Ambig Vs. Perspic

Ambig vs. Perspic (An Allegory)
By Scott A. Klaft
[Originally appearing in the November 2004 “Christian Patriot” and re-edited here.]

Night drew on the excited town, and the fans noisily filed into the arena where the event was soon to be held. Much escalation had gone into promotion, and the fans were greatly abuzz, driving from vast distances to be in attendance personally. According to all of the experts, this was to be the battle to end all battles, the greatest contest in the modern age of the sport. Some inquiry had gone into the origin of the combatant’s names, being so unusual, but each man had declined to give pre-interviews, which added to the mystery and drama.

As the polls measured the audience’s partiality, the reigning Champion was clearly favored. Ambig had a tremendous following, and the ever-growing crowd seemed to have great affection for him. It seems that he had put on spectacular performances wherever he went, and he went just about everywhere taking on all who would contend. On the other hand, Perspic, though hardly heard from in the media, seemed to have a very dedicated fan-base, small in number though they are. From all accounts, his ability was as close to masterful as most had ever witnessed. Newspapers and magazines pitted one against the other in imaginary contests, exaggerating the match with dual credibility, but nearly always giving way to the popularity of the Champ.

The narrow seats were all filled. A dull roar ushered in the fortunate “standing room only” spectators until house-capacity was complete, and the sad latecomers had to be turned away. At the appropriate time, the excited onlookers hushed as the arena lights dimmed, except around the roped-in and raised square in the center. The important looking man, decked in his tuxedo, ascended and climbed between the ropes with something less than graceful agility. While a slightly more casually dressed man discreetly slipped in at the side, a microphone lowered into the announcer’s hand.

“Ladies and gentleman”, he boomed, eliciting a slight cheer and drawing every eye. With a prolonged invocation of the sponsor’s names and products, anticipation grew, and not a single individual was distracted.

“It is my pleasure to introduce tonight’s challenger…” No clever nickname had been invented for him, but as Perspic traversed the distance from the locker room to the “ring”, bouncing and tossing red encased hands into the air in front of him, a light ovation received him. The intensity of his eyes was undiminished as he ascended, gazelle-like into the focus center. He made no attempt to endear the crowd, nor did he in anyway seem to mock his detractors. It was as though he were all alone, and on a mission of passionate importance.

“And now,” the announcer continued to build the sensationalistic anticipation. “Coming from the opposite end of the arena; please try to control your emotion and welcome into your presence, the greatest of the great, the best of the best, recognized across the globe as world-heavy-weight Champ-ion…” Exploding into applause and raucous cheers, the wildly enamored crowd barely allowed the announcer to complete the introduction as Ambig with his entourage stepped out from the shadows. His tremendous arms raised into the air, letting the silken robe hang open, exposing the huge gold and leather belt girded about his waist. With his gloved hands he blew kisses into the crowd and attended to their affections for so long, the officials thought it best to direct him to his corner of the square ring.

The preliminaries were brief when they met with the referee in the center to receive the usual instructions and rules by which the contest would take place. Perspic stared steely determination into the face of Ambig, who barely paid any attention, completely aloof, and hamming it up for the photographers by flexing his significantly sized bicep. They touched gloves according to tradition, though Ambig was looking off into his adoring fans.

Returning to their respective corners, one man near Perspic’s corner called out, “You know what to do, buddy!” He nodded in affirmation. Meanwhile, Ambig practically strutted from one side to the other, stirring up the crowd, putting his glove to his ear to induce a louder support. Soon the first bell rang, and both came out with enthusiastic verve, gloves raised and on guard.

Perspic carefully watched his opponent’s movements, and Ambig smiled a big toothy grin of self-confidence while they circled one another. The noise of the crowd increased, many of them calling out their quasi-expert advice, most of which was completely contrary to what the two professional pugilists knew to be right. Both of them threw a few test-jabs just to see if an upper hand may be quickly gained, but each was blocked or escaped.

