Skip to main content

The Purpose Driven Problem

The Purpose Driven Problem

by Rick Shrader

President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Wisdom is nine-tenths a matter of being wise in time.  Most of us are too often wise after the event.”1 However true this is of all of us, it is still better to be wise late about something than not wise at all.  When I first read Rick Warren’s “Purpose” books I set them aside for lack of interest.  When The Purpose Driven Church came out in 1995 I wrote a review of it in this paper as another “nickels and noses” church growth book (which it truly is).  Having grown up around large churches, I didn’t see new concepts, just new methods put to the same old philosophy.  I still would argue that this first book is much more definitive of Warren’s philosophy of church growth than the second.  When The Purpose Driven Life came out in 2002 I wrote a shorter review in this paper (both of which can be read online), not thinking at all that it would be as popular as the first.  I saw it as a sort of large religious (I don’t say “gospel”) tract that didn’t need 40 days to read but for some reason was making that request.  There were much better explanations of the Christian life and of Christian doctrine on my book shelf than to spend too much time on this.  I was greatly surprised to see the enormous popularity of this obviously mundane book, not just among Christians but non-Christians as well.

Therein lies part of the reason for my late re-thinking about The Purpose Driven Life.  Why had this book become so widely popular with “Christendom” of all stripes and of all levels, but more intriguing, even with “non-Christendom” people such as Fidel Castro, who requested an autographed copy, which I suppose he received, or the president of Rhawanda (though a professing Roman Catholic)?  Upon a second reading of the book and after reading several other opinions (and having the advantage of hind-sight) my view of the book has been refined.  I believe it is a self-centered, self-help version of Christianity that is obviously palatable enough even for unbelievers, and is something like the old Mother-Hubbard dresses that cover everything and touch nothing. The best example is the only explanation of salvation in the book (p. 58).  It is a short paragraph and, ironically, requires much previous Biblical knowledge if one is to respond with any cognitive understanding of the gospel (of course, this gospel sleight of hand allows the reader to read into it anything that suits him).  I have heard others say that the salvation explanation at Purpose Driven conferences is no better.

It ought to make us cautious when the most spiritually immature among the church desire a certain thing.  It is not insignificant that in churches where the Purpose Driven philosophy is “taking over,” the older people are being driven away or asked to leave, and the younger people are taking ownership not just of the worship service but also of the facilities and assets.  It ought to make us even more cautious when lost people desire a certain thing because it makes them comfortable in the church and makes them even more emboldened in their unbelief.  Today’s Evangelical love-affair with Roman Catholicism is one of the most obvious examples.  From the ECT document to Promise Keepers to The Passion, Evangelicals have tried to convince themselves that Catholics are born again.  It is not politically correct to say otherwise (which will be proven by the response I’ll get to these few lines).  The point is that when these phenomena are present, the offense of the cross is absent, and where the offense of the cross is absent, the natural man gravitates especially in religious matters.  Self-help and self-esteem are the religions of the natural man and if you couple those with self-revelation tailor-made for the individual’s life-style and belief system, well then, you have yourself a big winner in this world!

Self-Revelation

It is this point that I think is most potentially dangerous to the gospel and Christianity in general: the specific revelation of God to individuals apart from the Scriptures.  This is largely seen in the flippant use of “Purpose” and other words  such as “Vision” and “Dream” or even “Heart.”  Slight equivocation with words has never seemed to bother us much.  We can call any amazing thing a “miracle” and not care that the definition has been violated; we can say that “God told us” something and not be bothered that, had this really been true, it would legitimize everyone from Mohammed to Joseph Smith.  But the “beauty” about such uses is that anyone can attach whatever nuances one wishes to the meaning.  In Rick Warren’s world, “Purpose” is a mile wide and an inch deep.  And it fits with a growing list of words that the natural man loves.

I have long objected to the popular use of the word “vision” to mean the particular direction God has given to some leader.  If we could use this word “in-house,” so that the nuances never strayed from orthodox theology, we could excuse the liberties taken.  But this word has come to mean that God gives leaders their own individual revelation about what He wants them to do.  This becomes the mark of a gifted leader and followers are supposed to fall in line because, of course, this is the will of God!  Those who disagree are acting contrary to what God wants.  George Barna has made this tact popular more than any contemporary writer even titling one of his books, The Power of Vision.  In almost all of his writings he pushes this leadership quality.  For example he says, “When God raises up leaders, He has a specific vision for the people those leaders have been called to mobilize.  Knowing God’s vision for the ministry is the starting point for effectively leading people forward.”2 From this we develop “vision statements” (like every hamburger joint in town!) that, transcending previous doctrinal statements, become declarations of what God has told this particular leader to do.  The natural man loves this kind of talk.  It releases him from the unchangeable Scripture which everyone must follow if they are to be right with God.

Bruce Wilkinson is now trying to develop the word “Dream” in the same vein with his book, The Dream Giver.  The believer is encouraged to seek the dream God has for him.  When he accepts this, he finds that his dream is merely part of the larger dream that God Himself has.  The “dreamer” is supposed to pray, “Please make me into the person I need to be to do the Dream You have created me to do.”3 This should be no surprise from the man who gave us The Prayer of Jabez, the prosperity-gospel book on prayer.  These kinds of books are so popular because they make man the receptor of his own divine revelation.  The Scriptures are still there but, as in the Catholic Church, only as another revelation.

Another popular book has been John Eldredge’s, Wild at Heart.  Here, a man’s “heart” becomes the receptacle for God’s specific purpose and revelation.  Again, in an equivocating but unapologetic manner, he writes, “There are no formulas with God.  Period.  So there are no formulas for the man who follows him.  God is a Person, not a doctrine.  He operates not like a system—not even a theological system—but with all the originality of a truly free and alive person.”  Eldredge then quotes Archbishop Anthony Bloom, “You must enter into it and not just seek information about it.”4 This is more great news to the sinner running from God.  The conviction of his heart may only be God revealing a new and better direction.

Warren has hit upon this natural desire in a popular way.  What better word than the seemingly innocent word “purpose?”  Throughout his book this theme reoccurs:  “Your purpose becomes the standard you use to evaluate which activities are essential and which are not” (p. 31); “God wants you to use your natural interests to serve him and others.  Listening for inner promptings can point to the ministry God intends for you to have” (p. 238); “Celebrate the shape God has given you” (p. 252).5 Warren has some good Baptist roots, and his use of “purpose” is sometimes directed toward Scripture, but not always and not clearly.  I am afraid that, to the sinful world, “The Purpose Driven Life” is another name for “My” purpose and God’s special revelation to “Me.”

Self-Help, Self-Esteem

A second danger in Warren’s (and others’) writings is the definite belief that people are not as bad as “mean-spirited” preachers have made them out to be, and that whatever their heart desires and expresses is simply an expression of how God made them, not of some sinful bent.  Warren says, “God doesn’t expect you to be perfect, but he does insist on complete honesty.  None of God’s friends in the Bible were perfect” (p. 92).  “The best style of worship is the one that most authentically represents your love for God, based on the background and personality God gave you” (p. 102).  John Eldredge says, “The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than a ‘sinner saved by grace’ . . . In the core of your being you are a good man” (p. 144).  Now, anyone who dares challenge such positive language, Eldredge calls a “Poser” and Wilkinson calls a “Boarder Bully” and Warren says, “Holds things up.”

The equivocation comes when people who know both sides of an issue only write about one side.  Warren knows (I assume) that man is a sinner; that his heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.  He surely knows that sinners don’t choose the things of God by nature and that the imagination of man’s heart is evil continually; that this is because of the Fall into sin which changed the whole relationship of the original creation into what it is today.  But this part of Biblical information is almost entirely absent in the “Purpose” books.  Man is seen as basically good in his nature and sin is only a minor glitch in the human personality.  Salvation then becomes a discovery of the real “you,” the real “purpose” that God has given you, the “dream” that needs to be realized.  I heard Dr. Kevin Bauder say not long ago, “Pelagius denied the good news by denying the bad news.”  I am afraid, for whatever good may be in the Purpose Driven material, the real Good News is woefully lacking because the bad news cannot be admitted.

The appeal to the natural man is nowhere seen more today than in the area of “redeeming the culture.”  This has become an excuse for anyone to participate in any questionable thing he chooses while confessing that he is simply trying to redeem the good cultural qualities.  If a cultural “mandate” can be added, then there is also even a command from God to change the social structure, the political climate, the arts and entertainment, and so on.

