To Associate or Not To Associate, that is the question.

I've been reading Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons from 1922. He was preaching in a meeting and I believe 45 congregations worked together. In describing the meeting he repeatedly says "each congregation was an independent unit and was in no way bound or obligated by any action taken by others." We insist on congregational autonomy but only if the other congregations do things the way we do things. We spend more time protecting our independence than we do anything else. It is a bit odd since Paul told Timothy to appoint elders in every city. He not say in every congregation. Interpretation is the key. Could mean elders overseeing more than one congregation.

 

As terrified as we are of getting to close to other congregations of the church of Christ we are even more terrified of getting to close to congregations of people who like ourselves are looking to follow Jesus but practice things different than we practice. We treat them as heathens.

 

When we refuse to associate with others who differ in their understanding of the Bible are we implying that we have all the truth and are right about everything? That we cannot unite with someone who differs without compromising our convictions? Does the Bible require we separate from all who differ in belief or practice?

 

When Paul calls for us to welcome (receive, accept) one another, he is including all our sincere brothers in Christ --- even the weakest of them. Doesn't he forbid judgment regarding their particular scruples and practices? 

 

Jesus did not accept us because we are right about everything. And since he accepts us while we are a sinner, poor, weak, and blind, how can we reject others because of the same qualities?

 

Doesn't separating from others who are in Christ work against Jesus' prayer for unity? When addressing the seven churches of Asia Jesus did not urge any to come out from among them and be separate by starting a pure, loyal church. They were warned to repent and reform. In the "dead" church in Sardis there were "a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. Like Lot in the midst of corrupt Sodom, a person may be a part of a sinful society and still remain righteous. One may be in a congregation without approving or participating in the prevalent sins of others in it. One cannot separate himself from sinful people entirely and he is guilty only of the sins that he practices or approves. No where do we read where one group was advised to separate from the rest within the church. Isn't similar advice today unscriptural and anti-scriptural? Aren't all groups flawed?

 

When Paul warned to "come out from them, and be separate from them," he was quoting Old Testament demands for separation from idolatrous involvements. Paul asked rhetorically, "What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" Paul is not calling for separation from brothers in Christ but from the Corinthian idolaters.

 

Is it possible we treat brothers and sisters in Christ as if they are idolaters? Is the brother in the Christian Church who obeyed the same gospel that we obeyed to be regarded as an idolater? Even though we may fear that a Baptist is in some error, is he an errant believer, an unbeliever or a servant of Belial? If he is not a believer, what is he? Is he a pagan or an atheist? He is attempting to serve the same Jesus we are attempting to serve. Those in the Church of Christ (even in our own congregation) who differ from us in a belief and/or practice — how are they to be classified? If separation from them is demanded will it be because they are unbelievers or idolaters?

 

Paul told the Christians in Rome that teachers who would create dissensions were to be noted and avoided. Paul had already taught them how to live in unity through mutual acceptance. No one was to be allowed to operate contrary to that doctrine by imposing his scruples on others so that division would be created. Those who were disturbing the unity in Rome were not sincere, ignorant, weak disciples, but they were selfishly licentious Judaizers.

 

In his letter to the Philippians Paul identifies them as perverted and sinful factious men to be ignored. The Thessalonian disciples were told to keep away from the deadbeat who would not work. Paul did not advise a withdrawal into separate congregations, but to "drive out the wicked person from among you." This action was not against any sincere brother who might hold some different ideas or practices, but it was toward the arrogantly immoral person among them. Is Paul directing us to drive out our brothers in the Christian Church as a group? Are they to be considered as flagrantly immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers? How about Baptists?

 

No writer advised one group of disciples to reject another group and start a separate congregation. Brothers are not to be dealt with as though they were idolaters.

 

Jesus prayed that we be one. The Spirit made us one. Paul begs us to keep that unity and says "welcome one another!" Do we demand that we divide from our brothers who differ?

 

Churches of Christ are pretty much homogenous groups. We do not go out of our way to make others not like us to feel welcome. We avoid people not like ourselves.

“Come Out And Be Separate!” - Cecil Hook, Free To Change

 

 

The plea to "come out from them and be separate from them" is being urged upon us with renewed passion since some of our people have been meeting with others of the Restoration Movement to discuss unity. This warning is coming from persons who fear compromise. The one calling for separation implies that he is with a group which has all the truth. If one thinks that he is right about everything, he cannot unite with someone who differs without compromising his own convictions. So he develops a spirit of exclusiveness which demands that he separate from all who differ from him in belief or practice.