Perspic let his contempt be known for Ambig’s brash self-confidence by a slight roll of his eyes. The Champ became angry and threw his heavy right hand at the smaller contender. Perspic saw the telegraphed punch and imperceptibly slid to the right. The sound of fist slamming into shoulder was thunderous, and Perspic allowed the motion to carry him a step away, inviting further attack. This brought a great swell of clamor from the Champ’s devotees, but to Perspic’s surprise, no follow-up blows were thrown. Ambig turned again to his followers, put his hands into the air in triumph and bellowed, “I am the greatest!”

Perspic cautiously came up behind him, and tapped Ambig’s huge shoulder. As he turned, Ambig received a high-speed straight right hand to the jaw, sending the mouthpiece, along with a rope of saliva, flying into the multitude of horrified onlookers. ‘Boos’ overwhelmed the small amount of cheers. The Champ’s people thought it was a cheep shot, but the referee just shook his head and directed the men to their respective corners while Ambig was given a new mouthpiece to go with his now bleeding lip. Before they could have any further significant exchanges, the bell rang. The first round was over, and the score was decidedly in Perspic’s favor.

Embarrassed, and now huffing with rage, Ambig resolved to “get serious”. The second-round bell rang, and they both popped into place, hands drawing circles in the air, and feet constantly moving. Perspic stepped aside from Ambig’s clumsy jabs with amazing swiftness, and this time the attempt to draw his opponent into a lunge worked. Once again, a thunderous right hand plowed into a shoulder, though Perspic’s face barely even seemed to notice it. A wild roundhouse from Ambig was easily eluded and Perspic’s driving uppercut caught the Champ off guard, sending him reeling backward.

Perspic was unrelenting. The flurry of lefts and rights came at Ambig from every direction. In the silence of the boxing enthusiasts, the reverberating thud of Ambig’s massive body hitting the mat signaled a second-round knockout. The contest was over. Perspicuity Lucid had easily beaten the ever-so popular Ambiguity Jones.

From Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:

Perspicuity: noun form of ‘perspicuous’: plain to the understanding especially because of clarity and precision of presentation

Ambiguity: the quality or state of being ‘ambiguous’ especially in meaning: Ambiguous:
1: a.) doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness; b.) INEXPLICABLE
2: capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways: OBSCURE

The Law of Exclusion

The Law of Exclusion

A major portion of the book of Hebrews was written to warn the recently converted Jewish Christians against going back to the Old Testament law for their faith and practice. Multitudes of evidences are presented to the reader that the law of Christ, the New Testament is far superior to that of the Old. While they may be similar in character, and they both come from the same source, the New has some fundamental changes and improvements.

One vastly superior change was the person who would be considered “high priest.” In the Old Testament, only people from the tribe of Levi could be priests. God said nothing about letting anyone else take that position of authority and responsibility. It was specifically and explicitly told to the Israelites that of the tribe of Levi, the priests would be appointed; and yet, the New Testament has Jesus of Nazareth as its “High Priest.” The inspired writer put it this way:

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” (Heb. 7:12-14)

This is an inspired record of God making an argument based on an enduring principle of communication that we call the ‘Law of Exclusion.’ There are many such laws by which we interpret any type of communication, and we use them every day, even when we are not aware of it. The ‘Law of Identity’ is when someone says such things as “this is that,” or “I am he.” The ‘Law of Inclusion’ has to do with categories. When God said that the tribe of Levi was to be the priestly tribe, we understand by the ‘Law of Inclusion’ that all who were in the tribe of Levi were included, and none excluded. The ‘Law of Exclusion,’ however, works the opposite way. When God specifically named what He wanted, everything else is excluded. No other tribes of Israel were allowed to serve in the numerous priestly duties, and they understood that explicitly, as though it had been said, “Do not have any other tribe, and do not have Gentiles attempt to perform this work.” It did not need to be said, because God spoke specifically about what he wanted.

