Everyone is probably familiar with the situation in which a person is so focused on what he is doing that he misses something of even greater significance. One comic strip used to portray a zealous policeman arresting a jaywalker while totally oblivious to the bandits shooting their way out of a bank just down the block. One movie depicts the cavalry chasing a man into a town and passing by on either side of the Indians retreating from their attack on the same town. The commander failed to notice the Indians at all.
Although these gags are used to produce a chuckle, the fact is that such things really do happen. Some of them are recorded in the Bible. Jesus healed a man who had been troubled by an infirmity for 38 years. He told the man, “Rise, take up your bed and walk” (John 5:8). The Jews noticed the man and questioned him. Were they impressed that he had been healed of a 38-year infirmity? No, they were more concerned that he was carrying his bed on the Sabbath day.
They claimed, of course, that such an action violated the Sabbath, which was their faulty interpretation. Jesus never violated the Sabbath, nor did he encourage anyone else to do so. What they failed to realize was that someone with Jesus’ power, which He exercised in doing good, would not violate God’s laws. In their efforts to scrupulously keep God’s laws they erred concerning Jesus, accusing even the Son of God of wrongdoing rather than questioning their interpretations.
No matter what great good is being accomplished, some brethren will come along and protest that it is not done the way THEY think it should be done. That is not to say there are not wrong ways to go about doing good. The Missionary Society, for example, was not a Biblical way to spread the gospel. Using gimmicks is not the appropriate way to increased church membership. [In fact, increasing church membership is not really our goal; it’s a by-product of calling men to loving obedience of the gospel.]
But when Scriptural works are engaged in, some (like their cantankerous counterparts in the New Testament) feel it their prerogative to challenge how something is being done. About a dozen years ago a Christian school was literally destroyed because one teacher did not use the same teaching style as another. There was no room for flexibility; she had to be fired. She was; a few individuals’ opinions prevailed, and a good work with great evangelistic opportunity came to a halt. Those same attitudes have shut down a number of good works that congregations have been engaged in. In fact, some would be delighted if we never did anything at all, which is precisely what many churches are doing today.
How could the Pharisees have missed the significance of what Jesus did? As the formerly blind man told them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:30-33).
This man reasoned far better than the elite doctors of the law. Once again they were disturbed because this miracle occurred on the Sabbath day; they would deny the Son of God before they would their religious traditions. Were they conceited? Yes, but no more so than those today who frequently contribute little to the work of the church but may always be depended upon to be first in the complaint line.
We should all desire to be Scriptural in whatever we do; problems arise when we confuse Scripture with opinion. It then becomes possible to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24).
What are some of the significant things we may overlook? Suppose that a person has been a wonderful father, a faithful husband, and a pillar of a local congregation, but a member once heard him tell an off-color story (which clearly violates the conduct a Christian should have). Even though this unfortunate event occurred fifteen years ago, the “brother” who heard it still tells other members of the church about it. He never talked to the man about his offense, but he has talked to plenty of other people and colored their view of this brother, also.
Had he rebuked the man in a loving manner (Gal. 6:1), he might have repented (which he probably did anyway). Then the brother with the loose tongue could have exercised love in covering his sin rather than tattling on him to anyone who would listen, thereby damaging his reputation. The larger picture here is helping a brother to be faithful, which is for the good of the church rather than being his constant accuser and overlooking the good he has done (and the fact that he did not repeat the sin).
Instead of examining others all of the time (as the Pharisees were wont to do), perhaps we ought to examine our own motives. Perhaps we could profit from being certain that we distinguish between what the Bible teaches and what our opinions are. Above all, we should put first the welfare of the church and the advancement of the gospel (which are Christ’s goals for us).