Putting CHRIST Back in CHRISTIAN

By Andy Diestelkamp
It seems to happen earlier every year. The stores begin displaying their Christmas merchandise. Many bemoan the crass commercialization and blatant materialism often associated with what some declare to be a holy day. It won't be long before we will again hear the plaintive cry to put Christ back in Christmas. Ironically, from a scriptural perspective Christ has never been in Christmas. This annual festival is a conglomeration of human traditions that has evolved into a sentimental event with a smattering of spiritual jargon sufficient to tickle the ears of those who desire a form of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). With that kind of background, it was inevitable that it would turn into something more carnal than Christian.

O come all ye faithful! If we are really interested in putting Christ back into something, then let's forget about Christmas and start by putting Christ back into Christian. Those who wear the name need to be primarily concerned with putting Christ back in their daily lives. Christ is not the reason for a season but for eternity. The term Christian is so glibly used these days. It may be attached to the most carnal of things from merchandisers to political parties. As a result of its flippant overuse, its scriptural meaning is being lost.

The term Christian is used in just three places in God's word. The first is Acts 11:26. There we learn that the disciples in Antioch were the first to be called Christians. There is some debate about who was calling the disciples Christians. Some see in the word "called" a divine calling (and this is possible), but regardless of the originating source, the term fits as a legitimate designation. We know this because the Holy Spirit inspired this observation to be made to Theophilus. Calling attention, in a positive context to the significance of when the term Christian began to be used, without any further explanation, gives tacit approval of its use. There is no shame or inaccuracy in disciples of Jesus being called Christians.

If we are going to scripturally put Christ back into Christian, then we who identify ourselves as Christians must be disciples of Jesus Christ. What it means to be a disciple of Jesus is what it means to be a Christian.

They are synonymous. Therefore, whatever Christ taught about being His disciple is what it means to be a Christian.

A disciple is not above his teacher. A disciple is satisfied to be like his teacher. The world rejected Jesus. Putting Christ back into Christian means being content to be treated like Christ and, therefore, to not be above being rejected (Matt. 10:24,25).

A disciple follows his teacher. To follow Jesus we have to deny ourselves. We are not following our own selfish inclinations, but Christ, as Lord. We have to follow Him to the cross. That means bearing the burdens of this life, the burdens of others, and being willing to die with Christ (Matt. 16:24,25).

The extent of what it means to bear a cross and follow Jesus is clear. Our love and loyalty to all others (family, country, com-munity, self) must be less than our love for Christ (Lk. 14:25-27).Putting Christ back into Chris-tian means forsaking all that we have to be His disciples (vs. 33).

True disciples of Jesus Christ abide in His word because the truth He taught has the power to make us free (Jn. 8:30-36). When Jesus taught this to His fellow Jews, they protested, "We've never been in bondage to anyone." In other words, they thought they were already free and didn't need to be given freedom. Americans in this so-called "Christian nation" might have a similar response. However, Jesus is not talking about civil liberties but freedom from the bondage of sin. Unfortunately, even many who call themselves Christians believe they are at liberty to live as they wish and ignore Christ's word. Putting Christ back into Christian means obeying His word.

A disciple views himself as part of Christ as a branch is to a vine (Jn. 15:1-8). If we are not willing to be connected with Christ, then we will wither up and be destined for the burn pile. Yet, even those that claim such a connection but do not bear fruit will be cast into the same fire as those who reject the Name. Putting Christ back into Christian means bearing good fruit to God's glory.

The word Christian appears in Scripture a second time when used by King Agrippa in response to Paul's powerful message about the resurrection from the dead (Ac. 26:21-29). Festus had interrupted Paul to declare him crazy. Paul countered that he spoke words of truth and reason and subsequently pressed Agrippa about his faith in the prophets of old concerning the Messiah. When Paul expressed confidence in Agrippa's belief, Agrippa said, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian."

It must be observed that Paul takes no offense at the term Christian, but takes the name for himself by equating the term Christian with what he was. The only clarification that Paul makes in his response to Agrippa is over the word "almost." Almost a Christian is not sufficient.

"Altogether" a Christian is what Paul wanted him and others to become. Paul also takes no exception to the idea of one becoming a Christian through persuasion. Paul knew that the gospel was God's power to save those who believe (Rom. 1:16) and that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Jesus had told His apostles to "make" disciples (Matt. 28:19), and this is what they and those whom they taught did (Ac. 8:1; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2 Tim. 2:2).

Christians are not made by fleshly birth. We are not Christians because our parents were, or our spouses are, or because we associate with Christians, attend their assemblies, and/or embrace their lifestyle. A Christian is one who has been persuaded and, therefore, believes and is obedient to the gospel. This is a spiritual birth (Jn. 3:3-5). Putting Christ back into Christian means believing in the power of Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross, His subsequent burial, and His resurrection from the dead. It means being buried with Him through baptism into His death and rising to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3,4).