Where will this “cultural relevancy” take us?  One advertisement from Branson, MO invites church groups to a Rock concert with this explanation:  “Respect yourself, be generous, be diligent in your craft, and celebrate the good of what rock represents.  Don’t concentrate on the anger and rebellion, appreciate the freedom rock brought to music and is expressed in the music; freedom which is the hallmark of our country, freedom which is fought for.  And give honor to those serving in our armed forces and defending our freedom today.”  An ad in a Tennessee newspaper says, “Spiritual event wants GodMen, not girly men:  Testosterone-fueled alternative to Promise Keepers debuts here.”  Then the first paragraph contains this:  “At the daylong GodMen event downtown Saturday, men will be able to cuss, smoke cigars, watch videos of football pileups and car crashes . . . Listen to specially composed Christian rock songs such as Testosterone High.”

And So . . .

Have we ever seen a day when it has been more needful to preach the whole counsel of God?  We must reclaim the Bible as our Final Authority  and recast a complete and honest view of man’s sinful condition before a just and holy God.

Notes:
1. Quoted by J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1971) 52.
2. George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church (Nashville:  Word Publishing, 1998) 164.
3. Bruce Wilkinson, The Dream Giver (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Pub., 2003) 121.
4. John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 2001) 209.
5. Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2002) 252.

 

Seeker Sensitive or Sinner Sensitive? (p...

Seeker Sensitive or Sinner Sensitive? (part 2)

by Rick Shrader

The last issue I presented what I believe to be the obvious short-comings of the Seeker Sensitive movement.  It has been my observation that this movement, though beginning with good intentions, has strayed from the biblical model of evangelism.  “Seekers” have become a market place and the gospel a commodity, the price of which has been continually lowered to meet the demands of the consumer.  The tragic loser is the sinner himself who has been misled to believe that salvation can be on his terms rather than God’s.

The Seeker Sensitive movement has coined a good phrase but it is a misnomer, a name wrongly used to describe what is happening in contemporary churches.  A poor person who buys an expensive product because of how it was advertised can’t be said to have had his needs met.  Sinners who are drawn to church by advertising the church to be worldly can’t be said to have had their needs met.  Seekers by  convenience must become sinners by conviction if their needs are to be honestly met.  As has already been said, any church could draw a crowd.  But to what extent is it willing to go just to attract people to the church?

After a couple decades of studying generations and fads, from boomers to millennials, postmoderns to convergents, I wonder if we will one day discover that these were but a small percentage of our society yet we had changed all our churches to please them.  It wouldn’t be the first time a society has wagged the whole dog by the tail of the culturally elite.  (The next time you are in a crowded grocery store or the local auto parts outlet, ask yourself how many of these people know or care which French deconstructionist turned semiotics into the methodology of kitsch within the church!)  Most people are still normal people.  They understand normal language and they will make an intelligent decision when presented with one.  The gospel will be understood and either accepted or rejected as it should be and must be.  If there is a small segment of society that has become angry at God and cannot love His church, then that is a human choice for which they will be responsible before God as well.  Let’s give them the gospel too, plainly and lovingly, but without change, compromise or regret.  There are still many people who are waiting to hear the message of hope and who will respond positively when they hear it.  In Corinth, Paul might have been tempted to make his message more palatable because of the negative reception and the threat of Gallio’s judgment seat, but the Lord appeared to him and said, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city (Acts 18:9-10).  God still has “much people” in our towns and cities  who are waiting for the good news of Christ.

In the early part of the twentieth century, J. Gresham Machen was noticing similar trends within the Presbyterian Church, USA.  Long before his departure from that body he wrote the following words,

The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task — she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance.  Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin.  The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows:  ‘You people are very good,’ he says; ‘you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible — especially in the life of Jesus — something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people.’  Such is modern preaching.  But it is entirely futile.  Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.1

The Sinner-Sensitive Model

Jesus did not call the self-righteous to repentance.  That is, He knew that a person must see himself as a sinner before he will truly believe.  It is in this regard that I believe we must become “Sinner Sensitive.”  The following points parallel but contrast with the six points made about the Seeker Sensitive movement.

1. It starts with separation

Whereas the Seeker Sensitive model starts with assimilation of the church into the world and the world into the church, conservative Christianity has understood that God commands His children to be separate from the world because this brings power and effectiveness to our witness.  This is true both of personal separation issues:  Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19); and also of ecclesiastical separation issues:  But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.  If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work (vss 20-21).

In spite of the untrue accusations that separatists hide their heads in the sand and don’t go out into the world as witnesses, time has shown that more people have been won to Christ in the age of grace, especially the last hundred years, by separatists than anyone else!  But, we go into the world without being of the world.  It’s all right for the ship to be in the sea, but when the sea gets into the ship the whole project is lost.  The cross of Christ is a stumblingblock and even brings shame to the carrier, but that is what brings power to the gospel message:  the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings (Phil. 3:10).  Paul said: God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14).  C.H. Spurgeon, in his own “Downgrade Controversy” wrote, “At any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty.”2

2. It is designed for the saint

The Church of Jesus Christ is the body of believers gathered to do His business.  Sinners are not only welcome to come but are also invited to come!  When they come they will see what believers do in church and may find that to be uncomfortable.  But that is what they should find.  That is the beginning of the conviction process which is necessary for the gospel witness.  Not every patient that walks into the emergency room of the hospital finds it to be comfortable, yet it surely is necessary.  As Paul admonished the Corinthians, if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth (1 Cor. 14:24-25).

3. It is drawn by pneumatology

Rather than drawing people by seeker methodology, the church has and should seek the power of the Holy Spirit to draw the sinner to Christ.  When Paul wrote back to the Thessalonian believers he confessed, For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake (1 Thes. 1:5).  No amount of entertainment and emotional release can draw a sinner to repentance and faith.  In fact, these things only cloud the issue and place roadblocks in the way that will take a life-time to overcome.  The Holy Spirit desires to speak of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment (John 16:8).  This is what made Felix tremble before the gospel and plead for a more convenient season (Acts 24:25).

4. It continually seeks conviction

Many today have concluded that pressing a person about his lost condition is a negative to the gospel.  Ed Dobson says, “In our context, walking down an aisle puts people on the spot; it applies pressure that is inappropriate when people are fragile and confronted with their relationship to God.”3 I’m sure Agrippa would have liked Dobson more than Paul when he cried out, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian (Acts 26:27) and Festus said, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad (Acts 26:24).  This is the vital difference in the two approaches!  The seeker approach seeks to protect itself from the sinner’s scorn, but the soul-winner is willing to commend himself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).  It is this placing ourselves at risk with the sinner’s conscience that keeps us from the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully.”

5. It aims toward repentance and faith

Though I believe that the seeker movement desires to see people saved, their emphasis on pleasing the sinner detracts from the path to repentance.  Historically, when the zeal of preaching public repentance to sinners waned, easier methods of counting converts arose such as confirmation classes.  People were educated into Christ and blended into the church.  I believe that will gradually happen in the seeker churches as people are brought in slowly and “brought up to speed” on how a “Christian” should act in the church.  Vance Havner noticed this trend fifty years ago when he wrote, “We have made it easy for hundreds superficially to ‘accept Christ’ without ever having faced sin and with no sense of need.  We are healing slightly the hurt of this generation, trying to treat patients who do not even know they are sick.”4 Conservatives, whether fundamentalists or evangelicals, have become known for their forthrightness with the gospel.  Public invitations and soul winning have become trademarks for evangelistic churches. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences (2 Cor. 5:11).

6. It ends in changed lives

The bottom line of effective evangelism is a new creation in Christ!  The New Testament does not entertain the idea of a believer whose life does not change.  In such cases (as with Simon in Acts 8) the professing believer is either disciplined or not accepted as a true believer.  This is not to discount the normal growth pattern of new believers as old things are passed away; behold, all things are become (perfect tense: “are becoming”)  new (2 Cor. 5:17); it is to expect that the new birth makes new creatures.  The sad but obvious truth is that the seeker movement has proved the adage, “what you win them with is what you win them to.”  Many can claim that lives are changed, but only because the whole biblical standard for a changed life has been redefined before the person ever “signed on.”

A common accusation about older saints is that they won’t change.  The irony of that is that our older saints did change!  Years ago when they came to Christ, they left their old lives and became new creatures in Christ.  And, they have remained changed!  They are right to object to this accusation when those making it are refusing to make the same change and have no intention of changing from what they were to what they should become.  It is not the older people who won’t change, it is the new generation who is refusing to come to our churches and our faith unless we agree that they won’t have to leave their old life style.

