"When Is A Person 'Riding A Hobby Horse?'
Much has been said recently pro and con about "riding a hobby horse." There is the prevalent idea in the minds of many that the other fellow is the one that is riding this horse, and it would be impossible for me to do so. I think we all agree as to the meaning of this expression literally, and as it has been used in many articles.
Recently I Read These Words:
"'Striving about words to no profit' is striving about those things which are in the realm of opinion, or human judgment. Christ commanded us to go and preach the gospel. We might have many opinions about the best way to do the going, and each one would be all right in his opinion. But if he sought to bind such an opinion upon all, then he is violating the command of Paul. He has mounted his hobby horse."
I do not know any gospel preacher, or a Christian, that would not agree with the above statements. God didn't tell us how to go. If we go in a car, or if we go in a plane, we are still obeying God's command, to go. If I should force my opinion on you and say you must go "by walking," then I have made a law where God has not.
Again:
"The best way to teach is left up to the discretion of those who have the oversight of the congregation. If it is their judgment that a certain plan be followed then that is the thing to do; but when they attempt to bind a certain way of teaching upon others; then the hobby horse has entered the picture."
We can all agree to these statements. We can teach from the pulpit, over the radio, on television, or by the printed page. Either method used, we are still teaching. Where is the man that would make a law here and bind a "certain way" it must be done?
But suppose the elders should decide they could do a better job by using an organization separate and apart from the church through which to do this teaching. Would it Then be left to their discretion as to what "Missionary Society" they should use? We all agree the church is the only organization through which to preach the word. Luke said: "And thence sailed to 'Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." (Acts 14:26, 27. Read also Ephesians 3:10, 11, 21; 1 Timothy 3:15.)
Some insist since the "method" is not mentioned we can do the work of preaching the gospel through some organization besides the church, and if others oppose this extra organization, I wonder who is riding the "hobby horse"; the ones that insist on doing it through an organization rather than the church, or the ones that oppose the man made organization? Can you answer the question? I am sure you can!!
"There are a number of ways to care for orphan children, and every one of them is the product of human reasoning and judgment! The manner in which an individual, or a congregation cares for unfortunate children is a matter of judgment, and not a matter of commandment. When a way to care for such children is used, then it is well and good if it is used. (Some suggest that certain ways be followed, BUT do not follow those ways themselves.) But for some one to set up his opinions and try to make everyone conform to those opinions; even when such opinions have never been tried; then the hobby hone is being taken for another ride through the congregations.'
Yes, we can agree there are a number of ways, or methods, in which an individual, or a congregation can care for orphan children. If a congregation should decide one method, and tell other congregations this is the only method in which orphans can be cared for, then that congregation has made a law where God has not.
But, suppose, the elders should decide they could do a better job of caring for the unfortunate through a man made organization, separate and apart from the church.
Would it then be left to their discretion as to what organization apart from the church through which to do this benevolent work?
Since the church is the only organization needed to preach the gospel, then why wouldn't the church be the only organization needed to do benevolent work? The majority of our orphan homes are organizations separate and apart from the church, and the different congregations are trying to do their work through these organizations. Some tell us the orphan home is the church at work. If this be true, then the church is engaged in secular work, such as farming, dairying, etc. When I was a lad I was taught that the church could not engage in secular work.
If that statement was true then, it is true now.
Some insist since the "method" is not mentioned we can care for the unfortunate through some organization besides the church, and if others oppose this extra organization, I wonder who is riding the "hobby horse"; the ones that insist on doing it through a man made organization, rather than the church, or the ones that oppose the man made organization? Can you answer the question? I am sure you can!