion formed through the careful preponderance of evidence and fact, and the definition that many people utilize (albeit incorrectly) comes in at fifth place.  Note, however, that even though the 5^th definition includes “forming a negative opinion” of someone or something, it is still based on the preponderance of evidence (“estimate or evaluation of”) and the example used denotes a lack of this careful thought. 

Consider also this definition:

 Judgment:[2]

• An opinion or decision that is based on careful thought
• The act or process of forming an opinion or making a decision after careful thought: the act of judging something or someone
• The ability to make good decisions about what should be done

There are a number of different definitions for “judgment,” and each is applicable in a specific context (for instance, the comment quoted at the beginning obviously is not speaking about a decision made by a court).  Note that Merriam-Webster states that a judgment is “based on careful thought,” it is a decision formed “after careful thought,” and that it is “the ability to make good decisions about what should be done.”  The common theme throughout the definition of both “judge” and “judgment” is “careful thought,” “evidence,” and “inquiry and deliberation.”  All of these words lend credence to the idea that the person forming a true judgment has exercised due diligence to evidence and has carefully weighed said evidence in order to come to a logical conclusion.

Therefore, when the writer stated that the post was “dripping with judgment,” he was correct.  Although this person meant it as a negative thing, by definition it is correct.  However, I was incorrect in assuming that this person made a judgment in return; if such a person states that they did not make a judgment, why argue? If evidence has not been carefully considered and an opinion is formed without a solid foundation, then a true judgment has not been formed. 

Frequently, people reference Matthew 7:1 in their efforts to condemn judgment, but that approach fully neglects the context of this statement.  In fact, the use of “Judge not” by Jesus fits perfectly well the aforementioned definitions; “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (7:2).  We are all judged by the word of God (John 12:44-50), which is the only measure by which we ought to judge concerning spiritual things.  If we seek to guide ourselves apart from the word of God, then we are not truly making judgments (there is no preponderance of evidence) and we fit better with Jeremiah 10:23.

Judgment is not only authorized by God, but is shown via Apostolic example and is commanded, just as encouragement (which many people want at the expense of righteousness), refutation of false doctrines, and the rebuke of those in sin (which inherently requires proper judgment based on the Scriptures).  Consider 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 11 (note that Paul makes two judgments in 1 Corinthians 11…one in which he judged them as correctly executing God’s command and one in which he judged them as not following God’s command), and 2 Timothy 4:1-5.  Inherent in each of these passages is that the judgment is based upon the authority of God, not man (note that Paul even states in 1 Corinthians 5:3 that he has already judged the erring brother as though he were present). 

With this in mind, it is obvious that when someone holds a view in contradiction to the Bible (note that I did not say a view in contradiction to a man), they have not made a judgment in accordance with the proper definition.   In other words, they have not carefully considered the evidence and drawn a logical conclusion based upon the authority of God, but have given more credence to their own desires (Jeremiah 10:23).  No longer should we argue that such people have formed a judgment!   

---

[1] "Judge." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed December 26, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge.

[2] "Judgment." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed December 26, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment.

Does Jesus Specifically Have to Say It?

I posted this article a couple of years ago on the Summersville church of Christ blog, but recent events in the news and on social media have brought it back to mind.  Please read carefully and consider the implications of ignoring the writings of the Apostles.

Perhaps you have seen the argument that if Jesus didn't specifically speak out against something, then modern Christians cannot speak about it.  This argument has been made on various topics throughout the years, but in more recent years it has been made concerning the sin of homosexuality.  Now, this post is not going to be about homosexuality, but it is the sin that this argument has been used to "justify" most recently.  However, it has been used for justification of other sins in the past and it will, I'm sure, be used in the future.

The argument, in other words, is that since Jesus did not make a specific point of calling homosexuality a sin, then we cannot say anything about it today.  The only way that an individual could possibly come to this conclusion is to cast aside the entirety of the Bible (generally in order to justify an activity they are already participating in).  However, this does lead to the question: does Jesus specifically have to say it?

If it is true that Jesus had to specifically say it, then to what purpose do we have the writings of the apostles? If the actual, verbal words of Jesus were the only ones that matter, then there truly would be no purpose to having the rest of the Bible.  Pack it up, toss it out, burn it, bury it, do whatever to it because it doesn’t matter.  But is this true? Just out of curiosity, what did Jesus say about this concept (since that is the original argument anyway)?

Turn to John 12:42-50.  In this passage, Jesus asserts two things; first, that the word He spoke would judge those that reject it (12:48), and second, that He spoke only that which God the Father had commanded Him (12:49-50).  Even Jesus, the Son of God, did as directed by God the Father.  Now turn to Matthew 16:13-20.  In this passage, Jesus grants to the apostles the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven.  What are those keys? Access to heaven through inspiration and knowledge of salvation, both of which came from God the Father! Jesus also states that whatever the apostles bound or loose on earth would likewise be bound or loosed in heaven.  Does this mean that God allowed the apostles to dictate to Him what would be taught (something that He did not even grant to the Son)? No, they were inspired to speak the will of God just as Jesus was.  How do we learn this? Through other passages concerning these same topics!

In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter writes that scripture is not for private interpretation (1:20) and that prophecy is not of men, but of God via the Holy Spirit (1:21).  In other words, the inspired men of God spoke as He moved them to speak.  They only conveyed the will of God to mankind, not their own will! Also, the truth is the truth regardless of how people try to interpret it differently than what it says (1:20).  In 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul tells us that Christ is the power and wisdom of God.  Further, Christ became that wisdom for us (1:30), and therefore Paul came in spiritual wisdom to preach the message of salvation to mankind (2:1-16).  He did not come, as he states in chapter 2, in the wisdom of man, but the wisdom of God.