And So . . . .

Our conservative, traditional or “normal” churches have no need to hang their heads nor to feel inferior to the seeker sensitive churches.  It is not that our services are perfect by any means.  But until a better idea than the seeker model comes along, I think we’ll stay where we are and where we have been for centuries.  The Scripture is our only measure of success.  We will keep conforming to that, but not to the latest thing men have proposed.

Notes:
1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1923) 68.
2. C.H. Spurgeon, The Downgrade Controversy (Pasadena:  Pilgrim Publications, nd) 72.
3. Ed Dobson, Starting A Seeker Sensitive Service (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1993) 110.
4. Vance Havner, Hearts Afire (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, nd) 51.

 

Seeker Sensitive or Sinner Sensitive? (...

Seeker Sensitive or Sinner Sensitive? (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

Maybe it’s just me but does it seem as if many are saying that no one has been “sensitive” to “seekers” until the end of the twentieth century? One gets the feeling from such writers that until recently most Christian evangelism was overly aggressive, mean-spirited, and did everything possible to turn sinners off to the gospel.  But now, thanks to contemporary cultural relevancy, the world can finally be won because now we can understand and truly reach out to the sinner.

And if that is not the case, then at least it must be true that although Moody, Spurgeon, Finney, Whitfield and others did evangelism differently in their own day, they too would surely make the change to “seeker-sensitive” evangelism if they were alive today.  Why, you ask?  Because although 90% of what they wrote and practiced seems to be to the contrary, surely such innovative thinkers of those days would agree with what seems to be successful in our day.

The problem is only partly one of semantics.  As I hinted above, this isn’t the first generation of believers to be sensitive to those seeking Christ.  In fact, having grown up in fundamental Baptist churches, few ministers today may have the passion for souls that those old fundamental preachers had.  It seems to me that in order to convince us that today’s seeker-sensitive churches are better, much effort has to be taken to discredit those evangelistic churches of the past as being legalistic, numbers-oriented, controlling and otherwise insincere.

In defending Willow Creek’s seeker-sensitive approach, G.A. Pritchard begins by telling us that now Christians no longer “have to be rude or obnoxious in sharing their faith.”1 Ed Dobson, in defending his seeker approach begins by telling us that “to reach the nonevangelical generation of our day, we must break out of our tradition-bound isolation and relate the gospel to people where they are.”2 One Focus on the Family book on evangelism begins by saying, “Many Christians of our generation were taught mechanical, aggressive (some would say intrusive) methods of evangelism that produced minimal results.”3 (See also Ernest Pickering’s answer to Chuck Swindoll in The Book Shelf.) These unkind (and mostly untrue) remarks are all too typical in seeker-sensitive material but they succeed in getting the younger reader to identify with them in their quest for change.

The semantic problem arises in the use of the terms “seeker” and “sensitive.”  Though it is true that older Fundamentalists were also seeker-sensitive, the “seeker” of today’s seeker-sensitive movement may or may not be a “seeker” of the gospel at all.  The “sensitive” nature of contemporary churches may or may not be truly “sensitive” to sinners at all.  Any church of any age could “attract” lost people if they wanted to, but the question has always been what is proper for a church to do!  To be “relevant” (for the Christian) has never meant what has “worked” but rather what is right to do at that particular time.

What did Paul mean when he wrote that “there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11)?  What did Jesus mean when He said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44)?  I don’t have to believe in irresistible grace to understand that a sinner does not desire nor seek the things of God, and that the sinner must be drawn to Him by the Holy Spirit and the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is very particular in the way He works.

I think that the seeker-sensitive movement has wrongly characterized past evangelism as consisting mostly of offensive, in-your-face type of people.  This just isn’t true though the young people today have no way of verifying it.  Of course there were exceptions as there are in any age in any movement.  Many large churches of the past fifty years were too pragmatic for my conscience as well.  There is no doubt that many large churches of the past fifty years used methodologies designed only for nickels and noses.  The critical difference, in my opinion, is that the moral nature of methodologies has changed drastically in fifty years.  Giving bus kids candy just does not compare to turning the whole church into a musical rock concert designed to imitate the world so that they will come to church.  You might say both were “seeker-sensitive” but the nature as well as the results of those methods have been noticeably different.

The Seeker-Sensitive Model

Here are what I might call six “marks” or “characteristics” of most contemporary churches.  In this issue I will give these from the “seeker-sensitive” model, and then in the next issue I will give these from what I call the “sinner-sensitive” model.

1. It starts with assimilation

In today’s seeker-sensitive model the sinner is slowly assimilated into the fellowship and services of the church and the church is readily assimilated into the culture of the world.  Paul is not being a prude when he says, Come out from among them, and be ye separate (2 Cor. 6:17).  Pritchard says that “Hybels identifies with [unchurched] Harry by adopting his language, clothing, customs, and lifestyle.  Whenever it is possible, Hybels underlines that he is similar to the unchurched Harry who has just walked in the door.”4

This should sound odd to anyone reading his Bible on a regular basis.  This is not just being neighborly, or adjusting your clothing for some event, but rather changing your whole life-style to make the sinner feel good.  It also keeps the Christian from feeling out of place in the world.

2. It is designed for the sinner

Assimilation leads quickly to a new design for the church altogether.  It is now more comfortable for the sinner than for the saint.  Almost everything, especially the Sunday services, is planned with the sinner’s tastes and thought processes in mind.  Emerging church leader Brian McLaren admits that making this change is dictated by the church’s “mission” (read: subjective vision), “So, the new church will be relativistic about its program.  It will expect change.”5 Paul says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

3. It is drawn by methodology

The sinner is now being drawn into the church and supposedly to Christ almost entirely by the new methodologies being employed for his sake.  No longer is the sinner expected to be uncomfortable or feel out of place.  Though I’m sure seeker-sensitive proponents would disagree, but at this point it becomes less and less of a possibility that the sinner is being drawn by the Holy Spirit.  Conviction has been greatly minimized and the spiritual has been cleverly disguised.

George Barna calls this “marketing” a “viable component of ministry.”6 Dobson says this search for methodology led him to “informal, contemporary (nontraditional), no pressure for involvement or commitment, relevant to these people’s needs, casual, ‘laid-back’ format, visually appealing.”7 Pritchard says, “Although Creekers avoid the word entertainment they are seeking to creatively provide an interesting, agreeable, and amusing experience to unchurched Harry.”8 This is, or comes dangerously close to corrupting (lit. “hawking”) the word of God (2 Cor. 2:17).

4. It continually seeks acceptance

It is hoped that the sinner, by the use of agreeable church services, will agree with and accept the church’s new disposition.  At the same time the church has learned to “accept” the sinner.  But more than just accepting the fact that he is a sinner, and that therefore he can’t and won’t act as a believer, the church is learning to accept the sinner’s life-style as the norm.  After all, it has done everything it can to present itself as being very much like the sinner in all outward ways, it is no wonder that the church begins to live in every way like the sinner.  Hybels is proud of the “thousands of churches and pastors who have altered their music, programming, and preaching to be ‘seeker friendly’ or ‘seeker sensitive.’”9 But Paul asked, For do I now persuade men, or God?  Or do I seek to please men?  For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ (Gal. 1:10).  We do better to persuade men and please God.

5. It aims toward friendship and love

These are good things in and of themselves and things that the Bible teaches.  But they can be used wrongly as an end in themselves.  An indulgent parent, for example, may spoil and ruin a child because he/she is seeking the child’s friendship and love at all costs.  Paul had to scold the Corinthian church for withholding discipline because they loved the sinning man so much. Your glorying is not good.  Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (1 Cor. 5:6).

Churches may do the same and this is a difficult motive to discern.  As a pastor for over twenty years, examples would be easy to find where church leaders and parents felt pressured (and often gave in) to push for change in the church because their kids weren’t happy.  The strain on homes and churches can be great and even children can make life miserable for parents if they are unhappy at church.  Whole churches can be held hostage by unhappy young people who grow weary of traditional church life.

This misuse of a good thing can carry over into evangelism.  We can be so concerned that the sinner likes us and feels love from us that we compromise our very convictions in order to please him.  Ironically, as with an indulgent parent, the acquiescence turns out to be anything but friendship and love.

