Some time ago, we made a presentation to the church's college age group about what you do when nothing in life turns out the way you planned.  We set out an idealistic young couple to be a preacher, raise a family and build churches.  Along the way came lies, firings, 90% deafness, vision problems that closed Dene's music studio, multiple job changes, being shot from ambush (I won!), multiple surgeries, and more.  Yet, we have been described as "the happiest here!" by a new member who did not know our names (to our son who they did not know was related).   This was a follow-up letter of all the things we forgot to say.
 
First was a question, "How do you keep from becoming bitter? Were there any particular passages that helped you?"
 
Some comes from support groups.  We always had a few, or at times, the non-influential majority who were there to help us.   Sometimes our help came from stubbornness.   We simply refused to let those people be right about us.   Being righteous and loving is the best way to “get even” in the face of false accusations.   Some was, as I said, the fear of hell.   Jesus was not ashamed to use plain old fashioned terror to motivate people to be good and at times, it is all you have.   Sometimes, as Dene said, we were good for the kids’ sake.   We might have given up with only our own souls in the balance, but could not do that to them.   In a lesser way, our weaker brothers and sisters can provide the same motivation.
 
Above all, perseverance came because we knew in whom we believed.   The blind man said, “One thing I know, whereas I was blind, now I see.”  We tried not to let our faith become complicated by the, "what if’s", and the unfairness, and “Why did this happen?”, and a hundred other questions.   We focused on the one thing we knew: that God knows what he is doing and that it is being done for his glory to accomplish his purpose in us--whether we ever understand or not.   From the beginning, we knew that it would be hard at times.   We had no clue how hard but our part is clear: faithfulness to the one who “so loved that He sent…”
 
God may not have a “better plan” for you.  Sin may have locked doors and blocked pathways that would have been better for you and for God.    Upon repentance, God will still use you.   The “better plan” sop some use when things “go wrong” can lead to a weak or lost faith.
 
Do not waste time trying to figure out God’s purpose for you or in things that happen to you.  Simply seize every opportunity to do any kind of work of faith that comes your way. 
 
We also understood that no longer being able to do certain things physically did not mean we were free to sit back and watch.   Disabilities mean you find something you CAN do, even if it isn’t what you dreamed, even if the disability makes it more difficult.   We owe God our service, in whatever our circumstances, in whatever way we can, for as long as we can.   Acts 13:36 says that David fulfilled his purpose and then he died.   To us that meant that he kept right on going until that time, doing for his Lord whatever was possible to do, which is ultimately, why we offered to talk to you as well.
 
"For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities.  For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2Cor 12:10).

"But the LORD said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a youth’; for to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak.  ​Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares the LORD.” " (Jer 1:7-8).
 
Keith Ward

Part 5 in a series by guest writer Lucas Ward.

Acts 2:42-47  "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common.  And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.  And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
 
            We say we want to follow the example of the first century church and model ourselves as nearly as possible after the ancient order of things.  Well, this passage is literally the first description of the first church ever.  They are described in two ways:  they were devoted to the apostles' teaching and they were devoted to fellowship.  They gathered daily in the temple to learn from the apostles and they took care of each other's needs.  Day by day they were in each other's homes, eating together.  These were people who were active in each other's lives.  They knew each other and depended on each other.  They were a family.  These were not people who just nodded at each other with a "Hi, how are you?" once a week. 
            How well do you know your spiritual family?  When I preached this sermon, I asked some specific questions about certain members to illustrate the point. 

1)  How do you pronounce Lou's last name?  Where is he from?
2)  Why did Morris and Margret have Mickey Mouse ears on their car?  In what field is Margret a certified expert?
3)  What is Josh's job?  Where does he do it?
4)  Did you know that Greg is soon to move?  Where is he going?