 

…On the other hand, others are calling out, "Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7). They point out that Paul called upon us to receive one another in spite of differences of conviction and practice about such things as circumcision, eating of meats, and keeping of days.

Accept or separate from — which shall it be? Does this put us in a contradictory dilemma? Are there some fine lines of distinction that we hair-splitting scribes must detect and observe? If so, how treacherous the path to life becomes!

 

When Paul calls upon us to welcome (receive, accept) one another, he is including all our sincere brothers in Christ — even the weakest of them. He forbids that we judge them regarding their particular scruples and practices. Paul does not even grant us the luxury of looking upon a brother with contempt.

 

How should we accept each other? "As Christ has welcomed you!" Brother or sister, even though I do not know you, I do know that Christ did not accept you because you are so good, so right on everything, so lovable, and so perfect in all aspects. He accepted me when I was sinful, ignorant, misdirected, and lacking in every aspect. And I have not grown out of that state. Since he accepts me while I am a sinner, poor, weak, and blind, how can I have the audacity to reject others because of the same qualities?

 

To advise disciples to separate from others who are in Christ is to work against Jesus' prayer for unity. In addressing the seven churches of Asia with all their threatening problems, Jesus urged none to "come out from among them and be separate" by starting a pure, loyal church. Rather, they were warned to repent and reform. In the "dead" church in Sardis there were "a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy" (Rev. 3:4). Like Lot in the midst of corrupt Sodom, a person may be a part of a sinful society and still remain righteous (1 Pet. 2:7). One may be in a congregation without approving or participating in the prevalent sins of others in it. One cannot separate himself from sinful people entirely but he is guilty only of the sins that he practices or approves. One may be in a division without being divisive, or in a sect without being sectarian in spirit. In none of the epistles was one group advised to separate from the rest within the church. Such advice today is both unscriptural and anti-scriptural. There is no such thing as a congregation of the "one, true, pure church" to join. All groups are flawed.

 

When Paul resounded the Lord's warning to "come out from them, and be separate from them," he was quoting Old Testament demands for separation from idolatrous involvements. In this passage (2 Cor. 6:14-18) Paul is demanding, "Do not be mismated with unbelievers." He asks rhetorically, "What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" Paul is not calling for separation from brothers in Christ but from the Corinthian idolaters whose licentious worship at the temple of Venus, supported by prostitute priestesses, would be a temptation to the disciples.

 

What a sickened spirit it is that allows one to treat his own brothers in Christ as idolaters! Is the brother in the Christian Church who obeyed the same gospel that you obeyed to be regarded as an though he were an idolater? Even though you may fear that a Baptist is in some error, must you classify him as an unbeliever or a servant of Belial? If he is not a believer, what is he? Is he a pagan, a Buddhist, or an atheist? He is serving the same Jesus whom you serve. And those disciples in the Church of Christ (even in your own congregation) who differ from you in belief and practice — how do you classify them? If you demand separation from them, then you imply that they are as unbelievers and idolaters.

 

Paul says welcome, but Diotrophes says put them out! "He refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church" (3 John 9f). Do you stand with Paul or Diotrophes?

 

Teachers who would create dissensions were to be noted and avoided (Rom. 16:17f). In Chapters 14 and 15 Paul had already taught them how to live in unity through mutual acceptance. No one was to be allowed to operate contrary to that doctrine by imposing his scruples on others so that division would be created. Those who were disturbing the unity in Rome were not sincere, ignorant, weak disciples, but they were selfishly licentious Judaizers.

 

Paul identifies them further in the Philippian epistle (1:15; 3:2; 3:18f). The perverted and sinful factious man (Titus 3:10) was to be ignored. The Thessalonian disciples were told to keep away from the deadbeat who would not work (2 Thess. 3:6-13). In dealing with these believers, Paul advised no withdrawal into separate congregations. "Drive out the wicked person from among you," Paul instructs (1 Cor. 5:13). This action was not advised against any sincere brother who might hold some different ideas or practices, but it was toward the arrogantly immoral person among them. Read the entire chapter. Is this a directive for us to drive out our brothers in the Christian Church as a group? Are they to be considered as flagrantly immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers? Even the Baptists are not that bad!