6. It ends in unchanged lives

I am not seeking to be “judgmental” beyond what the Bible presents as the fruits of our profession.  We cannot avoid, however, evaluating our philosophies and methodologies on the basis of the final product.  Across the board or blanket conclusions cannot be drawn about any methodology.  Human beings are free moral agents and can respond to God favorably or not in almost any given situation.  But observation and common sense would suggest that where no change of life is displayed as the goal, no change of life will be achieved.

In society, cultural observers may call this “defining deviancy down” or simply finding the lowest common denominator of social behavior.  What do we expect, when we have lowered the expectations and redefined  the behavior, if our young people rise no higher than the world around them?A separated or changed young person would simply be out of place in a seeker church.  All the other young people have dutifully changed back into the mode of the world.  J.I. Packer’s observation is very appropriate,  “Reacting against yesterday’s legalistic prohibitions regarding tobacco, alcohol, reading matter, public entertainment, dress, cosmetics, and the like, we have become licentious and self-indulgent, unable to see that the summons to separation and cross-bearing has anything to say to us at all.”10

And So . . .

It has been my contention that the “seeker-sensitive” movement has lost its way.  In fact, it lost its way when it started in a wrong direction.  It is not doing what is best for the seeker and is therefore not sensitive in a proper Christian sense to him. We are ambassadors, not salesmen.  The gospel is a sacred trust not a product to be sold to the highest bidder.

In next month’s part 2 article, I will contrast these six “seeker-sensitive” points with six “sinner-sensitive points.

Notes:
1. G.A. Pritchard, Willow Creek Seeker Services (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1996) 24.
2. Ed Dobson, Starting a Seeker Sensitive Service (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 15.
3. William Carr Peel & Walt Larimore, Going Public With Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) 20.
4. Pritchard, 123.
5. Brian McLaren, The Church on the Other Side (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2000) 43.
6. George Barna, Church Marketing (Ventura, CA:  Regal Books, 1992) 14.
7.Dobson, 25.
8. Pritchard, 99.
9. Pritchard, 12.
10. J.I. Packer, Truth and Power (Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996) 145.

 

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 3)

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 3)

by Rick Shrader

This is the third article in a series having to do with a comparison between conservative and contemporary churches.  Labels are often unfortunate because contemporary churches may also call themselves fundamental or conservative in certain ways.  They usually mean that they are conservative in their list of “doctrinal” beliefs although other beliefs about biblical practices have changed.  Those that call themselves “conservative” may also include a number of beliefs and/or practices such as dress codes, Bible versions and particular doctrines.

My purpose has been to describe those differences that affect the appearance and practice of the church, especially its public worship service. It has been my contention that doctrine and application must go hand in hand, and that methodologies must be an outgrowth of basic doctrinal beliefs. Our church services and practices are the most important (and most visible) declaration of our belief system.  The list I have made is what one would probably find in a “conservative, traditional (small “t”), non-contemporary, Baptist church.  Few things find 100% consistency.

Pastors and Deacons

Conservative churches make use of the Biblical officers of the church as given in Paul’s epistles (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).  Baptist churches usually have the two offices of pastor and deacons.  There may be multiple pastors on staff but there is usually a senior pastor/teacher whom the congregation has called to be their pastor.  I do not discount conservative churches who use an elder system as not being conservative.  That is a point of church polity, but for my part I believe that there are only two “offices” and not three.  My point here is that conservative churches use and rely on the offices and officers that the New Testament describes and they will be visible in the operation of the church.

Conservative churches find no place for ordaining women to the Christian ministry.  There are no such examples in the New Testament (though some prophesied, this was a miraculous gift for the apostolic days which has not continued) and there are no qualifications given for women in ministry.  That having been said, conservative churches have always found many places of service for women (though not teaching of adult men)  in various important church ministries.  A conservative church makes the New Testament its basis for belief and practice, and does not place current political correctness above Scriptural example.  Therefore, neither should a church place a novice in office nor a man who is practicing immorality or who is unspiritual according to the apostle’s qualifications.  Between 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul gives twenty seven separate qualification characteristics for pastors alone!

I have written often (already in this short series) about the tragedy of placing young people in leadership positions while at the same time pushing the elder saints out.  Often it’s not that immature young people hold the office of pastor or deacon (but often enough!) but that they are virtually controlling the operation of the church from the sound board and video equipment to the praise band and the platform (I should say “stage”).  It is not unusual for the pastor of the contemporary church to not even come near the platform for thirty or forty minutes until the young people have finished their performances.  After their exit, the pastor may proceed with whatever it is that he has planned.

A key difference in conservative churches is that they believe the mature saints minister in the core functions of the church.  Mega churches are constantly looking for a way to have “small group” ministries because they realize that is the basic New Testament concept.  The fact is, the local church, with its officers IS the small group concept in the New Testament.  Other than the Jerusalem church (which unfortunately will never have an equal in today’s mega churches), these local churches were fairly small congregations which operated in the manner the pastoral epistles describe.  The pastor/teacher(s) and deacons were busy caring for and feeding the flock of God.

I grew up in a “mega” church of the sixties and seventies.  It was listed as one of the ten largest Sunday Schools in the nation at that time.  But the size was no guarantee that real ministry took place.  I do think that those large churches were not so concerned with “seeker sensitiveness” as the large churches today, but more with pure evangelism and outreach (of which I am a product).  Regardless of how  individual congregations may grow due to  circumstances and gifted leaders, large churches will never be the norm nor should they be.  Nor should young people seeking ministry lower their view of pure ministry by seeking positions there.  How much better and more fulfilling is the average sized congregation to the minister whose heart is prepared to serve God’s people and reach out into his local community!  There is good reason for those Biblical admonitions to be humbled in ministry rather than exalted.

Conservative churches differ from mega churches in their basic operational mode.  It is common today to read or hear criticisms of the smaller churches because they have not adopted the necessary “apparatus” for growth.  Our desire for church growth has led us into all kinds of worldly methodologies (after all, what is it that lost people are really “seeking” anyway?) just to make the ministry bigger and better.  I wonder if these same people go out in their garden and grab the small plants by the stem and begin to pull them and stretch them into larger plants?  Natural growth will only take place by leaving your hands off the plant itself and paying attention to the mundane jobs around the plant.  History has told us too late that largeness does not mean converted people.  If all the “converts” in the city of Chicago from D.L. Moody to Jack Hyles were true converts, the city would have become Christian three times over!  It is also too late for history to tell whether having ten churches of a hundred each would have been better than one church of a thousand, or whether having ten churches of five hundred would have been better than one church of five thousand.  No one wants to place human limits on those things.

I have read criticism of smaller churches for being “hub and spoke” type of churches.  These type of churches (it is said) will never grow because they have a mentality where all the church is connected (the “spoke”) to the leadership (the “hub”) in some necessary way.  The only way for growth (they say) is to adopt the leadership style of the world (which is in my opinion the “purpose driven” style) of having CEOs and pyramid flow charts.  But is the New Testament our authority for faith AND practice or not?  Are the Biblical offices of pastor and deacons supposed to minister to the people God has placed under their care or not?  If so, the “hub and spoke” picture is a Biblical picture!  Why can’t we be satisfied with it?  Because it will not bring us fame and fortune!

I’m not saying that all New Testament churches will be the same size. There are many circumstances that go into the make-up of a church such as the abilities and gifts of the pastor and deacons to minister in that church, or perhaps the church is located in an area that is hardened to the gospel. The size means nothing but the Biblical functioning of the body means everything.  When the church is too large for that man to dispense his sacred office well, it may divide.  If it levels off at the level of the pastor’s giftedness, that is God’s enabling business.  A man of God will be held accountable for his care of God’s sheep!  Perhaps if we had done this for the last hundred years, there would be more churches, more converts and a greater testimony in our country for Christ.

Manners and Decorum

Manners is no more than self-government.  To the degree that an individual, a family, a church or a nation loses its manners, anarchy or totalitarianism takes over.  The Bible admonishes us to personal and corporate manners because God has displayed divine manners on our behalf.

Paul told the Corinthians, Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.  Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame (1 Cor. 15:33-34).  We are plagued today with a lack of respect for our sinful nature.  We do not understand or estimate what our old nature will do in our lives when it is left unchecked or even encouraged.  Even when it comes to the treatment of our bodies, Paul wrote, And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness (1 Cor. 12:23).  Those parts of our bodies that ought to be covered should receive that help from us.  This “given” is used as an illustration for the church body.  But where these “manners” are corrupted, the whole body suffers.