The final time in Scripture the word Christian is used is in connection with suffering as one (1 Pet. 4:14-16). It should not come as a surprise that we might be called upon to suffer for the name we wear (vss. 12,13). It is to this that we have been called (2:20-24). Like our Lord, we have not been called to be served but to serve (Matt. 20:24-28; Jn. 13:1-17) and glorify God in this Name. If that be through persecution, let us rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer for the Name (Ac. 5:41).

There will be those who will blaspheme the noble name by which we are called (Jas. 2:7), but let it not be because we are Christians in name only. Putting Christ back into Christian means departing from sin (2 Tim. 2:19) and living lives of selfless service to the glory of God.

Today's Use of Things Written Before

By Al Diestelkamp
Recently I was asked why it is that we won't go to the Old Testament for authority to worship God in song with instrumental accompaniment, but we will go there to authorize spanking children. It was noted that there is no mention of that form of discipline in the New Testament.

The question is a good one that deserves an answer.
Within the pages of the Old Testament we find many statements of truth which have always been (and always will be) true. Indeed, the Bible begins with such a statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).That is an eternal truth for all ages.

The book of Proverbs contains God-inspired wisdom for all ages. It is there where we learn that if we love our children we will not spare the rod (13:24). It is there where we learn that "The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother" (29:15). Though there is no New Testament law commanding us to correct our children by spanking, we cannot deny God's wisdom.

We are right to teach the truth found in the Old Testament. However, we cannot go to the Old Testament practices and laws for our authority today. For instance, through Moses God made a law that a rebellious son who would not repent was to be taken out of the city and stoned (Deut. 21:18-21). It was a law for the Israelites, but was never intended to be a law for all time. Therefore, we don't teach people today to stone their rebellious children.

There is no denying that King David's praise to God with the timbrel and harp was within God's authority for that time. It is also true that he worshiped God by offering animal sacrifice (2 Sam. 24:25). These were legitimate methods of worship that pleased God during that time, but neither are authorized by God in the gospel age. God replaced animal sacrifice with the sacrifice of His only begotten Son.

Likewise, God has revealed that He wants us to praise Him in "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19). It is no more legitimate to appeal to David's harp for our authority in worship than it would be to cite David's oxen as authority for animal sacrifice today.

While it may be easy for most of us to see through this line of argumentation when it comes to animal sacrifice or instrumental music in worship, I notice that some brethren are resorting to that same line of argumentation on some other controversial issues. Anticipating the obvious response, they will deny they are going to the Old Testament for authority, claiming they are merely recognizing that "things were written before were written for our learning" (Rom. 15:4). Then they proceed to justify something based on an Old Testament law or practice. Let me give two examples:

In the controversy regarding a second provision of the Lord's supper, some who support the practice will point out that a second provision of the Passover was made for those who couldn't participate at the appointed time. Then, they argue, since Christ is our Passover, a second provision for the Lord's supper is in order. Regardless of what you believe about the second provision of the Lord's supper, this kind of reasoning ought to scare you. It scares me!

Seldom do they point out that the second provision for the Passover was given only for two reasons--those away on a journey and those who were unclean. I have yet to hear of brethren willing to limit the second provision of the Lord's supper to those two situations. Furthermore, using their reasoning, since the Passover was an annual event what would keep one from arguing that (Christ being our Passover) the Lord's supper should be an annual observance?

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that some have used the same kind of reasoning regarding divorce and remarriage situations. Lately we have seen brethren argue that since God allowed some to remain in marriages which He had prohibited, those who come to Christ are not required to end relationships that Jesus described as "adultery."

Another twist on the same issue has some claiming that because God required the Israelites to honor a covenant that was made without God's approval (Josh. 9), that marriage vows made by people without God's approval may be kept. It appears John the baptist missed this loophole, and it cost him his head.

This theory allows more than most of the advocates want it to allow. Using such reasoning, polygamists who are converted to Christ would be required to keep their multiple wives, and homosexuals who made a vow to one another to "love honor and cherish" would also be required to keep that commitment.