Not only is this passage a positive proof that we do not look to the Old Testament to establish our practices in faith, but it also commends to us the use of logical rules for interpretation.

Another example from the Old Testament of the ‘Law of Exclusion’ at work is detailed in Leviticus 10:1-2. The sons of Aaron (who were all of the tribe of Levi) were told specifically how and what should be burnt as incense (see Lev. 2:2). This is what they did:

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” (Lev. 10:1-2)

They had violated the ‘Law of Exclusion’ in their attempt to worship God. They offered something that the Lord had not commanded, nor even mentioned. God did not have to tell them of all of the things that should not be offered as worship in the incense because Nadab and Abihu should have known better. They failed to honor God, and did not take His Word seriously enough to do only that which was specifically stated. Perhaps they desired something different and thought they honored God by offering something they perceived to be better than what was commanded. They died without sons to follow after them as a price for their willful disobedience.

Paul warns Christians: “…these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things…” (1Corinthians 10:6) and that “…all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1Cor. 10:11). It comes as no surprise, however, that many today are following after Nadab and Abihu, rather than learning from their folly. It seems that perhaps they do have some children after all. After the Lord’s ambassadors guided the first century church, and had them practicing Christianity in the way God wanted it, and after they recorded these commandments that we may know how things are to be done under the New Testament, people are failing to honor God in disobedience.

The Lord, by the hands of His inspired men, commands that we “sing” (cf. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13). The ‘Law of Exclusion’ does not allow for mechanical instruments to be ‘played’. The divinely guided first century church never used mechanical instruments. Their approved example demands the ‘Law of Exclusion,’ which again forbids the use of mechanical instruments. God may not strike people dead, desiring repentance (cf. 1Peter 3:9), but in the end, the Lord will mete out justice with an even hand (cf. 2Cor. 5:10).

-”Robetron”

Judging the Judgment of the Judge

Recently, when I posted the article, That They All May Be One on my blog-site, from our July 1st bulletin issue, a strong discussion was started by some readers who belong to denominations. One of the responses came from a rather tenderhearted soul, who wrote:

“I’ve read the comments and I have got to take issue with the one church idea. In the scriptures you quoted from [E]phesians, [C]olosians and acts, [i]t does speak of one body but not the literal “Church of Christ”. We are all part of the same body. … Any church we visit needs to stand up to the Holy Bible. Meaning if anything contradicts the [B]ible then go somewhere else. I feel the most important question is one’s own relationship with God and Jesus Christ. I don’t want to be the Judge of any denomination or person.”

Answering him according to his folly, I informed him that the “body” found in the scripture is indeed a literal entity, and that there is no such thing as a non-literal church. He clearly understood this because he continued to use the terms “body” and “church” in a literal way, contradicting himself before taking a second breath. Of course, the church in the Bible belongs to Christ. Surely, that is not what is in contention? Contradicting himself again by suggesting that “if anything contradicts the Bible, then go somewhere else,” he swung way back the other way to his original position again by the end of the post. Setting aside the absurd argument that one’s relationship with God and Christ is somehow different than one’s membership to a church, whether it is scriptural or not, it is the last statement that I want to address here.

Whether or not a person wants to “be a judge” is completely immaterial. There is not a single day that goes by that we do exercise some judgment or another. In reality (a place that many denominational people do not seem to inhabit), we are not left with a choice in making judgments. The whole purpose of the Bible is to educate the mind that we may accurately obey the Lord’s command to make right judgments:

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

How dare anyone presume to dismiss the responsibilities commanded by the Lord? When Jesus made the statement, which is so often used (misused) in this case, He was not suggesting we pretend every one to whom we speak must indeed be a Christian simply because they claim to be. He said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1), but he did not say it in a vacuum or without any other qualifying thoughts. Within a few sentences, he commanded that we recognize when a ‘brother’ has a mote in his eye, and abeam in our own. (cf. Matt.7:3-5) This is requisite of judgment pertaining to sin. He then teaches us to “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine…” (Matt. 7:6). This he speaks, in a metaphor, referring to people of low character. This requires us to make judgments about people. On what should we base that judgment? Let the Lord speak for Himself: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:16). This specifically refers to “false prophets” of whom He warns: “beware” (cf. Matt. 7:15). This requires judgment.