The writer of Hebrews beautifully paints the picture of divine manners.  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering (Heb. 2:10).  It was “becoming” of God to allow Jesus to suffer for us.  Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren (vs 17).  Jesus took upon Himself these divine manners to become a faithful High Priest for us.  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (7:26).  It was “fitting” that Jesus would become such an Holy Priest for our sakes.

Paul told Titus, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (Tit.2:1).  I fear we think this means that anything we speak becomes sound doctrine.  Rather, Paul is saying that what we speak ought to be “fitting” or “becoming” of sound doctrine.  If God has displayed such divine manners on our behalf, surely we can display manners that are equal in deportment to our very doctrine!

Symbolisms teach.  We are willingly ignorant to think that Americans are not pagans because our body markings and piercings have now become stylish.  Our churches are following closely as we watch manners disappearing from our services and families.  It seems to be too much of an inconvenience on parents to discipline or say “no” to their children.  How selfish!  We are willingly sacrificing our children and our churches for our own comfort.   The family that is truly happy is the one which practices more manners at home, not less.  Why should we be polite when strangers come into our home and act like pagans around the ones we love the most?  At home, by ourselves, with our spouse and children is the time for the most careful self-government.  One television advertisement for finding one’s mate keeps using the testimony that “you can be yourself; you don’t have to change at all; you can find a mate that will let you be whatever you want to be.”  The truth is, such a relationship is headed for failure because there is no mannerly self-control from the beginning which says, “I will discipline myself for her sake because it is the right thing to do, and it will make me a better person besides!”

Churches ought not advertise that we can come to church and be ourselves; we will never have to change; God will be satisfied with us just the way we are.  Conservative churches that believe in the sinful (unmannered) nature of man and the life-changing power of God, should be acknowledging every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus (Phile. 6). Rather than adulterating the Word of God, we ought to, by the manifestation of the truth, [be] commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

And so . . .

My purpose has been to encourage the conservative, traditional churches to keep on doing what is right.  Comparisons to “successful” ministries mean absolutely nothing before God.  The Word of God is our only measuring stick for success in ministry, and the Bema Seat of Christ will be the only proper evaluation for how we have done.  We will do more for the cause of Christ by doing it His way, whether we can see all the details or not.

 

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 2)

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 2)

by Rick Shrader

I began last month pointing out the increasing differences between the conservative and contemporary churches.  I have tried to spend more time describing the conservative resurgence rather than the contemporary departure (but it has been difficult).  This will be a continuation of those descriptions.  I have titled these things with the words “Thesis” and “Antithesis” following Hegel’s famous dialectic.  I left off the obvious result which is almost always a “synthesis”  between the original conviction and the new protest movement.

In addition I ought to point out that, having been a student of the Postmodern phenomenon and an observer of the Converging Church movement and other supposed “paradigm shifts,” I think that fundamentalists and other conservatives who have also studied these things and yet have decided that a contemporary approach to ministry is necessitated by them are sorely wrong.  To have studied our current culture and then to have decided that we must become more like it in order to reach it is to be contrary to Scripture (James 4:4).1 For a Christian to be “culturally relevant” is not to be “in the spirit” of the age (that is what Demas loved, 2 Tim. 4:10) but rather to respond to the age in the way God would have him.  Results and popularity have never been biblical indicators of right and wrong in these matters.  Unfortunately, many have already committed themselves to comparing themselves among themselves, and are not wise (2 Cor. 10:12).  In the last days perilous times shall come (2 Tim. 3:1).  Paul’s admonition to Timothy (and to us) is to be instant in season, out of season (2 Tim. 4:2).  We’re not to vacillate up and down as a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed, nor be carried about by every wind of doctrine but to be steadfast like a anchor fastened to a Rock.

I continue now with the descriptions of conservative churches as opposed to contemporary churches.

Visitation and Invitations

One of the most noticeable marks of a conservative church is that it still has a visitation program during the week and that it still gives public invitations in the Sunday services.  The way these are done has never been exactly alike in all churches but the fact that they are done shows that a church believes in the power of the gospel to change people upon their hearing it.  To discontinue these practices shows a lack of trust in the power of the Word or a lack of interest by believers.  There is a growing antipathy for the public invitation, much of it by our Reformed friends and much of it by progressive churches who don’t do anything that is disturbing to their “seekers.”

One can see the evidence of the gospel followed by an appeal for a response (an invitation!) in almost every chapter in the book of Acts.  Where a gospel appeal is not being made, a church appeal to the believers is!  James says that visiting the fatherless and widows is part of pure religion (Jas. 1:27).  The rich man who died and went to hell wished for someone to visit his loved ones with the gospel (Luke 16:27-28).  Pastor James testified at the Jerusalem council that God had “visited” (the same word that James used in his book!) the Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 15:14).  Three times the word “persuade” is used in connection with Paul’s preaching ministry (Acts 18:4; 26:28; 2 Cor. 5:11).

Even though the appeals of the gospel are clearly in Scripture, still many try to blame Finney or Sunday or Moody for beginning this practice.  Whether or not they began the practice as we know it does not matter (most of us would be totally at home in those old meetings with their invitations).  It was William Carey and his friend Andrew Fuller in the late 1700s who, though theological Calvinists, pleaded with the churches to make public appeals with the gospel.  After being scolded by John Ryland, Sr. that God would win the heathen without their help if He wanted, they, nonetheless, began the Particular Baptist Missionary Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.  Carey published An Inquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen.  Fuller wrote,

I believe it is the duty of every minister of Christ plainly and faithfully to preach the Gospel to all who will hear it; . . . I therefore believe free and solemn addresses, invitations, calls, and warnings to them to be not only consistent, but directly adapted, as means, in the hand of the Spirit of God, to bring them to Christ.  I consider it as a part of my duty which I could not omit without being guilty of the blood of souls.2

Recently I read the biography of John Broadus written by his son-in-law A.T. Robertson.  Broadus is best known for his Greek scholarship, co-founding of Southern Baptist Seminary, and authoring his enduring book ,  Preparation and Delivery of Sermons.  During the Civil War years Broadus traveled with the Confederate troops as a sort of chaplain, preaching often to the soldiers in their camps.  He describes one such service: “Many wept during the sermon, and not at allusions to home, but to their sins, and God’s great mercy . . .  Gilmer is dreadfully opposed to inviting men forward to prayer, etc., though Lacy, Hoge, and most of the Presbyterians, do it just like the rest of us.”3 An observer of Broadus’ meetings wrote:

The songs, simple old hymns, containing the very marrow of the gospel, were sung, ‘with the spirit and understanding,’ and stirred every heart.  The reading of the Scriptures, and the appropriate, fervent, melting prayer, such as only John A. Broadus could make—were all fit preparations for the sermon. . . At the close of the service they came by the hundreds to ask an interest in the prayers of God’s people, or profess a new-found faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I doubt not that our beloved brother has greeted on the other shore not a few who heard him that day or at other points in the army.4

Let me say again, it is not that every invitation is given exactly alike but it should be said that throughout the gospel age those who have loved souls have appealed to them for immediate change.  Iain Murray, in writing against the public invitation as we are used to seeing it, still has to admit, “Wherever preaching has ceased to require an individual response and wherever hearers are left with the impression that there is no divine command requiring their repentance and faith, true Christianity has withered away.”5 The omission of the invitation in our day will eventually lead to a reversion back to catechisms and confirmations, gradually making nice moral people into Christians through an education process rather than conversion because it is less offensive and much easier to do.

Seniors and Youth

A biblical church will honor both their senior saints as well as their young people by treating them as God treats them.  Paul told Timothy to Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters with all purity.  Honor widows that are widows indeed (1 Tim. 5:1-3).  John wrote, I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning.  I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one (1 John 2:14).

The contemporary church, frankly, has had no love for either.  The seniors are (in a shocking fashion) told to leave, die or get out of the way; and the youth are not told anything!  Rather than the church insisting (Biblically) that the elder saints lead and the younger saints follow, the churches have given leadership to the worldliest young people and have told the seniors to follow.  This can’t be honoring to God but it is happening wholesale with biblical blinders on.