From all these passages, we can see that the assertion that the message HAS to come from Christ directly is false.  Many people want to look only at what Jesus said because they have a misconceived notion of what Jesus stood for and taught (in other words, while they argue for only looking at what Jesus actually said, they don’t even take all of what He said…just what they WANT to believe).  God inspired the prophets and the apostles, the writers of the Bible, and dictated to them the message they were to preach/teach/write. It ALL comes from God, whether Jesus said it or whether the apostles said it by way of inspiration.  Therefore, it does NOT have to be Jesus that specifically says something in order for it to be applicable!

Fallacies in Argumentation

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been teaching my students about fallacies, which are errors in reasoning and arguments.  These fallacies are easily located in nearly every discussion, whether it be a discussion concerning favorite sports teams to political discussions to religious discussions.  Often, when an individual who holds an unsupported opinion is pinned down by logic and fact, they employ any tactic possible to “win the argument.”  When this happens, “truth” is not the main objective, but rather the winning of the argument.  Such arguments are “usually plausible-sounding” and use “false, inadequate, or invalid evidence.”[1]  Many times, such arguments are made on purpose, but occasionally they are made due to ignorance (“lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc”[2]).  Whether done purposefully or not, such argumentation has, generally, one of two effects; either it convinces equally ignorant people as to the “rightness” of the argument or, more likely, it causes an honest audience to question the credibility of the person arguing.

Consider a few of the following forms of fallacies; have you either seen or employed them in the past? Our age of digital media allows for such argumentation to occur before an individual bothers to take the time to form a logical response based on facts and truth, or, as is often the case, before they even read what they “disagree” with.

“Bandwagon Fallacy – Someone who argues that “everybody thinks it’s a good idea, so you should too” is using the bandwagon fallacy.  Simply because someone says that “everyone” is “jumping on the bandwagon,” or supporting a particular point of view, does not make the point of view correct.”[3]  Often, people utilizing this form of argumentation do not realize that they are doing it.  It often takes the form of “well, this is the same as that, and we all accept THAT as being correct, so therefore THIS is correct.”  Is that true?

Another fallacy is based on attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.  This is called an “ad hominem” attack and it “involves attacking irrelevant personal characteristics of the person who is proposing an idea rather than attacking the idea itself.”[4]  This is perhaps the easiest fallacy to fall prey to, because our natural inclination is to attack back if we feel attacked.

A particularly popular, even if done subconsciously, fallacy is known as the “red herring” fallacy.  This is when “someone attacks an issue by using irrelevant facts or arguments as distractions.”[5]  In nearly any discussion, keeping someone on point is perhaps the most difficult task there is to complete. 

In many discussions, a mixture of these logical fallacies is employed; in other words, individuals often base their perspective off of what the “majority” believes rather than facts, then, should that perspective be challenged, they attack either the person (ad hominem) or throw irrelevant “facts” into the discussion in order to distract from the topic at hand (red herring).  If this analysis is doubted, simply read any political or religious discussion on Facebook for evidence.

Such argumentation is nothing new to the modern world; there are similarities between these fallacies and the “arguments” made for the crucifixion of Christ.  Consider how, when Pilate questioned the Jews concerning what Jesus had done that was deserving of death, the Jews answered, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you” (John 18:30).  At the very best, this is a red herring argument; what evidence was presented that Jesus was guilty of anything worthy of death? The Jews intended to distract Pilate from uncovering the fact that they were both rebellious and envious of Jesus.  This red herring argument, however, was not convincing to Pilate.  Pilate knew that the Jews had handed Jesus over to him because of envy (Matthew 27:18).  Essentially, the credibility of the participating Jews was shot with Pilate, but fearing a riot, he allowed the crucifixion to continue. 

As can be easily seen in discussions today, particularly concerning sin, these logical fallacies are used and abused.  For instance, when a specific sin is being discussed, the person who is likely participating in that sin or is close to someone who is participating will throw out a red herring argument rather than dealing with the truth that the sin is, in fact, a sin.  Predominantly,  Matthew 7:1 is abused in this instance; rather than looking at the sin and fixing it in their life, the impacted individual will claim that Jesus said not to judge (an obvious misapplication of the context of Matthew 7:1), and then they will attack the person(s) pointing out the true nature of the sin in question (ad hominem attack).  Is this appropriate?

Consider also how often in religious discussions that the supposed “attitude” of the person discussing a sin is called into question.  For example, an individual shows from Scripture that an activity is a sin, then an affected person calls foul and claims that the original person was too harsh or mean in what they said rather than looking at WHAT was said.  This is the classic “it isn’t WHAT you said, but HOW you said it” approach, which is a mixture of both ad hominem and red herring argumentation.  Does such an attack alter the truth of God’s word?

It is easy to fall prey to any, all, or a mixture of the above fallacies, and there are other fallacies beyond the scope of this brief article.  When entering a discussion, we must ensure that we are seeking only the truth, not simply to “win the argument” or prove our own preconceived notions.  No matter how personal the attack, keep on point (no matter which side of the “argument” you are on) and pursue only the truth.

---

[1] Ross, Raymond, and Diana Leonard.  Introduction to the Speechmaking Process. E ed. Vol. 14.  Redding: BVT, 2012, pg. 373-374.

[2] “ignorance.” Dictionary.com Unabridged.  Random House, Inc. 01 Dec. 2014.

[3] Beebe, Steven and Susan Beebe.  A Concise Public Speaking Handbook.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2012, pg. 236.

[4] Ibid., 237.

[5] Ibid., 237.

"Does This Offend You?"

After delivering a tough, hard to understand message to many disciples, Jesus asked a very simple question in John 6:61: “Does this offend you?”