When we have the Bible to tell us what is doctrinally right, we have no excuse for not knowing what is the right judgment regarding Christianity. Additionally, when a judgment from the Bible is correctly made, it is not our judgment, but God’s. While that takes people out of their zone of comfort, Jesus never promised serving him would be easy. He said, “…let him… take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). A part of baring this burden is to “mark… and avoid” those who “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine” (Romans 16:17).

All who claim to believe and practice what the Bible says is under an immediate liability to discern right from wrong, sound teachings from false teachings, the true church from counterfeits, and actual Christians from those who are duped.

-”Robetron”

Expanded Thoughts on ‘Choruses’

[The following was originally published in the September 2005 issue of The Reader’s Monthly and re-edited here.]


There has been much discussion in the brotherhood recently concerning the singing of songs we use for worship. Perhaps, too often, the topic swerves from the original intended end, the sincere desire to ascertain biblical principles, and it turns into a heated competition of personalities. Some want to contend for the justification of their past activities, while others feel their character or brotherhood-influence is challenged when an opposing voice is heard. Two things are certain in that regard: (1) our past actions must not play a part in ascertaining God’s instructions for right or wrong; (2) we never base our beliefs on whose paper has the better writer, what school upholds a practice, or who holds the most influence in the brotherhood. Seeking the best good for the church ought to be our aim, so let us dispense with personal conflicts of pride, and humbly accept only what the Bible offers, nothing more or less.

As often as we must earnestly contend for the truth on how the song service portion of our assembled worship is to be conducted in order to be patterned after the first century church, it strikes me as strange that brethren, who are otherwise in agreement, find conflict with each other concerning choruses. Before delving into the meat of the matter, perhaps we ought to back away just a bit in order to find some common ground, some principles upon which all may agree and try to work from there. May we all agree that, as it is with many things concerning the Law of Christ, it is the intent of the heart that makes an act a sin?
(After all, who will claim that their knowledge of the mind of God is entirely without flaw? If we concede that we may occasionally sin in ignorance, then, would it not be the sincere intent of the heart to learn, grow, and do right that allows us to remain in the good favor of the Lord? Conversely, it would be the selfish, willful heart that sins so egregiously when the intent is without regard for God’s will.)
Surely, we can agree on that much.

Assuming we agree thus far, take the principle into the ‘corporate,’ or assembled worship of a congregation. We can probably also agree that there is a beginning and an end to that designated period of worship. Since the Bible does not speak of time limits other than a particular day, the specifics must be decided by the leadership of the congregation, whether it is the eldership or the men struggling to fulfill that capacity. Generally speaking, most congregations at the start have a man stand in a leadership position, often to make announcements. This, by default, is the ‘beginning’. Usually, the conclusion of the final prayer is the indication that all may be dismissed. Having the understanding that the very idea of a beginning and end to our assembled worship is contested by some, for the purposes of this article it is assumed that those in dispute over choruses are sound enough in the faith to eschew the “all of life is worship” doctrine.

If we are in agreement thus far, we have accomplished at least something. Now let us agree that not only is it well and good to sing songs to the Lord on our own outside of the assembly, but it should be encouraged. Devotion to the Lord can and should be displayed openly, and if others happen to hear, only good can result. However, now we must be somewhat controversial: The rules that apply to our singing in the assembly also apply outside the assembly. The same can be said about any form of worship performed, whether in or out of the assembly. For example, prayer must always be directed to God the Father with Christ Jesus as the conduit, which we signify by saying “in the name of Jesus”. The ‘rules’ for prayer do not change when we are not in the assembly. Therefore, when we rightly conclude that our worshipful songs in the assembly must be sung without accompanying mechanical instruments, consistency demands that the same applies outside the assembly. Valid reasoning to the contrary has never been presented. The number of readers now in agreement may now be a bit narrower.