               Obviously my questions don't mean anything to most of you readers, but you can understand the concept, especially if you try to think of similar questions regarding your own congregation.  Do we even know each other?  How can we operate as a family if we don't?
            There is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed:  the Social Gospel.  So many religious organizations recruit new members based on all the social opportunities that the "church" provides.  There are sports leagues for the kids, young women's groups, older women's groups, new fathers' groups, regular parties in the fellowship hall, plays, dances, lock-ins and so on and so forth all paid for by the church -- for which we have no Biblical authority --  and all given as the reason for church attendance.  The reason we should be attending church is not for the social opportunities, but to worship our God and to serve Him as He directs, but in divorcing ourselves from the Social Gospel the churches of Christ have nearly gone too far in the other direction and denied any social component in the church.  Again I ask, how can we be a family together if we don't know each other?
            I submit that we cannot complete our God-given roles if we aren't spending time together.  For example, James 5:16 "Confess therefore your sins one to another and pray for one another that you may be healed."  To do that takes trust and a closeness one doesn't get in a few minutes of chatting in the parking lot each week.  To confess your sins is to leave yourself open and vulnerable and is rarely done to people one doesn't trust.  Alcoholics Anonymous achieves this through anonymity.  No one knows anyone else there so there can't be any blowback, but in the church we all know each other.  So if I am going to confess my failings and weaknesses to a brother, I need to know him and be able to trust that he isn't going to gossip or use my confession later as some sort of weapon. 
            Or how about Romans 12:15 "Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them that weep."  When something really good happens, you want to share the good news with others, right?  You call all your buddies and celebrate together.  When was the last time a church member other than immediate physical family was among the first three calls you made?  Why not?  Because we celebrate with buddies and I barely know those people I worship with.  The same is even more true when mourning is the topic.  Again, crying makes you vulnerable and is only done among those trusted, not those mere acquaintances at church, right?
            And how am I supposed to "provoke one another to love and good works" (Heb. 10:24) if I don't in what areas you need to be exhorted or what type of exhortation works best with you?  After all, each of us responds to exhortations differently depending on the situation.  To know that, we have to know each other. 
            I could go on, but this seems sufficient to illustrate the point:  again and again we cannot perform our God-given duties for our spiritual families if we barely know them.  This is not the Social Gospel, but yes, the Gospel does call us to be social.  We need to be in each others' homes.  We need to meet for lunch.  We need to be active in each other's lives.
            We will either learn to love each other and our congregations will become spiritual families, or our churches will fail and fall apart.  It is that simple.
 
John 13:35  "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." 
 
Lucas Ward

Today's review is by guest writer Keith Ward.

While home during Christmas break in 1971, my first year at FC, I discovered a commentary on Revelation in a barbershop bookstore.  I ventured the $1.00 cost as I was to begin that class the next term. When I asked Homer Hailey whether it was worth reading, he responded, “Where did you get this? It has been out of print for years!” Then he added with a self-deprecating grin, “Until I write mine, it is the best commentary on Revelation out there.”  I have used both Pieters’ and Hailey’s for years and declare that Pieters is superior and especially for a beginning student of the Apocalypse.

From his preface:  “Verse by verse exposition is not attempted.” For that, I highly recommend HH as a supplement. “I have had constantly in view two kinds of readers. First and chiefly, intelligent Christian people without theological training.” This book is understandable to the average reader.  “To read the Revelation is such blind work that they rarely open it. I cannot expect to make all its mysteries plain to them—they are far from being all plain to me—but I think I may succeed in giving them some idea what kind of book it is, and how it is to be approached so that they will get some apprehension of its beauty and its teachings.”

Pieters’ greatest contribution is to cause one to see John’s method of writing and the pictures he communicated. He makes clear the broad meanings of the pictures John painted with words, John says,"I saw" 47 times. As noted, he makes no attempt to explain each word or verse. As a result, he is free to make clear the teaching and value to us of a picture painted by many verses. Most of us need that much more than an understanding of every phrase.

The only criticism to offer is that his illustrations come from pre-WWII America which may not be familiar to the modern reader. However, the point of his use of the illustrations is so clear that one should be able to substitute modern ones easily.

Most will find this book to be a fairly easy read. 

This book is now published by DeWard Publishing Company.
 
Keith Ward
 

Part 4 of a continuing series by guest writer Lucas Ward.
 
1 Peter 4:7-10  "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.   Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.  Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.  As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace."
 