There are at least two ways in which the word “offend” is utilized in the Scriptures; one way is used to imply that someone is caused to err or stumble (Mark 9:42 - KJV) and the other is to cause anger or irritation (John 6:61).  Modern definitions of “offend” fit both of these Scriptural usages and allow the context of the word to emphasize which meaning is being utilized.  In fact, “offend” is defined as:

• To irritate, annoy or anger; cause resentful displeasure in.
• To affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably.
• To violate or transgress (a criminal, religious, or moral law).
• To hurt or cause pain to.
• (In Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways. [1]

Was Jesus asking if His own teachings were causing others to fall into sinful ways? The context of the word tells us that no, He was not saying this.  Therefore, we can only logically conclude that Jesus was asking if they were irritated or angered by His teachings.  Did this stop Him from teaching? Did this alter the truth of what He taught?

In many Bible discussions today, the argument “it isn’t what you said, it was how you said it” is often utilized.  Essentially, this is a red herring argument (meant to distract from the topic at hand); too many times discussions degenerate into name calling and complaints about how things are said or written rather than a thoughtful, logical, careful study of God’s word.  Generally speaking, this takes place because truth is not actually being sought, and so complaints are filed about how “harsh” the other person was and it is said that “if they had only said it nicer I would have accepted it as the truth.”

Does an honest examination of the Scriptures support such a view? Many Christians today claim that only a “nice” approach to teaching the Scriptures is appropriate (and indeed, sometimes that approach IS what is best for the individual being taught), and anything other than that is could cause someone to be offended (fall into sinful ways).  Question for thought: how can we cause someone who is already in sin to fall into sinful ways?

Obviously, there are some difficult and hard to understand concepts that Jesus taught in John 6, as well as some rather harsh rebukes (John 6:26).  Was Jesus rejected simply because He had not presented His message in a cordial manner? Had Jesus withheld His rebuke of why they sought Him, would He have been more successful?

Consider Luke 4:16-30.  In this passage, Jesus reveals that He was the fulfillment of a particular prophesy from the book of Isaiah (ironically, the prophesy regards Jesus healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty, and many other obviously compassionate activities that Jesus obviously fulfilled in a spiritual sense).  However, Jesus informs His audience that while He is the fulfillment of this prophesy, that He would be unable to do so in that particular region (Nazareth) because they would reject Him.  In other words, it was not that He was unwilling to do these compassionate duties for them, but that their attitude would cause it to be impossible.  We are then told in 4:28 that the audience was angered by His words.  Were His words too harsh? Actually, this is an instance in which Jesus seemed to utilize calm, rather nice words to express His message, and yet the result was actually worse than what would happen in John 6.  While many in John 6 left Him and would walk no more with Him, the audience in Luke 4 actually make an attempt on His life (Luke 4:28-30). 

Jesus obviously employed a great many different teaching styles throughout His ministry on earth, and applied appropriate levels of gentleness and/or harshness depending on the specific needs of His audience.  For Jesus, there was no “one size fits all” approach to teaching and often the style He used was designed to separate those who were sincerely seeking truth from those who were not (Matthew 3:12 is a prediction of this and Luke 4 and John 6 both emphasize this fact). 

If this was the method of Christ, then why do we often assume that our way is better than His? To assume such is to assume that we are better equipped than the Lord at teaching His will; do we really want to make such an assumption? Instead of worrying so much about whether or not we are saying it “nice” enough, we need to worry about whether we are teaching the truth.  Many today are offended if you even bring up the Bible…do we have the right to stop using it simply because it offends someone?

Often, Christians are afraid to make someone sorry for the sin in their lives.  Is this the appropriate attitude to have? We have forgotten what sin is and how disgusting it actually is; the Bible treats it as a sow going back to the mire and a dog eating vomit…are either of those a picture of something that isn’t so bad? Christians today must remember that the Bible should cause an individual to be sorry about the sin in their life, and THEN to offer them the hope of salvation.  We cannot get it out of order! We do not offer them the hope of salvation, and then HOPE that they will feel sorry enough to repent! Like Paul, we as Christians do not rejoice that a person is sorrowful, but that their sorrow (if godly) leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-12).

For those that are not diligently and honestly seeking the truth, the words of the Bible will always offend them (irritate and anger them), and it does not matter how nicely it is said.  This point has been illustrated by a great many Christians who have simply quoted the Bible and added no commentary, yet have been condemned as unloving and harsh.  Should such accusations be taken seriously? Is such a person making an accusation truly offended (caused to stumble), or are they simply mad about the truth?

“Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.  For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). 

---

[1] offend. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offend (accessed: September 17, 2014).

"...exhort the young..."

In Deuteronomy 6:4-7, Moses establishes a principle for the Israelites that many modern Christians should take note of and apply in their own lives.  Speaking of the commands of the Lord (commonly called the Ten Commandments), Moses reminds the Israelites of who God is (6:4), instructs them to love God completely (6:5), the commandments of God were to be in their hearts (6:6), and they were to diligently teach their children of these commandments and God through both consistent instruction and example (6:7).  From this passage, we learn that God’s commandments and will was to be the most influential factor in an Israelite’s life.  This wasn’t something that they did once or twice a week, but rather it was a way of life. 

A similar principle is established for us in the New Testament as well; consider Titus 2:1-8 where Paul instructs that the older members of the church, both male and female, are to instruct the younger men and woman as to their character and respective duties as Christians.  Consider also how 1 & 2 Timothy were written to Timothy and Titus was written to Titus, both of whom seem to be young(er) evangelists (1 Timothy 1:1-2; Titus 1:4).  Note especially in Titus that Paul not only instructs the older men and women of the church to instruct the younger, but also instructs THEM in how THEY should live and in what they should teach the younger.  In other words, the older men and women have lived faithfully and shown themselves to be sound in doctrine (Titus 2:1). 