The Old Testament teaches us many facts and principles which are still true today, but it is not intended as a source for our authority. Therefore, brethren need to quit reaching into the Old Testament to find loopholes for questionable practices today.
  • andymuffins
    Those are nice thoughts, and I agree with you.
    by andymuffins at 05/23/06 7:53PM
  • andymuffins
    Here is your answer. The Bible has bad stuff in it yes, and it is shown to be bad not plausible, reasonable.
    by andymuffins at 05/23/06 7:56PM
  • onelittlecandle
    Hi, I'm Sherri. We just got our "think" bulletin in the mail today. Good article; all theirs generally are. :)
    by onelittlecandle at 05/27/06 4:31PM
  • whatsyourconfession
    What we need to remember is that the covenant between God and Israel was just that, between God and Israel. We are not under that covenant, and yet, all scripture is inspired AND profitable for doctrine,reproof, correction for instruction in righteousness, that we may be perfect. Jesus did not nail the old testament to the cross, he nailed the Handwriting of ordinances to the cross. We can, like you said use application from old testament, just not old covenants that were not between US and God.
    by whatsyourconfession at 05/27/06 10:52PM
  • andymuffins
    You've got to be kidding me....You're trying waaaayyyy to hard dude.
    by andymuffins at 06/14/06 8:20AM
  • heroforthenight
    hey, good job on the worship thing in walking with god. do you know any diestlkamps?
    by heroforthenight at 06/15/06 9:32PM
  • dadmcpherson
    Thanks for the post.
    by dadmcpherson at 08/08/07 11:47AM
  • dadmcpherson
    Suffering for preaching is different than letting someone steal from you. Do you allow people to enter your house and steal from you? Can people damage your property? And you won't charge them because its all in being a Christian, in fact, do you let them come back for more? Is that your position? Wow, don't stop the crooked because it is part of suffering. Must we just sit there and take it?
    by dadmcpherson at 08/08/07 3:42PM
  • deusvitae
    Where does Jesus ever limit His discussion in Matthew 5 to "preaching"?
    by deusvitae at 08/08/07 5:32PM
  • create_a_way
    I agree wholeheartedly with what you put on Terry's blog...the argument, i imagine, is that we DO have different distinctions of murder, classified by intent...but really though, some crimes can be minor, but once you make it a "hate crime" then the punishment becomes much more sever than the actual crime...(sometimes)
    by create_a_way at 08/09/07 4:26PM
  • the_gun
    First, I didn't actually write this article. I simply posted it from another site. Second, folks who make the "instruments in the psalms" argument are never consistent, because they don't want to include sacrificing animals, which are also mentioned often in Psalms. Aparently, Paul expected use to reach the conclusion that those psalms were not appropriate for use in the church, since it would be odd to sing about sacrifice of animals, but not use sacrifice of animals. Why does instrumental music have to be any different? Finally, you may have missed the point that was made in the article that God specified the time and circumstance of allowing a second or "make up" partaking of the Passover. If we're really going to apply the principle, then we either have to find the parallel in the NT or we must actually observe the actual principle from the OT, which would limit at least the circumstances for partaking of the "make up".
    by the_gun at 08/10/07 12:08PM
  • bibleguy321
    it was just my intention....i didnt mean that i actually did it properly hehe
    by bibleguy321 at 08/23/07 9:34AM
  • the_gun
    Interestingly, I simply used exactly the same argument you did (we're told to sing psalms, psalms refers to instruments, so we can use instruments) and applied it to something different in psalms, and your argument is ok but mine is pulling a fast one? The truth is, there is no indication, either Biblically or extra-Biblically, that Christians in the first century used instruments while worshipping.
    by the_gun at 10/29/07 5:07PM

You do the math

Malachi 3:8 -

Will a man rob God?
Yet you have robbed Me!
But you say,
"In what way have we robbed You?"
In tithes and offerings.


Romans 12:1 -

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

Amos 3:1-8

"Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying:
'You only have I known of all the families of the earth;
Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.'
Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?
Will a lion roar in the forest, when he has no prey?
Will a young lion cry out of his den, if he has caught nothing?
Will a bird fall into a snare on the earth, where there is no trap for it?
Will a snare spring up from the earth, if it has caught nothing at all?
If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?
Surely the Lord GOD does nothing,
Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.
A lion has roared!
Who will not fear?
The Lord GOD has spoken!
Who can but prophesy?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Is it just me, or does anyone else hear the Lord saying, "Do you think I speak because I like the sound of my own voice?"
  • the_gun
    I guess it's just me...
    by the_gun at 02/07/06 1:29PM
  • deusvitae
    I hear a people who no longer care for what God truly wants and simply want to be pleased...

    ...and they will cry to their God in their distress, and not understand their calamity...

