Where Is Your Heart?

By Dave Huddleston

[Page 124]

     I read an article a few weeks ago in one of our "brotherhood publications" urging people to resist the various attempts which are growing in number, fervor and success, in promoting fellowship between Christians with varying opinions in matters of doctrine. In this fairly well presented statement of feelings I recently shared with consuming zeal, the writer notes the growth of those congregations and denominations which are recognized for their "stand." He says people are searching for churches which will be dogmatic (my term), I suppose for the security and convenience of having someone else form their faith and defend it from any change. As the author sees it, the question the world is asking churches today, and the one he was to ask many of "our" congregations is, "Where is your backbone?"

     I can truly empathize with the one who wrote this article and raised this question. All of the brethren in Jesus with whom I have had the pleasure to converse agree that wishy-washy theology which waivers like a storm-tossed craft is beneath contempt, and a faith that vacillates with each new theory or fad which breaks into current events is more accurately called by another name.

     Without suggesting compromise of con-

[Page 125]

victions, calling for unity at any price or endorsing "foreign doctrine" I do, however, wish to offer that it has been my observation (and one substantiated by scripture) that the world is really not that interested in finding out where our backbone is. I do not think their primary concern is where our head or brain may be. That is, they are no longer impressed simply because a man has more degrees than a thermometer and freely employs polysyllabics in his talk. This is not to imply doctrine does not matter. It is not to defend the anti-intellectual whose neglect of scholarship and reluctance to search the depths has him clinging to traditions he does not understand. What I do wish to suggest is that the real question the majority of people are asking the church is "Where is your heart?" They are more interested in that than in the location of your backbone or brain.

     One of the problems concerning love and our present culture is that, in the confusion over its seeming lack of definition and the frequent misuse of the term, love is often regarded as a weakness rather than a strength. Whether it is the love between a man and a woman, or between neighbors in a community, or individuals in a church, it is too often seen in our present age as a sign of softness in one who is too big a "sucker" to realize that survival in this world means taking care of "Number One" first and foremost. It is disheartening how many Christians fail to realize this is just the opposite of love which places first the highest good of the one we love even if it contradicts what appears to promote our own good.

     It is a tragedy that so many have failed to see love as the solution to our problems and not one of the causes. Reading 1 Corinthians 13 and Romans 13:8-10 may help clear some of our confused ideas. The passage from Romans, and a similar one in Galatians (5:14) have reversed much of my thinking and many of the attitudes I have been taught. My training was to counsel those in spiritual difficulty to follow the New Testament law and God would provide their need. But these passages say that if we love we have already fulfilled the law. I am acquainted with many who have been immersed, and have partaken of the Lord's Supper weekly (or should I say "weakly") but who do not have or share love. In our years of preaching and teaching, have we put the cart before the horse?

     According to Matthew 22:35-40 love is the central principle of God's law. True, Jesus spoke these words prior to the birth of the church on Pentecost, but Romans 13 makes it clear this is a New Testament principle. I am confident of one similarity between Old Testament times and our day--although the laws or covenants may differ, the matter of motive is of great concern to God. Does God see any difference between one in Old Testament times who offered a sacrifice on the altar while his heart was far from Him and the one who offers prayers from a loveless heart while seated at the Lord's Table?

     At the center of the example of Jesus was love. It is truly the nature of God and the power to love is given by God through His Holy Spirit. Although his primary purpose in descending to this earth was to be the sacrificial Lamb of God, one of several "secondary" purposes was to reveal God as a loving Father, rather than as a harsh, cruel, score-keeping judge, just waiting to catch us doing something wrong. I do not believe it is mere caprice that finds the Word saying "God is love," but never "God is power." It says that he has power but not that he is power. It does say he is love.

     Another objective of Jesus' visit to humanity was to teach us we could not approach God by way of religion, but only through a person. He is that person. To me, this is the equivalent of saying we come to God by love, not by law.

     Many Christians tell me they have learned to love more completely since coming to Jesus. Homes have been united. Even unbelieving husbands assert, "It's better around here than it has been in a long time." Parents see a difference in the affection and appreciation they receive from their converted children. Boys

[Page 126]

and girls notice the difference in behavior of their parents toward each other as well as toward them. Jesus said, "I am the vine and ye are the branches." The purpose of the branches is to distribute nourishment from the vine to the extremities. Our duty is to distribute his love.

     This distribution cannot be passive for love is an active force. It shows itself in positive ways. Any love that is not active and giving must be passive and taking. In that case it is not love but a counterfeit. One illustration of a positive action of love is found in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Perhaps I read too much into these verses, but to me they say it is not possible to reach God by going around people. It is through them we serve our Lord. To make a distinction between a social gospel and the gospel of Jesus is unwarranted by his example and teaching. It actually waters down the gospel of our Lord.

     Another example of the positive action of love is praying for our enemies, and performing the deeds mentioned in Matthew 25:35-46. Another is the assembling of the saints around the table of the Lord. This was celebrated, not to fulfill law but to focus on the love of God as shown at Calvary, illustrating the death and second coming of Jesus.

     Love is a characteristic of disciples of Jesus. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." Without physical force the first Christians changed the world. If we want to imitate the primitive saints we must do it not only in faith and practice, but in faith practice and love. I cannot help noticing that Jesus did not say his disciples would be identified by adhering to immersion (although I sincerely believe we should) or by a sectarian attitude, but by love for one another. What reputation do we have in our town? If we are not "the church where they love people," perhaps we are not the church at all.

     Perhaps the most difficult thing about love in our day is the "correct" expression of it. God forgive us for the way we have let the world press us into its mould until we have adopted the hangups of both the super-worldly and the Victorians. These have intimidated us from showing our affection. People need to give love as much as they need to receive it.

     (Editor's Note: You can address the author by writing to Dave Huddleston, 515 Boone Street, Piqua, Ohio 45356).