Unfortunately, it seems that in the modern church, the older generation does not teach the younger generation as much as they should.  Please note: there ARE older Christians who strive to do so, but their efforts seem to be greatly outweighed by those who do not.  Another downfall seems to be that many older Christians who have faced spiritual battles (such as the battles over institutionalism in the 1950s and 1960s) may have passed down the truth on those subjects, but have not passed down why it is the truth or how they arrived at the conclusion that they reached.  Now we have a generation (or 2…or 3?) that have been told that things such as “institutionalism” is wrong (this is just an example, by the way), but they are not shown why it is wrong, nor how to properly divide the word of truth so as to ascertain for themselves.   

Younger generations need to learn how to properly question and seek counsel from the older generations; this means that they need to recognize their own shortcomings in Bible authority and seek out older men and women with whom they can study.  Titus 2:1-8 indicates that we, as the younger generation, need to seek out qualified brethren to study with, and not simply someone who presents an argument or reading that we like.  In other words, we need to seek out older Christians that have properly proven themselves to be a worker of God who has no need to be ashamed (2 Timothy 2:14-16).  We should ask ourselves whether the person(s) we are seeking advice from have successfully raised families in Christ (Titus 1:5-9), have they diligently preached, convinced, rebuked, and exhorted (2 Timothy 4:2), and have they fought the good fight (2 Timothy 4:6-8)? We, as younger Christians, have to remember that some have shown themselves worthy of being asked for advice and teaching, while others have shown themselves continually to be “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1-9) and have made “their folly” apparent or “manifest to all”.  Some who ought to be teachers need to be taught again the first principles of the gospel (Hebrews 5:12-14); are we to seek advice from those who have proven themselves unable to establish Bible authority on multiple occasions?

There ARE well-qualified older Christians in the church today who are able to properly teach through both action and instruction and younger Christians need to seek them out.  Unfortunately, many younger Christians today seek validation for what they already believe or want to do rather than seeking advice and instruction that will help them achieve godliness.  Often, younger Christians feed off of the advice of their peers rather than looking to older Christians, and, as can be seen often in many conversational mediums today, mock older Christians as being “too traditional” or “behind the times” (Reference 1 Kings 12:1-24).  Many younger Christians claim that we need to “think outside the box” and “break away from traditionalism,” but God set the box and God set those traditions.  Thinking outside the box often means thinking outside of God, which is a place that we do not want to be.

As Paul taught Titus, older Christians need to pass on not only their knowledge of the Bible, but also their knowledge of how to study the Bible properly.   While passing on a properly arrived at conclusion concerning a Biblical topic is vastly important, so is showing how one arrived at that conclusion.  We all must be willing to study and we must all be willing to learn.

Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

                                                                                                                                ~2 Timothy 1:13

Concerning "Words"

A few thoughts to consider:

The definition of a word can change over time to mean something completely contrary than the original intent. 

For instance, the word "gay" used to have the primary meaning of "full of joy or mirth", "gay, merry" (1178 A.D.), and "brilliant, showy" (1300), with a change in meaning between the late 1800s and early 1900s to mean "homosexual". [1]  Now, the common definition is "of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual" and the original meaning (in essence) taking on the third or fourth definition in some dictionaries. [2]

This post is not meant to talk about homosexuality, but rather the change that occurred in the definition of the word "gay."  The modern definition is very different than the original definition.

Likewise, other words change over time.  Yesterday, as I was studying 1 Peter 3:15 and Titus 3:1-2, I did a word study on many of the words used to translate "peaceable," "gentle," and "humility" (NKJV).  Each of these words is translated in various ways depending on which version you are using (NKJV, KJV, etc), and what interested me was that 1 Peter 3:15 uses the term “meekness” and Titus 3:2 uses the word “humility” in the NKJV, but the KJV uses “meekness” for both passages. 

Have you examined the modern usage of the word “meek” or “meekness”? One definition for “meek” is “humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others”, which, in some instances, may be an applicable definition.  However, the secondary definition is “overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.” [3] Does such a definition fit with the Biblical depiction of “meekness”? Additionally, the World English Dictionary has the following secondary definition: “spineless or spiritless; compliant”.[4]

Do these definitions fit with how the Bible depicts those who are meek? Moses (Numbers 12:3), Jesus (Matthew 11:29), and Paul are considered meek (2 Corinthians 10:1) [synonyms of “meek” are used in these passages depending upon translation]; would we consider any of the above to be “spineless,” “spiritless,” or “overly submissive”? In regards to God the Father, yes they were submissive (spineless is a step I’m unwilling to take in regards especially with Jesus).  But in regards to man? Did Jesus depict spinelessness when zeal for His father’s house ate Him up in John 2? Or when He taught the 5000+ in John 6? Was Moses spineless when he faced down Pharaoh? And the list goes on…

In 1200 A.D., “meek” had a common definition or usage of “gentle, courteous, kind”, which changed to having an inherent “sense of ‘submissive’” in the mid-14^th century.[5]  Does “gentle, courteous, kind” fit with the rest of Scripture concerning the attitude with which a Christian should live their life? Absolutely! Does “spineless” or “spiritless” fit? Not when we examine the character of the righteous in the Bible, including Jesus.  Paul, in Titus 3:1-2, and Peter in 1 Peter 3:15, are talking about a common manner in which a Christian is to live their life, or a “general rule,” essentially.   Neither Paul nor Peter are excusing us from having boldness in our faith and zealously defending the faith when it is necessary (the etymology of “bold” is found in the Old English words “beald” and “bald”, meaning “bold, brave, confident, strong”). [6]

In essence, we need to be careful about how we apply modern definitions, particularly if such definitions obviously contradict other required concepts in the Bible. 

For humor sake, if we are not careful about what definitions we seek to apply to Biblical concepts, Paul is telling us by using the word “gentle”  in Titus 3:2 that we are to be of “good birth or family; wellborn”.  That is, of course, absurd, but it does emphasize the point that we need to be careful.