    ...yet it was not because of God's lack of warning.
    by deusvitae at 02/08/06 12:14AM
  • southernpoet87
    very true. Some people,even I at times, don't take the Bible seriously and continue to do what they(I) please. Something definately to think about.
    by southernpoet87 at 02/08/06 12:43AM
  • southernpoet87
    and I'm Tina,btw. :)
    by southernpoet87 at 02/08/06 12:44AM
  • the_gun
    My point was not so much the real meaning of the passage, but rather the way God goes about expressing himself in this instance. It just strikes me as a somewhat sarcastic approach. It seems He's saying "these things don't happen for no reason and likewise My warnings are not without reason."
    by the_gun at 02/08/06 3:36PM
  • regina
    Thank you for your comments as well.
    by regina at 02/27/06 2:32PM
  • kmbrewcrew
    thanks for the comments on the hot_topics board of late
    by kmbrewcrew at 02/27/06 3:59PM
  • kmbrewcrew
    it is good to know that there are some who are willing to actually listen to what is presented, and think about it
    by kmbrewcrew at 02/27/06 4:00PM
  • big_bertha_blue
    yeah, I closed the comment to the discussion...peoples attitudes were not profiting the discussion. but thank you for trying to study and it provide scripture.
    by big_bertha_blue at 03/01/06 1:59PM
  • mawmaw
    It is frustrating and disheartening when you have listened, do know what is presented, have thought about it, and then be accused of all sorts of prejudices when you disagree.
    by mawmaw at 03/18/06 8:21PM
  • the_gun
    I'm not sure why you made that comment now. The discussion I participated in with you has been over for weeks. I never accused you of prejudice. I did say you either didn't understand or didn't read the argumentation, which was clearly evidenced by the comment you had made immediately prior to my comment. There was certainly at attempt to impugn the character of some involved in the discussion. Later deletion of comments doesn't change that.
    by the_gun at 03/18/06 10:09PM
  • mawmaw
    the_gun - My comments were not directed toward you. I was answering something someone else said. It's a long story, and I should have made myself clearer. I'm sorry and I apologize.
    by mawmaw at 03/19/06 3:10PM

Found this article today...

... and thought it was appropriate after one of the discussions in one of the groups I'm a member of...

They Knew They Were Naked, Do We?By David Diestelkamp
Although I'm not entirely comfortable adapting scripture even for the sake of shock value, something needs to be done to get the attention of so many who are dressing in unacceptable clothing. Adam and Eve knew they were naked and hid themselves. Why do so many today lack the spiritual sense to do the same?

Consider how the word "naked" is used in the Bible:

Naked: Wearing no clothing at all (Job 1:21).

Naked: Wearing only a "loin covering." This is what Adam and Eve made for themselves, yet they were still "naked" (Gen. 3:7, 10). Men and women, you are naked when you go topless.

Naked: Showing the buttocks (Isa. 20:4). I see no reason why this wouldn't include partial showing, as well as tight and form fitting clothing which does little to hide this part of the body.

Naked: Showing the waist and thighs (Ex. 28:42). Priests wore "linen breeches" which covered their loins and thighs to "cover their nakedness." These would have covered them at least
from the hips to the knee.

Naked: Exposing the breast (Ezek. 16:7). In a word picture, Jerusalem is seen as a girl who matures, her hair grows, her breasts are formed, but she is naked. Her nakedness is "covered" by God clothing her (Ezek. 16:8, 10; the same word as when God "clothed" Adam and Eve's nakedness in Gen. 3:21). Showing the breast or part of it (top, side, cleavage) is part of nakedness that needs to be covered.

There is a lot more that needs to be said and studied about modest clothing, but it would be a big step in the right direction just to cover what God calls nakedness while in public. Adam and Eve were afraid to be naked. Why aren't we? God told us something when He "made tunics of skin, and clothed them" (Gen. 3:20).
  • deusvitae
    You legalist Pharisee, you. ;)
    by deusvitae at 07/13/05 3:40PM
  • bereanatheart
    Good ol'e David Diestelkamp, I read that article, good stuff.
    by bereanatheart at 07/13/05 3:57PM
  • the_gun
    Great, now I have to post the article about the Pharisees from the same issue of Think Magazine just for you.
    by the_gun at 07/13/05 4:00PM
  • deusvitae
    by deusvitae at 07/13/05 4:48PM
  • hannahrunswithendurance
    man i wish more people would read this. i think i'm going to go link it on my blog.
    by hannahrunswithendurance at 07/13/05 11:22PM
  • lah90
    that was very good.
    by lah90 at 07/14/05 10:26AM
  • sjbgurl
    Thats a good article, and about the only reason I dont like summer. The clothing girls (and even some guys) wear is absolutely rediculus and unnecessary.
    by sjbgurl at 07/14/05 11:23AM
  • dixiedawn
    good article!
    by dixiedawn at 07/14/05 11:27AM
  • deusvitae
    In all seriousness, the material is good. Since I go to a secular university, on warm days I see more navels than there would be in an orange grove. Not cool.
    by deusvitae at 07/14/05 12:07PM
  • moe
    nice tomeet you my name is brandon
    by moe at 07/14/05 12:17PM
  • emmylou
    Yes indeed. Thanks for posting that.
    by emmylou at 10/02/05 3:54PM
  • dewswife
    great article and I agree there is alot more that needs to be said and studied about modest clothing!
    by dewswife at 03/25/06 9:58AM