We may concede, for the moment, that one may not always be worshiping outright when singing these songs. One may be learning or practicing; in which case, it can be exceedingly difficult to have any worshipful intent. That is the crux, is it not? The intent of the heart combined with the essence of the action determines whether worship is acceptable to God. Stumbling in action may be tolerated so long as the predisposition, the intent of the heart is such that, if one finds there is a need for correction, he is predetermined to make amends. To do otherwise is obviously a willful violation of conscience (cf. Rom. 14:23b). Are we still together?

True enough, we are normally in no position to judge another’s motives or intent. However, when a person makes that intent known, either verbally or implied by their actions, we can indeed know the intent of their heart. It is not inappropriate to judge according to righteousness (cf. John. 7:24). If we happen to hear a person walking down a hallway, singing a worshipful song, we have no basis to judge whether their song is motivated by the proper intent. It could be that they are sincerely worshiping God or sincerely practicing the song, learning to serve in a better capacity. The only other prospect is the possibility that they are trying to draw attention to themselves. If there is another option, I do not know it, and I would gratefully thank anyone who can give me some other explanation. The point is that, without some indication of the person’s intent, we cannot presume to know it. We can only know the tree by its fruit (cf. Matt. 7:20).

Suppose, then, someone wanted to bring a chorus into the building in which the church worships, before or after the designated period for the ‘corporate’ worship. Legitimately opposing arguments in terms of appearance, consistency, or formality notwithstanding, it is the motive and intent that betrays its impropriety. The motives become apparent when a man or a group of men (assuming there are no women) steps out in front of others to display themselves conducting a worshipful act. They are clearly trying to draw attention to themselves. If they were practicing, they would (and probably should) do it privately. If they are worshiping, why design the scenario where an audience could view? Has the scripture ever spoken about this attitude toward worshipful acts? Indeed, it has: Matthew 6:1 – 18 refers to doing service to God through alms-giving or worshiping God in prayer and doing it “before men”. Such is called hypocritical and having no positive benefit because “they have their reward”. Would the principle not also apply to singing worshipful songs?

What about the person seated? Is their motive also displayed? When we sit in front of the television, our intent is obvious: we intend to be entertained in one form or another. The same occurs when a person purposefully comes (or stays when he normally would not) to watch (not participate with) others in song. If it were not worshipful songs, it would be called a concert, and those being completely honest are actually calling it that, for that is what it truly is: a concert designed for entertainment. The fact that they take songs ‘set aside’ for the worship of God – using them for the purpose of entertainment and self-aggrandizement – defines the meaning of profane. If it is something else, I would sincerely like to know what.

The idea that the singers are teaching and the auditors are learning is a smoke screen (not to mention inconsistent with the scriptural design of singing reciprocally). We learn while watching television too, but that fact does not change the motive. We all learn in everything we do, whether we intend to or not. We should never use the excuse that singing worshipful songs is not inherently wrong, in order to justify something done with inappropriate motives. That is what is known as a “non sequitur”, a conclusion that does not logically follow, or is not implied by the premises.
When our motives come from a desire to be seen of men, it is easy to recognize that our intent of heart needs some correction. Whether it is claimed to be personal worship, practice, or outright entertainment, the practice is hypocritical and certainly not scriptural. The brethren to the contrary of this position can still be considered brethren, and we endeavor to express the same longsuffering as the Lord whom we aspire to follow. I am convinced, nevertheless, that I stand on the safer ground, and if I am wrong, I have erred on the side of caution. Naturally, I stand ready to be corrected, but those who have stumbled with this in the past, I encourage you to make things right with God and the brethren. I hold nothing but affection for you in my motives, and my intent is to sing beside you in our Father’s heavenly rest.

-”Robetron”