---

[1] gay. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay (accessed: August 12, 2014).

[2] gay. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay (accessed: August 12, 2014).

[3] Meek. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Meek (accessed: August 12, 2014).

[4] Meek. Dictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Meek(accessed: August 12, 2014).

[5] Meek. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Meek (accessed: August 12, 2014).

[6] boldness. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boldness (accessed: August 12, 2014).

The Message, Not the Messenger

In 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 (and revisits the issue in later passages), Paul establishes a principle for the Corinthians and for us; the messenger of the gospel is just the messenger and is not what is important. Many of the Corinthians were dividing up based who they "followed," as though Paul taught something different from Cephas, who taught something different from Apollos, who taught something different from Christ. Paul's overall point is that the messenger may change, but the message itself does not. Therefore, Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ all taught the same thing and there should not have been divisions among the Corinthians based on which evangelist they preferred; Paul notes that Christ is the only one that should be looked to as someone special because He is God and He did sacrifice Himself for us (distinction made in 1:13).

Today, some Christians do a very similar thing; have you ever heard someone say that they were a "fan" of a particular preacher? While the Christians that say such things aren't necessarily intending to express a belief similar to those in Corinth, the result can very well be the same. If we are a "fan" (and there is other terminology that could be used) of a particular preacher, then we can easily become blinded to what message they are trying to convey (whether truth or false).

Some Christians go the other extreme and because a particular preacher or Christian says or writes something, they automatically take a position in opposition to that viewpoint. They may argue with that particular Christian simply because they don't like them, but agree with someone else who says/writes the EXACT same thing just because they DO like that person.

Rather than worrying about the politics of who is saying what and whether or not we like THEM, we need to concentrate on what the message is that is being conveyed. If it is truth, accept it. If it is false, reject the message and explain to them "the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26). Remember to "test the spirits, whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1) and remember to examine the context of any passage used because even the Devil can quote Scripture (Matthew 4:1-11).

"Love" According to Paul

Studying through 1 Corinthians can be an eye-opening experience in many ways.  Throughout this text, we learn much concerning doctrinal issues, proper worship of God, self-denial in non-essential issues, dealing with erring brethren, putting aside pride, not being envious of one another, and many other things.  What we find in Corinth is a group of Christians in which pride and an excessive sense of self-worth seems to have taken over; while there were some working hard at getting things correct (the covering, the Lord's supper, etc), the vast majority seems to have been caught up in their own so-called "knowledge" (also evidenced by the misuse of the covering, the Lord's supper, etc).  Most of all, what we learn is that Paul utilized an array of approaches to deal with the issues within the church, from praising them (1 Corinthians 11:2) to not praising them (1 Corinthians 11:17) to using sarcasm to express his point (1 Corinthians 4:7-8).  It seems that in nearly every case in this letter (if not EVERY case), Paul mixes what many people today would consider the positive with the negative (such as in 1 Corinthians 11 where he praises them, yet he still deals with the contentious, or his noting of the brethren seeking to partake of the Lord's supper in a worthy manner while there is essentially chaos surrounding them in 1 Corinthians 11:19).  In other words, Paul does not simply keep the praise separate from the condemnations, nor does he keep the condemnations separate from the praise.  Rather, he uses one to juxtapose the other! 

Many people in modern America, including Christians, absolutely adore Paul's description of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13, and with very good reason.  Paul paints a picture of "love" in its perfect form; Christians caring for one another, suffering with and for one another, etc.  Often, this passage is printed in brilliant calligraphy, but have we considered the context? Yes, Paul absolutely paints a wonderful picture of love, but why does he do so? Why was it necessary in the midst of his discussion concerning spiritual gifts to shift his focus to love? As with the aforementioned examples from 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is mixing the positive (perfect love) with the negative (addressing once again the pride and envy of the Corinthian Christians).  

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul discusses the necessity of all spiritual gifts to the establishment of the church in the first century.  All spiritual gifts served a purpose, even if they were less desirable by man's standards.  It seems likely that the Corinthians had created an arbitrary hierarchy of spiritual gifts, and that they had placed the gift of tongues at the very top of it.  This should not be surprising to us since we know that pride was a very serious issue among the brethren there and the ability to speak in a tongue would be apparent to all.  However, Paul explains that all gifts were necessary, as were all members of Christ's body who had such gifts.  The Corinthians seemed to have lost sight of the reason the gifts were given because they were so focused on obtaining the best spiritual gifts ("best" in their own opinions).  

Thus, when we get to 1 Corinthians 13, Paul is showing them that they needed to go back and work on their brotherly love.  Note how he ties together many of the previous rebukes into this description of love:

• "...love does not envy..." - the Corinthians were envious of the "best" spiritual gifts

• "...does not behave rudely..." - the Corinthians had made a mockery of the Lord's supper and disrupted those trying to partake appropriately (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

• "...love does not parade itself, is not puffed up..." - the Corinthians were puffed up in their lack of diligence do put sin away from among them, which they did under the guise of "love" (1 Corinthians 5)

• "...does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in truth..." - the Corinthians were at the very least accepting of sins of a sexual nature, if not condoning of it (1 Corinthians 6:12-13)

• The list goes on...

And so, what we have in 1 Corinthians 13 is Paul explaining that all the things for which the Corinthians were envious of or over which they were prideful would pass away or would cease to be of use.  All the spiritual gifts, whether prophecies, tongues, etc, would fail (cease to be of use), but love would never cease to be of use.  God never meant for those things to remain, but He always meant for brotherly love to remain, which is what Paul means in 13:10-11; childhood is necessary for proper human development, but eventually you have to stop being a child and become an adult.

While we need to strive to fulfill the depiction of love in chapter 13, we must also remember the context and the purposes for which it was written.  This is an instance in which Paul's rebuke is rather subtle, but it is still a rebuke nonetheless, as well as an encouragement to love one another appropriately.  Such love is not "unconditional" as the world sees it, but rather it requires accountability.