I have been in a national pastors’ meeting where a teenage girl performing as a “worship leader,” dressed in jeans and T-shirt, at the close of a song presumed to lead the 1000+ congregation of ministers and their wives in prayer!  Many walked out.  I just read Rick Warren (web site: Pastors.com) telling young pastors who are willing to take their church in his “Purpose Driven” way to push the older saints out of the way lest they get in the way! “I’m saying some people are going to have to die or leave.”  How can men of God read their Bible and still do what is being asked here?  Is success so important that a man ordained to the gospel ministry will blatantly violate the Word of God for it?

Godly saints, older and younger alike, are being held hostage by a few who threaten havoc in the church and at home if they don’t get their way.  This happens because true spirituality does not strive nor is it possessive of mere things.  It easily lets go of earthly possessions and can walk away in good conscience.  Immaturity, however, will seize the limelight as well as the property though it did not pay for it nor sacrifice for it.  What is harder to understand is the senior who acquiesces and participates in the immature worship, or the godly young person who does the same out of peer pressure and fear of being ostracized.  Where are the young men that John wrote about who are strong and have the Word of God abiding in them and have overcome the wicked one?  One wonders when the spirit of boldness left our Christian youth.

There are many senior saints across our land who are grieving sorely over having to leave their church of many years because they could no longer participate with a good conscience in the immaturity and worldliness of the church.  I think to myself, “how appropriate!”  It is a right thing for people to attach themselves to their church, to love it and sacrifice for it for many years.  It would be an unnatural thing if such people did not go through a grieving process in such a loss.

I have noticed another phenomenon surrounding the contemporary church.  If young people cannot perform, are not the beautiful children, cannot wear designer clothes and have perfect bodies, cannot dance and do not desire to be an American idol, they will be only pew-fillers.  After all, even in young churches, someone will be asked to just pay and pray.  Someone has to stand in the crowd and do as the crowd does:  sway back and forth with hands raised and clapping, because there is no room for nonconformists in such a crowd.

Even young people in our religious schools wonder if they can measure up to the success-standard that is expected of all students.  Can you climb the ladder quickly?  Can you pioneer a work into an obvious successful contributor?  Are you good enough to be invited back to speak where your mentors spoke?  The pressure will be too great for most young people.  They will quickly adapt to the accepted and ordained methodology that can bring them success.  Some ministers in mid-life are still “trying on” the latest method, waiting for some affirming miracle to happen.

Biblical Christianity with Biblical local churches will always be around.  They are around today, just not in big numbers and not in the cultural spotlight.  Many older saints are finding that they do not have to acquiesce to an unbiblical standard of being ruled by novices; that they still have good years of wisdom and service to give.  Many young people are finding that reward for ministry comes in the next life, not in this one; that spirituality is reward in itself, not a means to an end; that their generation needs true cultural observers who, rather than falling in line with the crowd, will not love the world, neither the things in the world, but will boldly and faithfully submit themselves to a biblical world-view and a biblical church organization.  Unbiblical ministries cannot last long.  There will be a resurgence of walking by faith, not by sight; of being in the world without being of the world; of walking with God when no one will walk with you.  Now that will be revival!

Notes:
1. Some argue that culture is morally neutral and therefore never to be avoided, or that methodology is morally neutral  or that Fundamentalists are hiding their heads in the sand.  These points are catchy but nonsense.  More people have been reached by separatists than any other evangelizing groups.  Far from them being out of touch, they have always known exactly what their culture really needed.
2. A.C. Underwood, A History of the English Baptists (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1956) 164.
3. A.T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia:  American Baptist Pub. Society, 1910) 208.
4. Ibid, 208-209.
5. Iain Murray, The Invitation System (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984) 1.a

 

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 1)

The Thesis or Antithesis? (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

The difference between the conservative and contemporary churches are becoming more evident. A recent pamphlet titled, “Is Your Church Going Purpose Driven?”1 lists 24 visible “signs” that begin to happen when a ministry is in the process of moving from traditional to contemporary.  Many people I know who have experienced this kind of change readily identify with the things on such lists and warnings like this are becoming more and more common.  These  differences,  or  changes,  are also making it increasingly  difficult to participate in  familiar  avenues  of ministry.

What is a conservative/traditional person to do when people, churches and institutions he is associated with are going contemporary?  Often this is an individual’s case when one watches his own church make these changes.  You cannot enjoy the services that have become mundane and annoying; you cannot send your young people to camps, retreats or even college because they become indoctrinated in something you feel is worldly and wrong; you do not want to monetarily support programs that promote this type of ministry or force you to participate in a way which is contrary to your own convictions; and you cannot just “pay and pray” without objection which has always been the ecumenical movement’s bottom line.

From the contemporary point of view these things are said to be a matter of preference and not conviction, so they are frustrated by a conservative person’s objection to the changes.  A one-way street is fine if you happen to be going that way and it is always frustrating if someone is going the other way.  But the man who needs to go the other way has no other options than to frustrate people or find another street.  However, many of us were also becoming uncomfortable when the street was two-way because the separation factor was too thin and our conservative lane was being pushed farther and farther over to make room for the growing contemporary lane going the other way.  For most of us it has become a better option to find another street altogether.  And, of course, most contemporaries are relieved when the irritation is gone.  As this is true of many pastors it is also true of many church attenders. The feeling that their church was glad to see them go is disheartening and discouraging.

Before you begin feeling sorry for the conservative/traditional ones who have had to find another avenue, don’t! This dilemma also opens new doors and solves many old problems.  First of all, Scripture and a man’s conscience cannot walk different paths.  The sun always shines brighter and the air always seems fresher when these two are in agreement.  Second, though oak trees may come down in a minute, planting a new one gives hope and satisfaction for the future.  Thirdly, God can choose to cleanse His church(es) in whatever way His sees fit.  Baptists and other independents are no strangers to separation, having always understood the nature of leaven.  But lastly, there is no joy like worshiping in Spirit and truth!  When you cannot sing the songs, or participate in the applause, or wave your hands and sway back and forth, or say amen to what you hear, you cannot do the most basic Christian act, and that is to worship in Spirit and in truth!  Regardless of how it came about, by staying or leaving, the restoration of Godly, reverent and satisfying worship makes all sacrifices to get there or remain there worth it!

Whereas many are (rightly) listing or pointing out the contemporary intrusion into our churches, I have decided to list some things that mark a conservative/traditional church.  I am not saying that there are not things that both conservative and contemporary churches would share, but these are the areas which many of us have decided are too important to give up and they more often describe conservative than contemporary churches.

Commentaries and Theologies

If we are to make teaching the saints Scripture the primary responsibility of the church, then studying the text itself and forming theological conclusions must be priority.  It has become a common joke that you cannot find neither commentaries nor theologies in the local Christian book store, and if you do they will be a token display.  Paul wrote to Timothy:  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee (1 Tim. 4:16). Albert Mohler observed,

Perhaps many of us could testify of going to a church service where something was said or even printed in the bulletin to the effect that ‘first we are going to have some praise and then we are going to get to preaching,’ or ‘first, we are going to have a time of worship and then we are going to turn to preaching.’  What do we think preaching is but the central act of Christian worship?2

Some years ago, Daniel Akin, writing in the National Liberty Journal, was critical of Willow Creek’s ministry in this area.  He wrote, “Culture rather than scripture will be discovered as the force fueling the engine, and it is at this point that church leaders and the flocks that they tend must beware.”  I appreciate those words but wonder if that hasn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy at Liberty University.  In an interview last year, David Brooks, a columnist with the New York Times, in an interview with Rick Warren, described Warren’s Purpose Driven Life as, “a lightening of religion, certainly a walking-away from the old Jonathan Edwards trembling before an angry God.  It’s certainly more happy, more upbeat, more optimistic.”4

We might evaluate how we’re doing in this area of Biblical and doctrinal instruction by counting the hours we spend actually in the Text and its related books, as opposed to the hours we spend preparing materials, creating environments and doing technical preparations.  Though I utilize Power Point (at least it’s easier than an overhead projector) when appropriate, I resist the time involved in preparing the screen rather than preparing my head and heart with the Text.  Going to the classroom with all the technical bells and whistles is no substitute for the cognitive understanding of chapter and verses and their subsequent doctrines, confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Names and Familiar Objects

One of the most common symbols of the contemporary church is to have no symbols.  That is, the polls and surveys have led them to do away with denominational names, buildings and auditoriums that look like a church, pulpits and church-like furniture, and even the word “church” itself.  It is more common today for a person to walk into a business-looking building, with a theater-looking auditorium, with casual-looking people (including the pastor), with culturally-looking objects, all saturated with worldly-sounding music.  We’ve become more afraid of what the world thinks than what God thinks.

