DEVALUING "I DO"

by Al Diestelkamp

The words, "I do" are heard on solemn occasions, such as wedding vows, court cases, swearing-in ceremonies, and when one is asked before baptism if he believes that Jesus is God's Son.

God takes vows very seriously. The law of Moses said: "If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). Later, Solomon revealed that "When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed. It is better not to vow than to vow and not pay" (Eccl. 5:4-5).

While we are not under the law of Moses, Jesus warned against the indiscriminate oath or vow and said, "Do not swear at all . . . but let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' be 'No.'. . ." (see Matt. 5:33-37). We need to tell the truth at all times. We don't need an oath to strengthen our word.

Throughout the years "I do" has come to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Couples who have solemnly said "I do" before God, family and friends, have not kept their "until death do us part" promises; Politicians who have said "I do" with their hands on Bibles seem to think nothing of violating their oaths; Witnesses before judges and juries no longer are expected to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Though we are becoming accustomed to breaking of vows, I'm confident that God will bring each one into account (see Matt. 12:36-37). Those who say, "I do," but don't, are liars, who along with other immoral people "will have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

Think about that when you're tempted to be unfaithful to your spouse, or contemplate divorce, or backslide from your faithfulness to the Lord.

---

Someone recently asked me if I thought we needed to change the vows we take when we get married. We vow to remain married until we die, but what we really mean is until we die or our spouse commits fornication. So maybe our vows should reflect that, or maybe we should honor our vows the way we stated them. I'm not sure how far I would push this point, but I know this: I intend to keep the vows I made to my wife in the presence of God. It should certainly give us all cause to carefully evaluate our vows.

-- brewer

I know this one is long, but I thought it was a great article. I hope you take the time to read the whole thing.

"I Think God Would Want Me to Be Happy!"

By Andy Diestelkamp

The man walked away from his marriage and his two children. A year later he found another woman who made him feel "alive." His first marriage had been a struggle from the beginning, and it had only gotten worse. He wasn't happy; neither was she. He had always viewed divorce as wrong, but his situation was unique. When questioned from a biblical perspective about his plans to marry again, he acknowledged that he had no right, but he said, "I think God would want me to be happy."

The girl was just sixteen. She came from a broken home. Her father had divorced her mother ten years previously. Although outgoing and popular at school, she still struggled with insecurities. She craved the attention the boys gave her. She knew fornication was wrong, but her situation was unique. She was lonely and being with "him" made her feel happy and secure. When questioned from a biblical perspective about her immoral intimacy, she acknowledged it wasn't right, but she said, "I think God would want me to be happy." She never imagined that she would get pregnant after just one time. She was scared. A baby would change all of her plans for the future. She became depressed. She went to the clinic and poured out her heart to a counselor. She couldn't consider abortion. God wouldn't like that. The counselor said, "I think God would want you to be happy."

The woman, divorced for sixteen years, had had a hard life. Her "ex" was remarried and happy. Her oldest daughter had left home five years ago; they had not spoken since the abortion. Her son had just graduated from high school. Neither of her children had ever obeyed the gospel. Bitterness and discouragement crept into her heart. The church she was part of was small and aging. She wasn't happy. Her friends from work invited her to their church. She went. She found people her own age in her own circumstances. They bonded. The small and aging church got smaller and aged some more. When the woman was approached about her exchange of the truth of God for a lie, she acknowledged that her new church did some things she was uncomfortable with, but she said, "I think God would want me to be happy."

The, "I think God would want me to be happy" line has been used by many to justify their immorality and apostasy. The rationale is based on a self-centered definition of happiness and the assumption that God wants that kind of happiness for us. This rationalization ignores or is blind to all the unhappiness in its wake. The man divorces to be happy but leaves behind an unhappy family. The girl fornicates to be happy and increases her unhappiness. She aborts to be happy and deprives her child of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The mother abandons her faith to be happy. All of this is done because people presume that God wants them to be happy.

Can you imagine? Eve observes the potential of the forbidden fruit to make her happy and reasons, "I know that God said, 'you shall not eat,' but I think God would want me to be happy," (Gen. 3:6). We ought to consider that God's boundaries are established for our happiness.

Ahab couldn't be happy unless he had a certain vineyard. "I know that God said, 'you shall not kill,' but I think God would want me to be happy." Did Ahab and Jezebel give any consideration to Naboth's happiness (1 Ki. 21:4-7)?