An Unworthy Manner - The Lord's Supper and Me

There are many lessons that modern Christians can learn from Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians concerning their misuse and abuse of the Lord’s supper.  The latter part of 1 Corinthians 11 is set apart in two ways from the prior section; 1.) Paul goes from praising the Corinthians in their use of the covering (11:2) to rebuking their attitude and manner of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (11:17); 2.) by moving from the individual/assembly to the assembly (11:18).  During Paul’s instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper, it is evident that the predominant selfish attitude of the Corinthian brethren was overwhelming in this part of their worship of God.  In fact, it seems as though the majority of the Christians had forgotten even the very reason for which they were to partake of the supper.

While it does seem as though the majority of the Corinthians were partaking in an unworthy manner, the passage indicates that there were still some trying to follow the method set forth by Christ, but were being interfered with by those who had turned the Lord’s Supper into a common meal and, essentially, a circus.  In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul says that the factions among the Corinthians needed to be noted because through them those that “are approved” could be recognized for doing it correctly.  This is an important distinction to make because it teaches modern Christians that those adhering to the method set forth by Christ are the ones who are approved, but those who do not adhere to it are not approved.  

In the so-called “religious world” today (and even some Christians), many adhere to the idea that it doesn’t matter how or why we come together, only that we do it somehow.  Additionally, many assert that being in ANY church is better than nothing at all.  However, Paul states that if worship is not done correctly (according to the methods instituted and ordained by God), then it is to our detriment, not for our betterment (1 Corinthians 11:17).  If we come together, but do not worship in accordance with God’s will, then how does it help us?

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with how inappropriately the Corinthians were partaking of the Lord’s supper.  They were: 1.) Divided into factions; 2.) They were not coming together for the purpose of taking the Lord’s supper; 3.) They were NOT eating it together; and 4.) They were turning it into a common meal.  If, as many assert today, the manner and method are not necessarily important just so long as we worship God, then why does Paul then utilize the method set forth by Christ to correct the Corinthian’s abuse?

The pattern, as instituted by Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23; Matthew 26:20-30), was to partake together, to take unleavened bread and bless it before distribution, then take the fruit of the vine and bless it before it was divided among the assembly (in Matthew 26, the “assembly” was the twelve disciples; see also Luke 22:17).  From Acts 20:7, we inescapably conclude that this remembrance of the Lord is to occur every first day of the week.

Can we deviate from this pattern? Can we choose to alter the elements utilized during the supper? Can we choose to alter how much of the assembly partakes of it? Remember, we can only go as far as the Scriptures go and we must remember that Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their misuse of the elements and for only part of the assembly partaking.  Multiple times throughout 1 Corinthians 11, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for turning the Lord’s supper into a common meal and for not waiting for one another.  Should we, as modern Christians, not learn from this condemnation?

Consider what we learn from the instance in which Christ instituted this memorial feast; Christ sat down with the twelve (Matthew 26:20), they were eating together (Matthew 26:23), Judas dipped his hand WITH Jesus, not later (Matthew 26:23), Christ instituted the Lord’s supper as they were eating (Matthew 26:26), and Christ gave it to ALL of the disciples (Matthew 26:26).  Does only part of the assembly partaking of the Lord’s supper fit this pattern? It did not fit for the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:21), Paul rebuked them for this in 11:22b, and instructed them to wait for one another in 11:33.

Paul emphasized the importance of getting the method correct as we are partaking of the Lord’s supper.  It isn’t about how we like it or about how we feel as we partake, but rather it is about how God commanded that it be done.  If we eat or drink in an unworthy manner, then we are ourselves guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27).  It isn’t a generalized spiritual self-examination that Paul is commanding in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, but rather an examination of how we are partaking of the Lord’s supper and whether we are doing it in the correct, Scriptural method or not.  By necessity, such a self-examination would force us to examine ourselves to ensure that we are walking correctly as Christians, but this is not the main purpose of this examination, but rather a secondary advantage or benefit.  The Christians in Corinth were “weak and sick” and many slept (1 Corinthians 11:30) because they were not performing these self-examinations and properly partaking of the Lord’s supper.   

The tone surrounding the institution of the Lord’s supper denotes a seriousness with which we should partake (Matthew 26:22).  The Apostles, knowing that the betrayal and death of Christ was forthcoming, were “exceedingly sorrowful.”  Likewise, we should remember each Lord’s day that it is because of our sins that Christ had to be betrayed and had to be crucified; while we may be joyous that Christ was willing and able to save us from these sins through this sacrifice, we should approach the memorial feast in a solemn manner with the reverence due the great King and Almighty God.  Remember the words found in Leviticus 10:3, “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”  When we partake of the Lord’s supper, we commune with Christ and with one another.  In essence, we ARE drawing near to God and we MUST regard Him as holy.  The Lord’s supper isn’t about us, nor is it simply the “duty” of a Christian to take it.  Rather, it is something that should speak to us in an immensely powerful way every single Lord’s day and remind us of His sacrifice for OUR sins; a sacrifice for which we need to remember that we were not worthy.   

Take Heed Lest You Fall - I Have Performed the Commandment of the Lord

If you went into a restaurant and ordered a cheeseburger with everything on it, fries, and a coke, would you be happy with your waiter or waitress if they brought you a salad, baked potato, and an ice water? If they said to you, “Well, you ordered a burger with everything on it, and since lettuce comes on it, I assumed that you would be even HAPPIER with a salad.  And since fries are made out of potatoes, I assumed that you’d be even HAPPIER with a baked potato because you get a whole potato…and since Coke is a liquid, I assumed that water would be just as acceptable.”  Would you be happy with that? Or would you tell them that you didn’t order that food? What if they claimed that since they had brought you SOMETHING that they deserved not only to have the meal paid for, but for a very high tip?

