A New Commandment
In our interest in things new why not try a new commandment — a commandment that is new and seemingly untried by many who claim to be New Testament Christians though given by the Saviour more than 1900 years ago? Hear Him as He speaks, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (Jo. 13:34, 35) Do we have this mark of identity? John said, "We know we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (Jo. 3:14) Do we?
When we hear and see in print many uncharitable things as we do today are we not made to wonder whether we have discovered this new commandment? Isn't there now a real need for the restoration of New Testament brotherly love? If a brother through conscientious, prayerful study of God's word comes to some of the same conclusions that one held who lived and died before him, is it in keeping with the new commandment that prompts another to label him a follower of the other? Surely this new commandment is not responsible for one brother slurringly referring to another as an "anti," "hobbyist," or some kind of an "ite" or an "angel" because the one cannot in good faith go along with every new thing that comes along. Certainly, the misrepresentations, the name calling, the slurring remarks, and the efforts to destroy the usefulness of capable men in the Lord's vineyard are done because the new commandment of Christ is ignored. Might not the priding of self in preferring "our way" of doing things (maybe a few pennies a week) better than the way others are not doing it classify some with the trumpet sounders of Matt. 6:2? Isn't it strange that brethren can differ over elders' qualifications, divorce and remarriage, secret orders, wars, worldliness, disfellowshipping the disorderly, and such like, and still be brethren and respect one another, but when we come to benevolence and cooperation we must behave like heathens and stoop to slurring, misrepresentations, and devouring one another? Might not the attitudes and actions developed over these differences be more hurtful and damaging than the differences themselves?
In some places it seems that the one big qualification for the preacher is not his faithfulness or ability as Paul instructs (2 Tim. 2:1, 2) but his stand on orphan homes. Is it the spirit of Christ or in keeping with His new commandment that causes one brother, whose help to needy children may be figured in pennies, to charge another, who may individually be providing for one or more needy children, with favoring the emptying of orphan homes leaving the children to starve, freeze or to just drown them? Have not such charges widened the breach and magnified the actual differences between brethren? Are there not many brethren who truly are not properly informed on the differences among brethren because they have heard and read only one side? The time is certainly appropriate and such time will be well spent to have a few sermons on this new commandment of Christ and the characteristics of love as Paul taught the Corinthians. (1 Cor. 13) Would not such preaching and teaching have a tendency to narrow the widening breach, and bring more accurately and clearly into view things as they really are? Might not the sincere answers to the following question help clarify the real situation in the minds of interested Christians?
Do any of us know of anyone — Christian, sectarian or atheist — who actually opposes caring for orphans and neglected children? Can a person be rightly charged with opposition to orphan homes because he sincerely believes that a private home is better for the child than an institutional home?
Why is a brother charged with being "anti-orphan home" when he believes that children can be cared for in private homes, a home provided for and overseen by a local congregation and institutional homes that would be supported by individuals or on the basis of selling a service?
Is a brother really anti-cooperative because he believes that each congregation should send directly to the need rather than through a sponsoring church?
Is a brother to be classed as a crank and a hobbyist for opposing one congregation assuming a brotherhood work and depending on hundreds or even thousands of other churches to finance that work?
Compromise is certainly not the answer to any problem, but may not brethren treat one another with the courtesy of gentlemen and love of Christians in the discussion of their differences? Must I lose all respect for and hold in contempt my brother in Christ and treat him as an enemy to be destroyed because we have some differences? There is not a problem in the church today but what the observance and application of the first and second and new commandments (Mk. 12:28-31; Jo. 13:34, 35) would completely solve. Let us all put forth greater effort than ever to keep these commandments for the sake of the glorious church for which our wonderful and loving Saviour died and for the sake of our own souls.