            Again, note the urgency.  The end is at hand so we should do these things.  Love is described two ways: as hospitality and as something that covers sins.  Last time we looked at hospitality, so let's look at what it means to cover a multitude of sins.
            First, it is not referring to covering up sins against God.  Everything in the Bible teaches against that.  Paul declares that the impenitent sinner is to be expelled from the church (1 Cor. 5:1-8).  Clearly that is confronting sin, not covering it up.  Jesus' letter to the church in Thyatira in Rev. 2:20 mentions that the only thing He had against that church was that they tolerated a false teacher.  Obviously He had expected them to confront that sinner.  Instead of covering sins up, we are encouraged to make great efforts to bring the sinner to repentance.  Galatians 6:1 tells us to go to the sinner, 2 Thess. 3:15 tells us to admonish the sinner and James 5:19-20 speaks of converting the sinner.  None of this is covering sin.
            So, what does it mean that "love covers a multitude of sins"?  Perhaps we should look at the proverb Peter was quoting:  "Hatred stirs up strifes but love covers all transgressions" (Prov. 10:12).  From this we see that while hatred is looking for ways to cause problems, love is looking to build the relationship; to build trust.  Love overlooks, or covers, all the transgressions of the loved one against the lover.  In other words, the sins covered by love are the offenses or transgressions my brethren perpetrate against me.  If someone is rude to me it may not be sin in the evil-against-God sense, but I have still been offended.  To transgress is to cross a line, which is instructive.  If I love people, then when they cross a line with me, I overlook it. 
            Of course, sometimes the transgression is serious and needs to be addressed.  Jesus gives us the method to do this in Matt. 18:15-17: "And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.  And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican."  These are the rights of the offended brother with the goal always being to regain your brother.  However, notice the seriousness of the consequences.  If your brother is too stubborn to apologize and make things right, he can wind up cut off from the church.  That means there can be eternal consequences for an offense which may not have been evil to begin with.  As the offended party, were you hurt so badly as to chance that outcome, or will you allow your love for your brother to cover the transgressions?   Paul teaches us that in order to keep the peace within the church we ought to be willing to be wronged, to let love cover those wrongs:  "Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?" (1 Cor. 6:7) 
            Love covering a multitude of sins means forgiveness.  We aren't keeping track of the transgressions to make use of later.  Love "takes no account of evil" (1 Cor. 13:5).  That phrase is actually the exact phrase used by first century Greeks to mean bookkeeping as in business.  We forgive.  We don't store up, but forgiveness must be genuine.  If I forgive, but then refuse to speak to the offender I haven't really forgiven.  If I forgive, but speak ill of or make sure to sit on the opposite side of the building or refuse all requests from, that isn't forgiveness.  In those cases I'm not covering sins but quietly hoarding injustices to myself.  If we can, we should always choose to overlook insults, but if the offense is too bad to cover, then we must use the steps Jesus gives in Matt. 18.  These are the only two options given for Christians by God. Quietly stewing isn't an option. 
             "Love suffers long".  Most offenses we deal with from our brethren are actually quite minor in reality but very annoying personally.  If I love that brother, I put up with it.  Maybe I address it, maybe not, but either way I love my brother.  And remember, love "believes all things and hopes all things."  I'm not going to assume my brother is out to get me, but rather is just innocently annoying. 
             Finally, allow me to let you in on a secret:  we are all annoying.  None of us is perfect in everything.  YOU annoy someone greatly.  God loves us despite our annoying tendencies and teaches us to love in the same way.  One day the annoyances will be gone forever while "love never ends" (1 Cor. 13:8).
 
Lucas Ward

Today's post is by guest writer Doy Moyer.

When I make it about how I feel, what I like or don't like, how inconvenient things are to me, or how I shouldn't have to do x, y, or z because it's difficult, then I have to ask... where is the cross of Christ in a religion ordered after my preferences?

If I balk at submission, frown upon being asked to do something I don't want to, or feel like I am hampered from affirming my rights and asserting myself, then I must also ask ... where is the cross of Jesus in my thinking and in my life?

For whatever I feel, whatever I like or don't like, whatever sacrifices I must make or inconveniences I must suffer, I need to refocus on Jesus as He endured the cross for me, though He despised its shame. It wasn't easy, convenient, or self-affirming for Him as He treated others as more important than Himself. And if He, being God, can do that, who am I to assert myself over others and act as though everyone ought to bow to my preferences?

The cross is not the religion of the pursuit of personal desires and preferences. "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves" (Phil 2:3).

I have a choice to make today. I can take up the cross and follow Jesus, or I can reject the cross in favor of my own rights and desires. That has always been the choice.
 
Doy Moyer
Doy's website is listed on the Recommended Sites page on the left sidebar.

Today's post is by guest writer Keith Ward.

With nearly 2000 years of the history of God as Father, it is difficult for us to imagine the impact the gospel had on the ancient world.  Gospel means “Good News.”  To us, it is so familiar that we cannot even comprehend why they thought of it as astoundingly good.

My purpose is that we see the gospel the same way those ancient pagans did which will help us see why the gospel of Jesus exploded across the empire.