Our society today has a lot of people who claim to be religious and act as though God ought to be pleased with whatever “service” they grace Him with.  And so, many people will ignore the commands that God actually gave to us in His word, but choose rather to claim that God ought to be happy with what they choose to do because it is “better” in some way.  They then claim that they have “performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:13).  Unfortunately, such a perspective can develop even in people who have been faithful to God in the past, but lose their love of truth. 

In 1 Corinthians 10:12, Paul wrote the following warning for Christians: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”  This warning is issued following Paul’s utilization of Israel’s history of disobeying God and the consequences that they suffered because of it.  In verse 11, Paul wrote that “all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition…” 

With Paul’s warning in mind and his observation that we are to learn from past examples, let us consider the case of King Saul, particularly in 1 Samuel 15.  In 1 Samuel 8, Israel mistakenly believe that they desire a king in order to be like “other nations” (Israel did not realize how good they had it by having God as their direct leader), and in 1 Samuel 9, Saul is chosen to fulfill that role.  Saul was a “choice and handsome” man who was “from his shoulders upward taller than any of the people” (1 Samuel 9:2), and more importantly, he was chosen directly by God to be king over Israel (1 Samuel 9:16-17, 10:24).

Unfortunately, Saul’s character begins to falter by the 1 Samuel 13 where he offers an unlawful sacrifice to God (even as king over Israel, Saul had no right to offer sacrifices to God since that task was given only to the priests).  This occurred after Saul had reigned only 2 years over Israel (1 Samuel 13:1), and so we begin to see the demise of a chosen man of God into a man who would despise the instruction and commandments of the Lord (1 Samuel 13:13-14).

By the time we get to 1 Samuel 15, we see that Saul has essentially separated himself completely from the Lord.  Perhaps Saul had become the epitome of a person who the New Testament would classify as having received a strong delusion from God because they do not love the truth, but rather have pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).  In 1 Samuel 15:1-3, God clearly commands that the Amalekites be utterly destroyed and this commandment left no room for doubt in the mind of Saul.  However, when Samuel appears after the battle (1 Samuel 15:13), Saul claims that he had performed the commandment of the Lord (note: when Saul thought that he would get away with his disobedience, he was happy to take credit).  However, Samuel asks Saul why, if he had done the commandment of the Lord, did he hear the “bleating of the sheep” and the “lowing of the oxen” (1 Samuel 15:14). 

Saul’s response to Samuel’s question truly depicts how far from God he had already departed; in most other cases in which a king or person of God will use the phrase “the Lord my God” or some such variation (Deut. 4:5; Joshua 14:7-9; 1 Kings 5:3-4, etc).  Note, however, that as Saul passes the blame onto the people, he tells Samuel that the people had spared the flocks in order to sacrifice them to “the Lord YOUR God” (1 Samuel 15:15 - emphasis mine).  This phrase, along with the context, truly shows how Saul’s view concerning God had so dramatically changed. 

Like many people today who only partially obey the commandments of God, Saul argues with Samuel that he had indeed completed God’s task.  Note that in 1 Samuel 15:19-21, Samuel asks Saul why he had not done the commandment of God, but Saul says:

But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Somehow, in Saul’s mind, he thought that partial obedience was acceptable to God.  Likewise, many people today believe that whatever service they choose to offer to God should be accepted by God and counted as sufficient.  However, in this passage, Saul didn’t get “partial credit” for what he had done; God did not accept the partial obedience of Saul and count the task as being completed.  In fact, Samuel himself does not even count Saul’s partial obedience as being acceptable; rather he says that Saul had “rejected the word of the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:26).  Samuel didn’t say, “Well, you got it MOSTLY right and I can’t judge your heart,” nor did he say, “You only made a mistake.”  No, Samuel counted Saul’s partial obedience as a REJECTION of the commandments of God.

The downfall of Saul stands out as an example of someone who believed a lie because he had rejected obedience to God as being necessary, and Christians today need to learn from this and be admonished to greater obedience by it.  We need to remember the words and admonition of Paul who wrote to us not to become prideful, nor think that we are too strong to fall.  While some Christians think that because they have been faithful 20, 30, 40+ years that they cannot fall, they, like Saul, can become separated from God if they lose their love of truth and diligence in their obedience of God’s commandments.  Those that receive a “strong delusion” only do so because they do not have a love truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10).  If we have that love of truth and we are determined to do the will of God no matter what He requires of us, then we will not receive such a delusion, nor will we believe a lie.

The Greatest is "Unconditional" Love

This article was written a few years ago and posted on the Summersville blog.  I've done some edits to it and am reposting it.  Hope that it helps!

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks in detail about how unconditional Godly love is and how we ought to love with the same love.  In 1 Corinthians 13:13, Paul says that we are to abide in “faith, hope, love, these three,” but the greatest is unconditional love.

Unfortunately, while that isn't exactly what Paul wrote or taught, that is often how people read it.  Love is defined (even by those claiming to be religious) as unconditional, non-judgmental, and without stipulation or consequence.  By this definition, we cannot convince or rebuke (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 2:15) because we would be judging another person to have sinned, and those that advocate this definition of “love” are adamant about not judging (a very misapplied Matthew 7:1).  If we truly love someone, then we accept them the way that they are!

Let us examine some of these concepts and see if the previously defined version of “love” is the Biblical definition of “love.”  In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Paul says that even if he does great deeds (speaking in tongues, prophesying, great understanding of mysteries, feeding the poor, and even being burned) but doesn't have love, it profits him nothing.  Paul then defines the characteristics of love for us: it is long-suffering and kind, it does not envy, it does not parade itself, it is not puffed up, it does not behave rudely, it does not seek its own, it is not provoked, it thinks no evil, it does not rejoice in iniquity, but it does rejoice in truth, it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and it never fails.  How many of these characteristics fit into the definition of love found above? Many people that advocate this definition will say to someone they perceive to be judging them, “You need to love more!” What does this typically mean? The insinuation is that they have perfected love and that you need to love as they love.  Question: is this not “puffed up” and parading? Does a refusal to accept chastening fit with rejoicing in truth, or does it fit more with rejoicing in iniquity?