 

In this passage, Paul is dealing with a brother, not a church. No inspired writer ever advised one group of disciples to reject another group and start a separate one. Brothers are not to be dealt with as though they were idolaters.

 

Jesus prayed that we be one. The Spirit made us one. Paul begs us to keep that unity and says "welcome one another!" Do you demand that we divide from our brothers who differ?

The Gathering / Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ

The website of The Gathering (http://www.thegatheringfamily.com/ says they began in 1999 and 10 years later have 1300 - 1400 attending their multiple services.
 
Their stated purpose is: "We offer contemporary, biblically-driven worship services that are alive with energy and creativity, as well as excellent childcare, exciting children's and student ministries and challenging programs for the men, women and senior adults."
 
I recognize they have a selected vision when it comes to the Bible. I am not addressing the rightness or wrongness of their activities I am addressing their activeness. Their activeness draws people, at least once.
 
What is the difference in the growth of Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ that began in 1992 and today has a membership of 140 or so and The Gathering that began in 1999 and today has an attendance of 1300 or so? I suggest the primary difference is The Gathering has at least one and maybe more "activities director(s)."
 
Groups do not survive without leaders with vision and I suggest we do not have leaders, not to mention leaders with vision. Our Men's Meetings take too many sessions to come to any conclusion of significance. We are afraid to call men or women leaders due to our not understanding how elders oversee congregations. When elders are the only leaders congregations have, those congregations aren't doing anything and do not survive long term.
 
No one looks at the "activities director" on a cruise liner or at resort hotel as the captain of the ship or the manager of the resort. They are not leaders; they are not usurping the authority of the captain or manager. They have a job to do and that is to keep the guests active.
 
The Gathering has a man or woman or both or more than one of either coming up with ideas for the group as a whole to become involved in.  It is most likely all of the ideas are not adopted nor does everyone participate in all of the ideas that are but they are doing things, they are active, they are involved. They have been planning their new building for several years and talking about what they will do but at the same time we were receiving mailers announcing what they are doing at the time and what they will be doing. We have nothing on the table for our new building. We have nothing to announce to the public.
 
Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ needs activity directors, idea generators, cheerleaders, encouragers, Barnabi (multiple Barnabases) and they will need our support, our participation; our involvement.
 
What is "unscriptural" or "unbiblical" for Great Smoky Mountains Church of Christ to hire "activity directors?" If you believe the concept to be sinful, what alternative do you suggest? How about no negatives without a corresponding positive.
 
How many of us will be around in fifteen years, how old will we be and will we be as active or more active than we are today?
 
Groups cannot and will not survive long term without leaders with vision.

Too Ecumenical?

Recently we as a congregation of the church of Christ have found it beneficial to visit the buildings of people who we believe teach religious error. We are not corrupted by visiting their buildings or by associating with them. At least some of us know them well enough to ask about visiting their buildings. Why don't we ask them over for a picnic on a Saturday afternoon? Why don't we have a singing and invite them to join us? Both groups consider themselves disciples of Jesus so why do we avoid them, and they us, until we want to evaluate their construction design skills? If we were in a foreign country we might not be so particular as to the religious practices of others who speak our language before deciding to associate with them or avoid them.

--
Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN

Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Website: http://www.greenbriersolutions.com  
Blog: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/

Inconsistency: It has its ups and downs.

When I Become a Millionaire vs When We Get Our New Building

Last week in class Al mentioned something about a person saying if they were a millionaire they would do a lot of good things and then mentioned about doing something with the dollar and a quarter the person's got. Can that be extrapolated to us and our new building? As an individual talks about what he will do when he is rich we talk about what we are going to do when we have the new building but what difference will the building make to Pigeon Forge? Unless it makes a difference we have spent money on our personal comfort, haven't we? Permitting only members of the church of Christ to use the building we are going to be insisting on a quantum leap in the involvement of our members aren't we? Think we will get it?

Poor Saints in Jerusalem

On the subject of the poor saints in Jerusalem, do we know why there were so many poor Christians in that city? Historically I am missing the cause. There was a famine around 47 but I believe 1st & 2nd Corinthians were written around 56 or so. Money was not necessarily the best item to contribute to the people caught up in Katrina so I imagine it was not necessarily the only thing needed by those people in Jerusalem especially if there was no food. Weekly collections would have taken a lot of storage capacity.