The pagan view of god was one reasoned by the philosophers such as Plato, Zeno, Aristotle, and others not so well known.  They felt that god must be far removed from this corrupt world and indifferent to it.  As a being of pure reason, how could god care what happened to men or even be aware of it.  In fact, the philosophers held matter, and especially emotion, to be so evil in relation to the purity of reason that god himself could not have created them.  The god was unemotional, implacable, unmovable (sort of like the god of Calvinism's predestination).  An emanation thousands of descents removed from god was the actual creator and then not a participant in creation.  Inasmuch as lesser gods than even he interacted with humans at all, they were capricious at best and vicious on a whim.  The major goal of the pagan sacrificial system was to get god to leave them alone.  A pagan’s life was spent hoping the gods never noticed him or at least did not care enough to lash out at him.

Into this world burst the gospel of a God who cares, A God who is good and sends good things, A God who loves and not only loves, but loved so much that he sent his Son.  Gods coming to be among men was not new in the mythologies, but they came to satisfy their own lusts and to toy with men.  God sent his Son to rescue men and elevate them and give them hope.  When this gospel was ratified by signs from heaven and not just magical wonders, but signs that healed and helped mortals, men flocked to the truth. 

Further, the gospel offered hope: hope now and hope to come.  What could an ordinary man be? He would live and work and die and, outside his city, who would know or care? The gospel offered meaning to life, to engage in cosmic warfare in the heavenlies.  A Christian was a warrior known by name to his Captain who strengthened him and rewarded him in life.  And in place of the dismal realms of the dead found in the mythologies, the gospel offered eternal life.  To be somebody--even kings and presidents are not remembered long--but God knows your name.  Men’s monumental achievements are forgotten in a generation and who cares anyway (except for the history test), but righteousness and holiness is a victory written in the Book of Life before the Father’s throne.

That gospel is still good news to the nobodies, to the downtrodden and forgotten, to the everyday man who will never be the footnote to a footnote in history.  Is that not who heard Jesus gladly?

"“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  " (John 3:16).

Don't you long to forever be where that love is?
 
Keith Ward

Today's post is by guest writer Matt Bassford, and was originally printed in the emagazine Pressing On edited by Mark Roberts.  Contact me (left sidebar) for subscription information.

For years, I’ve been an advocate of using quality hymns in worship. Not surprisingly, there are plenty of folks who disagree with me, particularly when I get to picking on contemporary praise songs that I don’t think are useful in congregational worship. They’ve even been known to get upset about it. It’s like I called their dog ugly or something.

One of the most common countercharges is that I don’t like the contemporary songs I don’t like because I’m stuck in the past. According to this way of thinking, I believe the only good hymns are the ones written in the 19th century, filled with “Thee” and “Thou”, and possessed of syntax so convoluted that only Yoda could love it. Oh, and the music has to sound like it was born on a pipe organ too.

There are certainly people who believe such things, but I’m not one of them. I think “Abide with Me” is a wonderful hymn, but not every hymn has to sound like “Abide with Me” to be good. Instead, my usual indictment of many modern worship songs is that 1) they lack strong Biblical content, and 2) the music is too complicated for a congregation to learn easily.

Neither one of these things is a necessary attribute of sacred songs written in the past 50 years, though such songs often fail on one or both counts. Rather, they are frequently problems because modern authors and composers generally don’t make good content and congregationality their priorities, particularly the latter.

Chris Tomlin doesn’t write music for me and my modest range. He writes music for Chris Tomlin, Chris Tomlin’s wonderful range, and Chris Tomlin’s backup band of professional musicians. Most brethren, however, have musical gifts much more like mine than like Chris Tomlin’s. Is it any wonder when they struggle with the Chris Tomlin repertoire?

However, when contemporary writers pay attention to content and the musical abilities of ordinary worshipers, they can turn out some excellent work that is eminently suitable for use in our assemblies. By now, most brethren are familiar with “In Christ Alone”, written by Stuart Townend and Keith and Kristin Getty. Together and separately, they’ve written plenty of other hymns that are comparable in quality and usefulness. The same goes for Bob Kauflin and the many writers who have been associated with Sovereign Grace through the years.

Recently, the Australian group CityAlight has attracted my attention (the tagline on their website is “Christian worship music with Biblically rich lyrics”, which is a good sign). Yes, they use drums and guitars, but brethren have been adapting denominational hymns for a-cappella use since the Restoration. We can do it here too.