What about other passages that help us define love? Hebrews 12:5-8 tells us that those whom the Lord loves He chastens (in other words, He judges their activities/lifestyle/choices to be a transgression).  Do we dare tell the Lord that He doesn't know how to love because He has chastened us?

How is love defined in 1 John? With the flighty, wishy-washy definition that we utilized at the beginning of this study, or is it defined as something of substance, something worth having? In 1 John 4, he writes that we are to love one another because love is of God (4:7-8).  How was God’s love for us made manifest? Through the sacrifice of His Son for our sins (4:9-10).  This is God’s definition of love! How are we to love one another? In the same manner that He loved us (4:11)!

There are many other passages, even in 1 John, that we could look at to further substantiate the true definition of love, but we will consider only a few more.  In John 13:34-35, Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.  By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (which is the commandment spoken about in 1 John 1:7-8).  Did Christ come to the world to tell us that we are all fine in our current spiritual state? Did He come and die so that sin wouldn't be judged as sin? No, Christ loved us and came to earth and died for our sins that we can have hope in eternal life. There is substance to this love, not simply a phrase.  True love is all the things found in 1 Corinthians, plus the willingness to tell someone something they don’t want to hear in order that they can be saved.  If you are unwilling convince, rebuke, and exhort for the saving of their souls, then YOU DO NOT LOVE THEM.

In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If you love Me, keep my commandments.”  What can we inescapably conclude from this passage? If we do not keep His commandments, then we do not love Him! We cannot claim to love God, but keep the ways of the world.  We cannot claim to love God, but walk in darkness (reference 1 John 1; Galatians 5:16-26; and Ephesians 5:1-21)!

Choose This Day

Recently, I wrote a short “article” for my Facebook profile in which a small part of Joshua 24 was utilized.  Often, when we look to this passage, our focus is on the words of Joshua in verse 15 where he says, “…as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”  This is a wonderful sentiment, but we are honestly doing this passage an injustice if we ignore the context in which Joshua said these words and ignore that attitude and zeal through which he pushed the children of Israel to serve the Lord.

Throughout the first 13 verses, Joshua reminds the children of Israel about the wonderful providence of God: the deliverance of the men of Jericho, the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites, and the Jebusites into their hands, and how many others were driven by God out of their lands, and how the Israelites were able to simply walk in and take over existing homes, farms, and vineyards.  What was Joshua’s point? That God was not only ABLE to do such, but that He HAD done it.  What had the idols of Egypt done for the Israelites?

Joshua tells the Israelites to fear the Lord, but why? Because He actually IS powerful, but the idols are not.  He also tells them to serve God in sincerity and in truth.  In this phrase we find the depth of Joshua’s message; he is telling the Israelites to make a conscious decision and to commit to it.  Serving God in sincerity means that they were to give themselves over entirely to God and truly mean their service to Him.  Serving God in truth meant that they were to do His will and only His will.  Both of these commitments meant that the Israelites HAD to put away the idols that they had “served” in the land of Egypt.  They could not serve both the idols and the one true God.  Thus, Joshua’s statement about his personal commitment to God has even deeper meaning.

However, the passage does not end there and neither should our examination of it.  Upon hearing Joshua’s very moving words, the Israelites acknowledge the providence of God and they tell Joshua that they too would serve the Lord for He is their God.  Joshua does something rather unexpected though…he tells them that they cannot serve God because God is holy.  In other words, he justifiably insinuates that the Israelites would renege on their commitment to serve God.  Why would Joshua take this approach?

After Joshua’s initial refusal, the Israelites become more adamant that they will be faithful, and so Joshua explains to them that they were essentially making a vow to serve the Lord and tells them that they were “witnesses against” themselves concerning this decision.  He further explains that this commitment meant that they were to put away from among them the foreign gods and idols, then “incline” their “heart to the Lord God of Israel” (24:23).  To this the Israelites reply, “The Lord our God we will serve, and His voice we will obey!” Joshua pushed the Israelites to do more than just say that they would serve God.  He pushed them to understand what this commitment meant, he turned it into a covenant, and set up reminders of this covenant.  Additionally, Joshua explained the consequences of going back on this commitment by telling them that God would “harm and consume” them (24:20).

Christians today should learn a lot from this passage; we need to serve God in sincerity and truth.  This means that we are honestly serving Him and not simply wearing the name of Christian so that we can feel good about ourselves.  It means that we are doing so in truth; His will, His way.  This means that we are obeying God no matter what He commands us to do.  Joshua told Israel to make a choice and to stick to it: if you are serving God, then SERVE GOD.  If you are not serving God, then stop pretending to so!

Often, Christians think that they can somehow “ride the fence” in order to make everyone happy, but is God pleased with such? Consider Revelation 3:15-17:

I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot.  I could wish you were cold or hot.  So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold or hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.  Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’ – and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked

Jesus says that those that “ride the fence” believe that they are doing the right thing and that they are righteous, but do not realize that they are “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked”.  Riding the fence does nothing to further the cause of Christ, nor will it save us in the day of Judgment.  In fact, the verbiage that Jesus uses expresses a severe repulsion of those who would ride the fence…He says that He would vomit such from His mouth!

Christians today need to make the conscious decision to commit themselves fully to God in sincerity and truth.  They need to make the choice to put away the world as Israel was to put away the idols.  Don’t try to serve both because it cannot be done.  

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."