In the 1950s the contribution did not rate a prayer, at least in the congregations I remember attending. The congregations I would have attended would have been in Springfield Ohio and Chapel Avenue in Nashville where my grandfather was an elder. I remember when the congregation we attended decided to add a prayer. I remember hearing discussions concerning that giving it prayer status was putting to much emphasis on the physical. Up to that point after the communion the same men would grab a basket and collect. That would suggest the church in the early 20th century did not consider the contribution part of the "official worship" service but a necessity to pay the bills or possibly no purpose just the act of giving. Do you remember any movement for a prayer or was your experience different than mine? Am I too negative to suggest if we just had containers by each door the people would tend to give less than when silence rules and others are watching them? I know of a few congregations that deduct it from your savings or checking account. They still pass the basket but fewer people contribute that way. We might like it as a way of speeding up things.

I am not suggesting we should not support the local congregation but for us to use the collection Paul gave instructions to the church in Corinth for is taking it out of context. Anyone associated with a group should be willing to help the group pay its expenses. That is reason enough to keep the members involved in the decision making. Contributing to the support for the poor was a practice of Jesus and his apostles as well as with the early church and is not optional individually or corporately but we are comfortable with it being a minor purpose for our collection...

Since the purpose of the weekly collection was so that no collections would be necessary when Paul came through is the collection the only command we have that we can apply the principle but change the purpose?

The Lord's Day

The first day of the week was important to the Christians of the first century. While John was on Patmos he wrote that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. Jesus was raised on the first day of the week. After his resurrection Jesus met with his disciples on three succeeding first days of the week. The Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, the first day of the week. The disciples assembled on the first day of the week under the apostle's teaching. The writer of Hebrews admonished the readers to not forsake the assembling together. The assembly on the first day of the week was to join together to engage in the apostles fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Meeting on Saturday or any other day as a replacement for Sunday is unbiblical.

A Modern Parable - Batsell Barrett Baxter

A Modern Parable

Batsell Barrett  Baxter

The Work of the Church -- Evangelism

 

There was a farmer who owns a large field of grain. It is harvest time, and the wheat is already golden brown and needs to be cut. It must not be left in the field very long because the wind or the rain may destroy the crop. Early in the morning he goes into the small town and calls for helpers to come and harvest his crop. The immediate response is favorable and many respond to the invitation.

 

When they arrive at the field they see the golden harvest and are deeply impressed. They talk about what a wonderful privilege it is to get to harvest so big and bountiful a crop. But someone points out that the fence around this field is not very attractive. It is an old rock fence and in many places the stones have tumbled down. So the people set to building a new fence. They spend all morning getting stones from a nearby stream which they use to build a beautiful wall around the field.

 

When the fence is finished, someone suggests, "Let's get to work." Someone else responds, "Wait, if the sun gets any hotter, or if it should rain, we will need shelter." They all agree, so over in one corner of the field they build a shelter for themselves. It is so beautifully done that they decide to put a plaque on it, with names inscribe, so that everybody who passes by in generations to come will know just who was thoughtful enough to build such a wonderful shelter.

 

Then someone says, "Now let's get to the harvest." But others say, "It is noon and we ought first to eat." So they work diligently until quite a feast is prepared. It is in keeping with the beautiful wall and the fine shelter and is a wonderful feast indeed. After the dinner is finished, there is a period of rest, of course, and then someone says, "Now for the harvest." But someone else replies, " With such a great responsibility and with such a great challenge before us, do we not need to be better dressed than we are?" Immediately, each provides for himself better garments with which to do the harvesting. Then again they turn their thought to the golden grain and begin to sharpen the scythes with which to cut the grain. After a while they are razor sharp. But as they look at the grubby old handles they are not satisfied. They are unworthy instruments for so great a work. So they begin to carve those ugly handles into beautiful pieces, and some even add intricate filigree work of gold and silver. One man is even able to adorn his scythe with mother of pearl. It is truly a beautiful thing.

 

Now they are ready to go to the harvest. But suddenly someone says, "It is night, the sun is gone down." It is then that they realize that only a few have cut any grain. So these wonderful people (like us) turn back sorrowing with guilty feelings to meet the man who owns the field. He comes to meet them, expecting shoulders laden with heavy bags of grain, but instead he finds only beautiful tools and a story of wonderful fences and fine clothes and a good dinner and a shelter to take care of those who work. He asks sadly, "But where is the harvest?" the people are speechless and ashamed.