Consider, for instance, the CityAlight song “Jesus Strong and Kind”, which I recently encountered for the first time. Its lyrics are:

1. Jesus said that if I thirst
I should come to Him;
No one else can satisfy;
I should come to Him.
2. Jesus said if I am weak
I should come to Him;
No one else can be my strength;
I should come to Him.
Chorus:
For the Lord is good and faithful;
He will keep us day and night;
We can always run to Jesus,
Jesus, strong and kind.
3. Jesus said that if I fear
I should come to Him;
No one else can be my shield;
I should come to Him.
(Chorus)
4. Jesus said if I am lost
He will come to me;
And He showed me on that cross
He will come to me.
(Chorus)

That’s good. It doesn’t look like the hymns Isaac Watts wrote, nor yet like the hymns I write. It’s still good. It reveals Biblical study and contemplation, it is focused, and it is deeply meaningful to the believer, especially those who also have spent time in study of the word.

If I may indulge in hymn-geekery for a moment, it’s also good because of its structural strength. Like many modern praise songs, it doesn’t use a strong rhyme scheme and can’t develop structure that way. Instead, it employs repetition, mixed with a few powerful word changes, as its structural element. The change from “thirst” and “satisfy” to “weak” and “strength” makes v. 2 meaningfully different from v. 1, even though most of the words are the same. However, the whole still has unity because of those similarities.

The music is also (or should be, at least) congregationally accessible. The use of verses means that brethren who learn music by rote don’t have to learn as much. The range is limited to a congregation-friendly octave, C to C in the original sheet music, though I’d probably raise it to D or Eb for four-part a-cappella use. I like the tune, too. Churches of Christ should be able to sing this one easily.

When was this fine piece of hymnody written? 2019. All it takes is somebody in the denominational world who cares about the Bible and congregational singing, and they’ll hand us something we can use.

Indeed, this happens frequently. This year, I wrote a workbook called Singing with Understanding for a Bible class I taught. Each lesson of the workbook pitted an unfamiliar hymn I liked against an unfamiliar hymn I didn’t so that the class could analyze the qualities of good and bad hymns. For the sake of fairness, I segregated hymns by time period: old good against old bad, new good against new bad. Of the four categories, I had by far the easiest time filling out the “New Good” category because so many of the best worship songs being written now are unfamiliar to the church.

That’s a shame. Rather than allowing CCM icons and praise teams to drive the additions to our repertoire, we ought instead to be looking for songs that are written for and will benefit the congregation. If we seek, we will find, and our song worship will benefit immeasurably thereby.

Matthew Bassford

Today's post is by guest writer Lucas Ward.

1 Peter 4:7-10  "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.   Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.  Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.  As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace."

 
            The first thing to note about this passage is the reason Peter gives us this instruction and the urgency behind it.  "The end of all things is at hand."  Peter clearly didn't mean "soon to happen" because it has been 2,000 years and the end hasn't happened yet, but for millenia people were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and now that He has come there is nothing else happening  between us and the end.  The end is the next big event and all we know about it is that it will be a surprise: "like a thief in the night".  Given that, we need to be ready.  Peter tells us three things to do:  be self-controlled, sober minded to prayer, and love one another earnestly.  Peter emphasizes that of these, love is the most important.  "Above all" love one another.  Love is then broken down into two endeavors:  covering a multitude of sins and showing hospitality to one another.  Right now, I want to focus on hospitality.
 
In the 20th and now the 21st centuries we have come to think of hospitality as having people over for dinner or socializing with each other in a variety of ways.  That really has nothing to do with the concept of hospitality current at the time Peter wrote his epistle.  Which is not to say that getting to know one another socially is not important.  One of the first things we learn about the early church is that "day by day . . . breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart" (Acts 2:46).  They were in each other's homes; they got to know one another.  Also, how am I supposed to "consider one another to provoke to love and good works" if I don't know my brethren any better than nodding at each other on Sundays?  So socializing is important, but it is not what Peter meant by hospitality.
 
            I looked up hospitality in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE).  Hospitality was a duty in the ancient days when travelers had nowhere to stay and hosts often took in strangers and cared for them.  It was considered an honor to be allowed to provide in this way.  According to the ISBE there were four main components to hospitality:
1) The traveler is made the literal master of the house during his stay.
2)  The host performs the most servile offices for the traveler and won't even sit in the presence of the traveler.
3)  The guest is given use of all the host owns, including even the host's wife and daughters.  (This last bit is not Biblical nor condoned in any way by Biblical teaching, but it does show the devotion the ancients had to hospitality.)
4)  The host is duty bound to protect the guest from all dangers that may arise during his stay.
 