Demas may have reasoned, "I know I should stay and work with Paul, but I think God would want me to be happy," (2 Tim. 4:10). This may hit a little close to home if our personal happiness is determined by how well things happen to be going for us in this present world. Many rationalize and excuse themselves from sacrificial spiritual service because, ultimately, we think God would want us to be happy!

In our affluence we have become obsessed with the importance of being happy. Solomon had been there and done that and concluded that it is vanity (Eccl. 2:1-11). George Bernard Shaw quipped, "The secret of being miserable is to have leisure to bother about whether you are happy or not." Indeed, for many the quest for "happiness" has only brought greater misery.

People are looking for happiness in all the wrong places. Most recall Solomon's conclusion to "Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man," (Eccl. 12:13), but miss that this conclusion is also the key to true and abiding happiness. "Happy are the people whose God is Jehovah," (Psa. 144:15) and whose hope is in Him (Psa. 146:5). Fearing Jehovah and walking in His ways bring happiness to everything from the food you eat to the family with whom you share it (Psa. 128:1-4). Blessing comes to those who revere, trust, and obey Jehovah God (Prov. 16:20; 28:14; 29:18). It is not the pursuit of happiness that brings happiness but the pursuit of God's will.

The exemplary models of faith are not found pursuing happiness. What kind of example would Job have been if he had just given up to be happier? It is his endurance through extreme unhappiness that makes him noteworthy (Jas. 5:10,11). What if Mary had decided she would be happier if she aborted her Child? Ultimately, Mary found her happiness in being able to serve the will of God (Lk. 1:38).

If Jesus had decided He would have been happier in heaven we would be lost! We are called to imitate Jesus' selfless attitude (Phil. 2:5-8). When a man divorces his wife for personal happiness, he is not esteeming others better than himself (vs. 3). When a woman aborts her child to achieve happiness, she is looking out for her own interests and not the interests of her baby (vs. 4). These attitudes do not reflect the mind of Christ.

God has not called us to happiness as we define happiness. On the contrary, we have been called to suffer, if need be, for the cause of Christ (1 Pet. 2:19-21). It is better to suffer for doing good than to do evil in a misguided effort to be happy (3:17). There is no value in suffering as an evildoer, yet if any suffers as a Christian there is no shame, but an occasion to rejoice and be glad (4:12-16).

Does God want you to be happy? Indeed he does! Yet, the scriptures that inform you that God desires your eternal happiness also say that He hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), and that we must flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18), and that God hates hands that shed innocent blood (Prov. 6:17), and that we must be faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10).

None of God's word can be ignored or compromised to secure the happiness that God offers. Yes, God wants us to be happy, and that is why we must hate what He hates and love what He loves. Jesus said, "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them," (Jn. 13:17). If you do not have the happiness that God offers, then either you don't know the things of God or you aren't doing them.

-- brewer

"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."

Morals in the Pulpit and in the Pew

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Once, when I preached a sermon on morals, a mature man in the congregation asked to speak. For perhaps two or three minutes he exhorted the people, giving complete endorsement to what I had preached. I believe his endorsement may have impressed the people more than my sermon had. It would be a good thing, everywhere, if elders and/or other mature, devout men would publicly concur in teaching of truth on moral matters. The more worldly ones would then come to realize that morality is a matter for all, not just for preachers. We need more morals in the pew as well as in the pulpit.

In the same city where I preached the above-mentioned sermon, an elderly lady attended the services. I visited her, and in the course of such I inquired how she happened to attend. She said that "her church" was far across the city and that her son had urged her to attend with us. Her son was foreman in a plant over the very man mentioned above who exhorted the people when I preached. Her son so admired the morals of his worker that he told his mother, "that church must be all right" because that man went there.

Of course, I do not mean that the morality of the people necessarily makes a church right. People may indeed be moral and still be very wrong doctrinally. On the other hand, regardless of the purity of doctrine that is preached, a church can't be right before God and fruitful among men unless the morals of the members are above reproach. In fact, correctness (scripturalness) in worship, work and organization is made attractive to the world by genuine morality and good works (Matt. 5:15-16).