 

We No Longer Need God

We no longer need God to sustain us. We have science and technology. From the beginning of history, humans have known God as both the giver and the sustainer of life. Our ancestors planted seeds and prayed for rain. They thought the sunshine was a blessing, and they bowed their heads at harvest time. They gave thanks when livestock was born. Now, even those who believe in God no longer see him as the sustainer of life. Food comes from a grocery store and clothing from the mall, and shelter is desired for curb appeal.

Our contemporary spiritual unplugging brings a great sense of control. If we are clever and lucky, we can take care of our needs. We all enjoy the fruits of technology. Psychologists and scientists declare us freed from our superstitious shackles: It's foolish to depend on God to send the rain and protect us from the lightning. Yet despite having a record amount of control over our lives, something is amiss.

Ten percent of the women and three percent of the men in our country need an antidepressant to get through a day, a day with no fear of starvation, invasion, or want. What's wrong? We find we can buy a house but not a home. We can purchase entertainment, but not contentment. We can travel the globe, but feel utterly imprisoned. We have degrees, but little wisdom.

Perhaps more than any generation, we have rejected the concept of God the Sustainer, If God made nature to sustain us, and if we reject his sustaining gifts, will there be no consequences? I believe that we will have untold misery as we reject God as the source of our lives.

In our country and around the globe, the weather is becoming hostile. We are having record numbers of hurricanes, heat waves, floods, droughts in large part because we are abusing God's creation. God planned nature to sustain us. We should work with his plan, but this will require a new mindset.

In October 2004, the Indian subcontinent was flooded by a deadly tidal wave. Such events happened and will continue to happen., but one of the reasons for the record number of fatalities in this case was not the wave but the fact that all the mangrove trees along the shoreline, which normally hold back the waves, had been cut down to make way for the white sandy beaches so loved by the tourists.

As we manipulate nature without regard or concern for its underlying design, we will increasingly have to deal with unnatural problems

---J. Matthew Sleeth, MD

Serve God Save the Planet

 

How can We know what God expects us to do?

There are so many good things that need to be done, one person cannot do them all. Much of the time we wear ourself out in good works and still end the day feeling guilty.

This is a question with which many of us struggle at some time or another. When we begin to sink under its weight, however, that is a clear signal that we need to stop and realign our perspective. We all benefit from periodic mind-renewals (Rom. 12:2). Because our culture measures people's worth by their productivity, it is easy to slip into thinking that God takes the same view. In fact God created Adam and Eve in a completed paradise, then gave them the privilege of tending it as his caretakers. Similarly, he creates us new, fully accepted and forgiven already in Christ Jesus, then invites us to serve him as he leads (Eph. 2:8-10).

It is God's job, not ours, to be in charge of the world while he patiently works out its final redemption. He allows us to join in his work -- with all the joy of a five-year-old "helping" his mother make cookies or her father mow the yard. Indeed, God wants us to be busy -- "zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). Before we were born he envisioned what those good works would look like for each of us, then he gifted us with special abilities and temperaments needed to accomplish those very things (Ps. 139:16; Eph. 2:10). We may offer ourselves to God each new day, confident that he will fulfill his purpose in our lives and not forsake us while that is going on (Ps. 138:8).

God impressed these truths indelibly in my mind and heart one day in the late 1970's as I was praying while driving to my job as typesetter in a printshop. "Praying" is probably too generous. I was really grumbling -- explaining to God how he was wasting my talents with this particular job and reminding him of my resume. I ended my sass with an accusatory question: "Where has all this gotten me?" The answer was immediate, nonverbal and unmistakable. "You've got the question wrong," God told me. "It's not where this has gotten you, but have you been faithful with what you've been given?" That is one conversation I will never forget so long as I have a mind.

God doesn't need us to do anything. And he isn't a harsh taskmaster concerned only with productivity. He is rather a loving Father who enables what he asks, who invites us as beloved children to join in his own work -- more for enjoying the company than for any good we will do. We can actually be God's fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:9)! He doesn't expect you or me to do everything. He does have just the right job in mind for each of us today. We need only ask him to reveal it to us -- then to bring him glory and ourselves enormous satisfaction by doing it.