In an Atlantic Monthly interview, Leith Anderson, of Wooddale Baptist Church in Minneapolis, gave the reason for dropping the name Baptist if they relocated, “Putting ‘Baptist’ in a name is to the unchurched about the surest turnoff there is . . . . One Midwestern Episcopal rector I met [said] ‘Denominations as we know them are a historical anomaly . . . The very large churches are becoming the new dioceses.’”5

I believe denominational names, as well as church related décor is a plus to teaching as well as evangelism.  A sinner must begin to learn of his own sinfulness somehow.  So why should we remove those things that make him think of God, church or other Scriptural things?  It seems the contemporary calculation is that creating immediate good feelings is more advantageous than immediate conviction.  Where they may see these names and symbols as hindrances, I see them as advantages because they break the ice, open the conversation and begin the thinking process.

Paul was concerned that Timothy would behave himself properly in the church because it is the pillar and ground of the truth and portrays the mystery of godliness by which people believe (1 Tim. 3:15-16).  Retaining the names and symbols of our conservative churches is not just a matter of stubbornness or traditionalism, it is a thinking that believes it is better to put things up front rather than in a stealth fashion; that it is better to confess than to hide one’s faith; and that the best thing that can happen to the sinner is to see and experience what believers do in church.  Beside all of this, those of us who retain the traditional forms of church feel a strong connection to our history and feel it is imperative that we pass that on to our children.  In the contemporary mode, we are seeing hundreds of years of testimony cut off like a fishing line and it will not easily be replaced.  When this experiment has run its course it will be too late to say “oops, I guess we shouldn’t have done that.”

Separation and Protection

Of the many areas of conservative/traditional Christianity that are being attacked today, the only area that receives more vitriol is Fundamentalism (but that’s for another issue).  The doctrine of separation is being reviewed, rewritten, repulsed and replaced.  Personal separation (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 5:7-11; et al.) is now, at best, only on the inside, in the mind and heart.  Nothing on the outside looks different than the world.  Ecclesiastical separation (2 Jn. 10; 2 Thes. 3:6, 14; et al.) has been so realigned or totally discarded that even our fathers and grandfathers in the faith can’t recognize it.  But both areas of separation are in the Bible and are important though unpopular.  They also protect families and the church.  The Purpose Driven phenomenon will bring conflicting doctrinal positions together by making other issues the focus.  Warren said, “I think that’s how evangelicals and Catholics can get together.  And I don’t know if you know this or not, but fundamentalists and Pentecostals don’t like each other, okay?  They don’t.  But they could get together.  ‘In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.’”6

My mail box is full of advertisements to Christian rock concerts, dances and various contemporary things to make sure the young people in the church don’t feel ostracized or different from their lost peers.  But this is not protection, it is accommodation, and it is spiritually dangerous for our kids.  Every pastor feels the undertow of young people who would hold the church hostage to these things if they could.  They can make life so miserable for conservative parents that they are forced to change to a contemporary church.  The only way a church can justify this is to redefine separation completely, dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator with the world.  Then it can be stated that the doctrine is the same, only the methods have changed (but ask Moses about striking the rock, or Uzzah about holding the ark).

Our churches must not abrogate the responsibility to train and discipline our own children.  It is part of our heritage for which all other generations have made sacrifices.  Leonard Verduin, in his classic book on Reformation history described what would take place when some of our forefathers were brought to trial for their faith.

When certain people were being investigated for suspected Anabaptist leanings, this testimony was offered:  ‘Because their children are being so carefully and devoutly reared and because they do not have the practice of cursing and swearing, therefore they are suspected of being Anabaptists.’7

Spurgeon asked, “When fathers are tongue-tied religiously with their offspring, need they wonder if their children’s hearts remain sin-tied?”8

—To Be Continued—

Notes:

1. Distributed by Southwest Radio Ministries, www.swrc.com

2. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “The Primacy of Preaching,” Feed My Sheep, Don Kistler, ed. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002) 6.

3. Daniel L. Akin, “Willow Creek Community Church: Driven by Culture or the Scriptures?”  National Liberty Journal.  1996.

4. Pew Forum’s biannual Faith Angle conference in Key West, Fl., May 2005.

5. Charles Trueheart, “The Next Church,” Atlantic Monthly, August, 1996, p. 57.

6. Pew Forum.

7. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1964) 108.

8. C.H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. ii (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978) 333.

 

For Children and Students and Other Wear...

For Children and Students and Other Weary Workers

by Rick Shrader

“There are times when solitude is better than society, and silence is wiser than speech.  We would be better Christians if we were more alone, waiting upon God, and gathering, through meditation on His Word, spiritual strength for labor in His service.”1    Charles Spurgeon

A father finds many occasions to give advice to his children through the years of life.  In our early years as parents we mostly pushed, disciplined, and hurried our children while keeping a personal schedule far too busy for a healthy family or spiritual life.  We were too inexperienced ourselves in life to properly evaluate the wide spectrum of examples and imperatives being pushed on us by a busy society, not to mention success-oriented ministries which were all too eager to use our time and talents while they lasted.

In our grayer years we find our fatherly advice leaning heavily on caution, patience, quietness and solitude.  Not because these are the things that make up all that is important in life, but because without these we have found we can’t do the others very well.  When it comes to the things of God, increase comes in decrease, strength  in weakness, fullness in emptiness.

The Spring of this year finds our four children busy in ministry, a new granddaughter, and our third child graduating from college.  Commencement addresses abound with proper advice and pastoral concern to which every student should take heed.  I thank God daily for Godly influences which He has brought into the lives of our children and for schools, churches and ministries which provide spiritual avenues for growth in godliness.

I want to add to the list of good things which my children will hear this Spring.  Whether for new parents, busy lives and ministries or graduating seniors, some admonitions from God’s Word are universal and timeless.

Glorify God and not yourself.

Paul put both of these concepts in order to the Corinthians, But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.  For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth (2 Cor. 10:17-18).  Paul’s only desire in ministry was unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever (Phil. 4:20).  Our culture is a narcissistic culture which has looked only at itself and fallen in love!  We are not created to love ourselves but God.  Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Matt. 22:37).  Any earthly love, including for ourselves, that we place above our love for God will destroy our lives and those around us.  Matthew Henry, commenting on Psalm 131, LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty, wrote, “Humble saints cannot think so well of themselves as others think of them, are not in love with their own shadow, nor do they magnify their own attainments or achievements.  The love of God reigning in the heart will subdue all inordinate self-love”2

Near the turn of the last century F.W. Farrar wrote a book entitled Seekers After God.  It was a popular seller and was in considerable demand.  A certain Western bookseller had a number of requests for the volume but had no copies available.  He sent a telegram to the dealers in New York requesting them to ship him a number of the books.  After a while a telegram came back which read, ‘No seekers after God in New York, try Philadelphia.’3 May it not be so of you!

Seek anonymity not popularity.

In the great kenosis passage of the Lord’s humility and incarnation, Paul relates of Him that He made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7).  Jesus emptied Himself of divine prerogatives for our sake.  God’s work, as the Lamb to be slain, had to be done without an earthly reputation!  The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head (Matt. 8:20).

In his classic book The Imitation of Christ, Thomas á Kempis, has the Lord asking, “And yet, what great matter is it, if thou, who art but dust and nothing, subject thyself to a man for God’s sake, when I, the Almighty and the Most High, who created all things of nothing, humbly subjected myself to man for thy sake?”4 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich (2 Cor. 8:9).

John H. Jowett once said, “I am not sure which of the two occupies the lower sphere, he who hungers for money or he who thirsts for applause.”5 A blight on our generation of ministers has been our desire to be great.  We have known great men and mistakenly thought that we wanted to be like them.  We did not know that great men never desired to be great but only to be men of God and God used them in great ways.

Love the brethren not the world.

Jesus said, If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love . . . . This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you (John 15:10, 12).  John also recorded in his epistle, Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).  Keeping the commandments of Christ, which are essentially everything He did and all that is written in His Word, is the way we show our love for the brethren.  Those who follow Him are keeping the same commandments and therefore our fellowship has that common denominator.

My mother used to say that it is hard to love the unlovely.  We must love the souls of people because God loved them and died for them.  We must love brothers and sisters in Christ because we are children of God with them.  But our love for “the brethren” is much more than that.  It is to love what Jesus wants us to be, it is to love what a Christian ought to be, which will always be unlike the world.  In John’s epistle the admonition is for the sinning brother to love “the brethren” and not to “go out from them.”  A brother departs the church and goes to the world when he quits loving what Christians ought to be.

