Preface To The Second Printing
1. Must God Plead With God?
   
2. How The Spirit Leads
   
3. Physical Reinforcements of Faith
   
4. Jesus' Physical and Spiritual Death
   
5. Is There Merit in Pain?
   
6. The Six Days of Creation
   
7. Adding Guilt to Anxiety
   
8. Wine and The Disciple
   
9. Revolution or Evolution
   
10. I Am That Disciple
    
11. When People Disagree
    
12. Is Unity Based Upon Seven Doctrines?
    
13. Our Seven Sacraments
    
14. Instrumental Music
    
15. The Mood of Worship
    
16. Justified Then Sanctified
    
17. Is Christian Our Name?
    
18. The Lord's Table
    
19. Righteousness That Exceeds
    
20. Neither Destroyed Nor Nailed To The Cross
    
21. The Right of Self-Protection
    
22. A Tree of Error
    
23. God is Limited
    
24. You Are Here
    
25. God is In Charge
    
26. Hook's Points
    
27. Lamentations of A Mediocre Preacher
    

REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION

It's a typical catch­all auditorium class with many who have been "studying" the Word for forty years. The lesson is 1 Timothy 6. I question, "Would it be sinful for me to own a slave?" As heads shake negatively, one answers, "No. Paul does not condemn slavery." "Then it would be proper for me to buy a slave," I propose. "Yes," with more agreeing nods. "If it is all right for me to purchase a person enslaved by others, then it would be in order for me to capture and enslave another human being," I argue. The class is quieter with fewer affirming nods. "Would it be acceptable for me to enslave you, Charlie?" I press. Good old legalistic Charlie boldly contends that I would be within my scriptural rights. "It would be sinful for me to own a slave," I counter. "Slavery is not condemned in the Bible," Charlie protests with flushing face, "and you can't pervert the Scriptures to make it wrong!"

Yes, for me, it would be sinful to own a slave. I make this assertion being fully aware of the teachings addressed to slaves and masters in the Scriptures. Let me explain my contention, and you will see that this is not just a revival of the slavery issue, which is no longer relevant. It involves something basic to the understanding of some other scriptural matters.

We often review and stress the stringent demands of discipleship which bring a sword instead of peace, and set a man at such variance from others that he must malce a choice between Christ and others. Our emphasis that demands a clear­cut and immediate break from all that is inferior and wrong at the moment of repentance before baptism is a contention demanding maturity at birth. It would allow for no period of growth. It would condition salvation on our ability to become perfect in conduct rather than being a sinner saved by grace. And, more to the point of this discussion, it would make Jesus a revolutionist.

Revolution is a sudden, radical, or complete change and would be characterized by overthrow, renunciation, and revolt. While Jesus' teachings and demands were radical enough to arouse opposition in many instances, he avoided unnecessary opposition. His will was to be accomplished in a more evolutionary manner-a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social and religious change brought about by seed, leaven, and flavoring salt.

On Pentecost, if Peter had demanded that his jewish audience renounce the Law of Moses as a condition of salvation, his "visible responses" would more likely have been 3,000 persons "coming forward" with stones to silence Peter and his crowd forever. But God gave time for change from the Law to be accomplished. Although Jesus declared that he did not come to destroy the Law, our traditional explanations about it meeting its end by being nailed to the cross sound more destructive and disruptive than fulfilling and evolutionary. Many years passed before the Law was growing old, obsolete, and ready to vanish away. Even when Paul returned to Jerusalem and was imprisoned, the Judean disciples were all zealous to keep the Law. It was not demanded that they all revolt against the Law, thus arousing undue opposition.

When Roman soldiers asked Jesus, "What shall we do?" (Lk. 3:14), he did not tell them that they must resign from or desert their military machine trained in killing, conquering, and subjugating. For that moment, he simply answered, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." He did not mark himself as a political activist against Rome. Can even the most hawkish among us really believe that Jesus wants us to train to aggressively conquer, kill, and enslave? I think not. But he planted seeds of reformation in his answer. In time, the leaven of his word should eliminate such warfare, or make it sinful, to say the least. Unfortunately, the need for self-defense is still with us, and he would not deny us that right. But aggression is denied to any who would mature in the spirit of his teachings.

Paul urged the Corinthians, "Only, let everyone lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him" (1 Cor. 7:17). Whether it be marriage or lack of marriage, circumcision or lack of circumcision, or freedom or slavery, Paul did not demand a change in these social relationships. There were no shocking demands to upset the social order. He concludes, "So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God." Yet we know that in other circumstances these conditions could be changed acceptably, for a person was permitted to marry, be circumcised, or become free.

Paul further warns the Corinthian disciples against brazen disregard of social customs, such as the veiling of women and their silence in public assemblies in Greece. However, these were not universal restrictions for times and places where such social traditions did not exist or were outgrown. These freedoms would come by evolution rather than by revolution.

The kiss was the customary greeting in the ancient world. Demand for disciples to replace this form of greeting would have forced a breach of the most common and sincere social customs, and it would have made them exclusivists unnecessarily. But advocating the use of the kiss did not bind a ritualistic procedure for all time to come.

Because of centuries of cultural conditioning, ancient peoples could hardly conceive of a person going through a period of emotional trauma or religious experience without fasting. For Jesus to have scoffed at fasting and to have disclaimed its value would have turned sincere people away from him needlessly. But acceptance of fasting by Jesus and his disciples did not elevate it to a legal demand in other times and societies. Growth in spiritual discernment would diminish the value of such a physical exercise. And we would view the traditional expression of hospitality through washing of feet from the same perspective as that of fasting and the kiss.

When Peter instructed, "Honor the king," he was not binding the monarchical form of government upon people for all time. But, lest Christianity be considered as an anti­governmental force, disciples were urged to accept the political system in which they were called. Through the evolving of circumstances, however, we may rightly help to change or remove the officials over us. If Jesus had called for upheaval of tyrannical government, it would have marked him and his religion as revolutionary, and bent on social reform rather than individual salvation.

Now, let's get back to our thoughts about slavery. Paul insists, "Do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:23). If it is wrong for me to become a slave, it is wrong for me to enslave someone else. No amount of legalism or rationalization can harmonize the Golden Rule with slavery, for no person wants to be enslaved. Through the working of the Golden Rule, this great social change was to evolve. To have demanded that social change as a pre­requisite of accepting Christ would have made for upheaval and revolution which would have been detrimental to the cause.

God wants change in all individuals and societies. He does not, however, demand or expect that change to be an immediate leap from depravity to perfection. He accepts the individual, as he is, where he is, when that person resolves to follow the Savior to a nobler life and commits himself to that life of faith and obedience. From then and there, he will evolve and grow, and outgrow many things of ignorance and immaturity that were once overlooked by a merciful Savior. Conduct of a mature disciple is not demanded of a new­born in Christ; neither is infancy an acceptable standard for those who have had time and opportunity to grow toward the fullness of Christ.

The foregoing discussion allows for flexibility in the requirements and restrictions of Jesus. The legalist cannot tolerate flexibility. But the legalist can still feel free to buy a slave for himself!