Sunday is Not Worship

The Church of Christ habitually calls what we do on Sundays and Wednesdays, in fact for every assembly, worship. We have even identified five acts of worship: praying, singing, preaching, giving, and the Lord's Supper.

 

Not being any reference to these practices as "items of worship" in the Bible the reference grew out of the Restoration Movement

 

Since members of the Church of Christ are big on commands, examples and necessary inferences considering them to be worship confuses people to say praying for ourselves, singing to each other, giving to ourselves, listening to preaching are items of worship and primarily nonparticipatory at that being sit and listen (the two items we can actually participate in are targeted for reducing to a minimum the time spent involved in them). All of that could be certainly edifying but worship?

 

Paul told the members of the church in Rome each should present their body a living sacrifice and what we do on Sundays is hardly that. Members are generous with their money but often not with their time. Sunday is not a day of worship. Attending requires involvement. Being present requires involvement. Leaving to present our body a living sacrifice requires involvement. 

 

In an attempt to reduce the brain drain of young people from the assembly everything we do should be supported by the Bible. They want to worship and they want to be involved and their questions indicate they do not accept standard explanations or definition of what is acceptable or unacceptable and certainly not our lack of involvement.

 

For years the church has accepted as inevitable that people will not attend Bible classes, Sunday Evenings and Wednesday Evenings. Who knows what would be if everything was more than sit and listen? Worship is not sitting and listening. That is the OT priesthood between the people and God as well as Catholic the priest being always between the people and Christ. The people do no need someone standing between them an God. We are all priests. We worship Jehovah directly. Worship requires involvement.

 

Calling Sunday worship, which the Bible does not, the people are encouraged to believe they have completed their worship for the week with no further need for further involvement.

 

Since there is no reference to these practices as items of worship church leaders should not consider them such. They items mentioned can be but the way we practice them they are not. If our practices come out of the Restoration Movement we are no longer the church Jesus established on Pentecost we are the church established in the 1800s. The physical things you mention are not part of anything but facilitate the activities.

 

In the business community it is said insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results.

 

Is the church insane?

 

So You're In A Hurry.

Some years ago two Princeton University psychologists, John Darley and Daniel Batson, decided to conduct a study inspired by the biblical story of the Good Samaritan.

Darley and Batson met with a group of seminarians, individually, and asked each one to prepare a short, extemporaneous talk on a given biblical theme, then walk over to a nearby building to present it. Along the way to the presentation, each student ran into a man slumped in an alley, head down, eyes closed, coughing and groaning. Darley and Batson introduced three variables into the experiment, to make its results more meaningful. First, before the experiment even started, they gave the students a questionnaire about why they had chose to study theology. Did they see religion as a means for personal and spiritual fulfillment? Or were they looking for a practical tool for finding meaning in everyday life? Then they varied the subject of the theme the students were asked to talk about. Some were asked to speak on the relevance of the professional clergy to the religious vocation. Others were given the parable of the Good Samaritan. Finally, the instructions given by the experimenters to each student varied as well.In some cases, as he sent the students on their way the experimenter would look at his watch and say, "Oh you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago. We'd better get moving." In other cases, he would say, "It will be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well head over now."

If you ask people to predict which seminarians played the Good Samaritan (and subsequent studies have done just this) their answers are highly consistent. They almost all say that the students who entered the ministry to help people and those reminded of the importance of compassion by having just read the parable of the Good Samaritan will be the most likely to stop. Most or us, I think, would agree with those conclusions. In fact, neither of those factors made any difference. "It is hard to think of a context in which norms concerning helping those in distress are more salient than for a person thinking about the Good Samaritan, and yet it did not significantly increase helping behavior," Darley and Batson concluded. "Indeed on several occasions, a seminary student going to give his talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over the victim as he hurried on his way." The only thing that really mattered was whether the student was in a rush. Of the group that was, 10 percent stopped to help. Of the group who knew they had a few minutes to spare, 63 percent stopped.

What this study is suggesting is that convictions of your heart and the actual contents of your thoughts are less important, in the end, in guiding your actions that the immediate context of your behavior. The words "Oh, you're late" had the effect of making someone who was ordinarily compassionate into someone who was indifferent to suffering---of turning someone, in that particular moment, into a different person.