When Christians teach the whole truth, many people will reject it and rebel against it. Yet some may be won to receptiveness and later to obedience through the godliness of Christians. Conversely, any scriptural position a church may take is made quite inconsequential to the world if the people do not live in holiness. A preacher's sermon on morals falls very flat if the congregation does not exemplify the highest ideals. Especially the leaders (elders, deacons, preachers, etc.) and their wives need to maintain untainted reputations that will portray the very same ideals as are proclaimed in the sermons.

Instead of always whining and complaining about the morals of the world about us, God's people would do better to just demonstrate, in the pulpit and the pew, the qualities that are desirable. Let us say and do, preach and live moral purity of the very highest possible degree. Let the thoughts of our minds, the words of our lips and the deeds of our bodies be holy, godly and righteous altogether. This would abound to the glory of God, to satisfaction in life and usefulness to the world.

Why Do You Think They Call Them Shorts?

By Karl Diestelkamp

Warm weather is here again and already the public "peel" has taken place as men, women and children go about scantily clad. Every year some Christians seem determined to debate the issue of "what is modest?" seemingly hoping that God's word may have changed somehow. I don't want to sound unkind or impatient, but it gets discouraging to have to go over the same ground every year with essentially the same people who almost never come with an affirmative argument to defend clothing that does not cover the body.

No one disputes that 1 Tim. 2:9 mandates "modest apparel" and that the "adorning" under consideration is to be "with shame-fastness and sobriety" (ASV). Shamefast-ness is "with a sense of shame" and sobriety is "sound judgment." What is so hard about that for someone who wants to practice things that are absolutely right and cannot be wrong?

No one disputes that Matt. 5:28 teaches that "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Some will say that this is the man's problem in such a case. Certainly he has an obligation to control his eyes and his thoughts. But what Christian, would want to dress in such a way to encourage such lustful "looking" by anyone?

After we have discussed the near nude environment of the public beach and mixed swimming, the lustful appeal of too tight, too low, too short, and too revealing clothing, someone invariably asks, "But, what about shorts?" After all of that, my answer is, "Why do you think they call them shorts?" Is there a "clue" somewhere in that word? Are shorts "revealing" to others or not? Now someone says,"But what about long shorts?" If they are "long" why are they "shorts?" Maybe words don't mean anything any more!

---

Skin Is In

By David Diestelkamp

Advertising this spring and summer's bare fashions, a popular magazine's cover reads, "Skin is In!" Of course, public exposure of skin has always been "in" with some, but it has rarely been so socially acceptable. Bare and revealing styles have, in fact, now become expected. Today, social pressures are compounded by the difficulty of finding decent clothes in the stores.

Are we thinking? Most people act as though they are not thinking about decency. Maybe this is to be expected of the world, but even some Christians act like God doesn't care what we wear. Have we forgotten that Jesus is Lord both of our bodies and how we clothe them? God has spoken, "women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works" (1 Tim. 2:9-11). Is this the foundation of our thinking while shopping for our wardrobe and getting dressed in the morning?

Are we searching? I am well aware of the fact that some Christians struggle with the above verse in determining exactly what is modest. Unfortunately, the question "Where do you draw the line" has turned into a worn out excuse for having no objective line at all. This question should drive us, hungering and thirsting (Matt. 5:6), into a daily search of the Scriptures to find out what is right (Ac. 17:11). In all other areas we say, "Stand still--don't act--until you know you can do so in full faith that it is right!" How can we allow ourselves to wear clothing that we are not 100% sure is modest?

What is our standard? Everyone has a "line"--a point of propriety and decency for at least some situations. The world derives its clothing standards from things like what feels good (pleasure, comfort, sexual appeal, etc.), what looks good (style, attractiveness, etc.), and popularity (fashion, fad, etc.). Note that these are based in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. John warns us that this "is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever" (1 Jn. 2:16-17). As Christians, we are looking to a much higher rule. It is God and His Word which are our standard in all things. Does what we wear appeal to the standards of God or men? Stop wearing it if it cannot be justified by God's Word!

It is disturbing that many Christians act as though we need authority for everything we do, except for what we wear. They reject lessons on modesty and propriety, as well as suggested biblical "lines," but then offer nothing as a substitute standard. The rejection of an interpretation or proposed standard does not free someone to act lawlessly--it obligates them to find the truth!

What do our clothes say? We are speaking to God, not just men, by what we wear. Do our clothes say that we are "professing godliness, with good works"? Of course we won't always be dressed like everyone else--they aren't professing the same thing we are! In fact, we are going to stand out "in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15).