            We have Biblical examples of all these precepts. Which is not surprising since hospitality was held in such high regard that Job defined his righteousness in part by his devotion to hospitality (Job 31:32). 
            In Genesis 18:1-8 we have the story of Abraham showing hospitality to three strangers.  He runs to meet them, begs for the right to serve them and, despite promising only a drink of water and a bit of bread, provides cakes made with the finest flour and a young calf cooked up right -- think veal -- as well as milk and butter.  While they are eating, Abraham stands by ready to serve.  He doesn't join them in eating in his own tent, he stands by like a servant. 
            In Judges 19 a Levite is traveling and when he gets to a Benjaminite town, no one will take him in.  He is so desperate and angry that when someone finally speaks to him, he offers to pay his own way for the right to not sleep in the streets, which normally would have been an insult.  The older man speaking to him says, "Peace be unto thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street." (vs. 15-21)  While the town failed in its duties, the old man accomplished hospitality by providing for all the needs of the traveler. 
            Then a truly shameful thing happens (vs. 22-23).  The men of the city try to attack the traveling Levite.  True to his duties as host, the old man steps out and faces the crowd, protecting his guest:  "do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into my house".  If this sounds familiar it is because it is an almost exact replay of what happened in Sodom when Lot tried to protect the men who were staying with him.  In both cases the women-folk of the host were offered to the mob in an effort to protect the guests.  Again, this is not condoned by the Bible, just reported as having happened, but it does also show how seriously these hosts took the duty to protect their guests, using whatever means necessary. 
            So, hospitality as defined for us by those four principles and shown to us by many Biblical examples is what Peter is telling us to do in 1 Peter 4:9.  Not to be good to strangers, though, he says to show hospitality "to one another".  The ASV says "among yourselves".  So we need to adapt these principles to our relationships with our brethren.
1)  The guest becomes master of the house.
            Galatians 5:13 tells us that we should "through love be servants one to another".  So I should be acting as if my brothers are the bosses and I provide their needs.  Phil. 2:4 reminds us not to look out for ourselves but to look out for the needs of our brothers.  If everyone does this, all will be taken care of, and we will be showing hospitality.
2) The host performs the most servile offices for the guest.
            Washing guests' feet was among the most demeaning services rendered and the task was usually given the servant with the least status.  That shows why the Apostles were so shocked when Jesus began washing their feet in John 13.  He then explains, "If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (vs 14). In other words, there is nothing my brother might need from me that I am too important to do.  Repeat: THERE IS NOTHING MY BROTHER MIGHT NEED FROM ME THAT I AM TOO IMPORTANT TO DO.
3) The guest is given access to all the host owns.
            1 John 3:16 says we ought to be willing to die for our brethren.  Rom. 8:32 says that God, having already sacrificed His Son for us is willing to give us anything else we might need.  If you put those concepts together then if I am willing to die for my brothers is there anything short of dying that I'd withhold from them?  In a way, even to the point of sharing your spouse.  Ask any Elder's wife or preacher's wife if she doesn't share her husband with the church.  And some husbands, whose wives are the older women who teach the younger (Titus 2) or who are best at weeping with those who weep also share their spouses with the church.  Why do these brothers and sisters put up with the disruptions to their home life?  Because they are showing hospitality through love.
4)  The host is duty bound to protect the guest from all dangers.
            If I am to protect my brethren from dangers and I know there is a lion stalking the earth trying to eat them (1 Pet. 5:8) what should I be protecting them from?  Isn't it my responsibility as a hospitable brother to do what I can to protect my brethren from the temptations Satan attacks us all with?  Certainly I shouldn't be putting stumbling blocks in front of them.  (Matt. 18:7)  So, if I usually have a glass of wine with a meal, but I know my brother is a recovering alcoholic, I shouldn't pour him a glass of wine when he comes over for dinner.  I probably shouldn't even drink my glass in front of him.  And while it is every man's responsibility to control his own thoughts and eyes, surely if my sister loves me she won't dress in such a way as to excite illicit thoughts.  Why do you think it is that the most common adjective used to describe clothes these days is "sexy"?  Because those clothes are designed to provoke certain responses.  I submit that no Christian woman OR man should be wearing clothes that are DESIGNED to be sexy.  Attractive? yes.  Nice looking? yes.  Sexy? no.  Not if I love my brothers and my sisters love me.  Or if there is anything else I might do to put a temptation in front of a brother, I need to be willing to give those things up (1 Cor. 8:13).
 
            Loving through hospitality is serving my brethren, giving my all for my brethren, and protecting my brethren.  Important?
 Matt. 25:40  "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me." 


Lucas Ward