An error of our day is to think that God accepts us just as we are.  But God is in a continual process of changing us from what we presently are.  He couldn’t accept the lost person as he was, He could only accept him in Christ’s righteousness.  He doesn’t accept the believer as he is, He prunes and chastises him to be better.  R.C. Sproul wrote,

The preacher who smiles benignly from his pulpit, assuring us that ‘God accepts you just the way you are’ tells a monstrous lie.  The kingdom of God is far more rigorous in its requirements than Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood.  The gospel of love may not be sugarcoated with saccharin grace.  God does not accept the arrogant man in his arrogance.  He turns His holy back on the impenitent.6

A believer’s priority in this life is to be like Christ and to love all who desire the same.  We may love the souls of men, but save [them] with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 23).

Develop a quiet, not a boisterous, spirit.

Paul told the Thessalonians to study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you (1 Thes. 4:11).  He told Timothy to pray for national leaders so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty (1 Tim. 2:2).  Quietness is not weakness anymore than meekness is weakness.  It is to be as James admonishes, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God (Jas. 1:19).

A tool of success in our time is to be loud enough to get attention; to push our way forward and upward; to take the initiative and to even take chances by jumping into things we know little about.  In contrast, Hudson Taylor, missionary to China, said, “God chose me because I was weak enough.  God does not do His great works by large committees.  He trains somebody to be quiet enough and little enough and then He uses them.”7 Elijah would not be used of God until he was quiet enough to hear a still small voice; John spent 30 years in the desert so he could spend one great year of ministry; Paul spent eleven years in Tarsus before embarking on his first journey.  There is no preparation for ministry like a quiet spirit with the Word of God in our hands, and the Holy Spirit in our heart.

Expect hardship not affirmation.

We are to endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 2:3).  Paul had to prepare the Philippians that It is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake (Phil. 1:29).  On his first missionary journey, after being stoned and left for dead, Paul preached, We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22).  Malcom Muggeridge admitted,

As an old man looking back on one’s life, it’s one of the things that strikes you most forcibly — that the only thing that’s taught one anything is suffering.  Not success, not happiness, not anything like that.  The only thing that really teaches one what life’s about — the joy of understanding, the joy of coming in contact with what life really signifies — is suffering, affliction.8

Though the primary Biblical meaning of suffering is to suffer for the gospel’s sake, all hardship is a divine classroom if our heart is in a position to receive instruction.  As John Bunyan was taken from the courtroom to the prison, he turned to Justice Wingate and said, “It is a mercy to suffer in so good a cause.  It is better to be persecuted than persecutors.”9 Similarly, Matthew Henry, after being robbed confessed, “Let me be thankful first, because I was never robbed before; second, because, although they took my purse, they did not take my life; third, because although they took my all, it was not much; and fourth, because it was I who was robbed and not I who robbed.”10

The ministry, like much of Christian life, is not a place for the soft and affluent.  Jesus said of those who thought John’s situation was odd, But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?  Behold they that wear soft clothing are in king’s houses (Matt. 11:8).  If we desire and expect those things, we will miss the very joy of serving the Lord.

Anticipate things above, not things below.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth (Col. 3:1-2).  Someone said if God would give us just a tiny glimpse of heaven none of us would want to live any longer!  That is why God has ordained that we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7).

It is hard for mortals not to cling to this earth.  We are made to be survivors and we fight for life and relief.  But our faith tells us that all these things are temporal and will not transfer to the real life.  The creature is waiting for the next life (Rom. 8:21); the sufferer is waiting (Rom. 8:18); and even the apostles desired the next life over the present (Rev. 22:20).

And So . . .

“Wherever Christianity has been a real force, working to success, it is because it has been spiritual.  The wheels of the chariot are clogged by all attempts to make arrangements to help God.  They are speeded, when, self forgotten, the Spirit that indwells is permitted to have unquestioned and absolute control.”11

Notes:
1. Charles Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1948) 296.
2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, vol. III (Old Tappan: Revell, nd.) 741.
3. Taken from The Sword of the Lord, 1/31/03.
4. Thomas á Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1984) 157.
5. Quoted by J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago:  Moody, 1971) 40.
6. R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1990) 168.
7. Quoted by William Petersen, ed.  C.S. Lewis had a wife; Catherine Marshall had a husband (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1985) 69.
8. Quoted by David Jeremiah, A Bend in the Road, 17.
9. Lina Cooper, John Bunyan: The Glorious Dreamer (London: Sunday School Union, nd.) 80.
10. Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations (Rockville, MD, 1984) 1456.
11. G. Campbell Morgan, Understanding the Holy Spirit (AMG, 1995) 138.

 

Can God Stop Evil?

Can God Stop Evil?

by Rick Shrader

Can God Stop Evil?

By Rick Shrader

 

rhaps the most frequently asked question by skeptics today is why God allows evil to exist.  From the holocaust to Columbine to 9-11, it has become more common and even acceptable to question why a good God allows human beings to suffer.  In 1965 Stewart Zabriskie wrote, “At no time in the history of theology has the doctrine of the imago Dei had a more challenging pastoral relevance or more provocative theological implications than it does within the current of contemporary theology.”1 Forty six years later, we can only wish that society’s questions of God’s image were still as easy.

Just this week I heard a well-known TV commentator ask a popular Christian women’s speaker how she can believe in a God who would allow 9-11 to happen.  “Could He have stopped it?” he asked, thus implying that God is either not powerful or not loving.  I concur with Zabriskie’s comment about this having challenging pastoral relevance.  Only a few weeks ago I visited the home of a man dying of cancer who had always questioned God’s existence (or at least His relevance).  The only question he had for me was, “If God is good, why does He allow suffering in the world?”  Upon the answer to that question hung the only possibility of giving the gospel at such a critical time.

In his popular book, The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis described the agnostic’s dilemma,  “If God were good, he would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished.  But the creatures are not happy.  Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power or both.”2 That is exactly how a lost man thinks.  Why would he want to believe in a God who either does not love us enough to care about evil and pain in our lives, or else He is not able to do anything about them anyway?  As tragedies are known and felt around the world with such rapidity, people are confronted with these questions to a greater degree than ever before.

 

The classical answer to the problem of evil.

The classic atheistic argument looks something like this:3

  • If God existed, He would eliminate evil.

  • Evil exists.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

 

The classic theistic answer would look something like this:

  • Evil does indeed exist.

  • Since evil exists, good also exists.

  • Good is not incompatible with evil.

  • Good is actually greater than evil.

  • God both exists and is good.

 

The breakdown for the skeptic comes in a) thinking that good and evil cannot coexist even for a while, and b) that a good God would have to destroy evil immediately.  The fact is that earth’s history since the Garden of Eden proves that good and evil can exist in the same world, and God’s revelation shows that God allows this as a probationary time for sinners to freely repent, believe the good news of Christ’s deliverance, and secure an everlasting home in heaven which will fulfill all of his expectations and more.  Far from God being unloving or unable, He is rather longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9).  The problem is man’s selfishness in insisting on some ill-deserved ease, not God’s patience in applying the right medicine over the needed time.

 

A practical answer to the problem of evil.

While reading in the book of Revelation I was struck with the progression of thought in chapter six.  The four horsemen (“of the apocalypse”) are unleashed on the world, bringing terrible destruction, while the souls of the faithful martyrs must wait under the altar to be vindicated by God.  The scenario offers a few biblical and yet practical answers to our question.

A coming storm.  As John watches the Lamb open the first seal he hears as it were the noise of thunder (vs. 1).  A storm is coming upon the earth such as never was seen in all of history.  John Walvoord writes, “On a warm summer day one can hear thunder in the distance even though the sun is still shining where he is.  The approaching dark clouds and the roar of the thunder presage the beginning of the storm.”4 The coming Tribulation period will bring catastrophes, tragedies, plagues and destruction which can be called “evil” and yet are directed by the hand of God.

Though this period of earth’s history will be worse than any, all of history has been filled with violence and suffering.  We know that it came from the “Pandora’s Box” of Genesis chapter three when men and angels chose to disobey God and bring sin into the world.  The storm of consequences began there and will culminate in the end times.

Four horsemen by permission.  The Tribulation scene opens with the opening of the seven-sealed book.  The first four seals release the four horses and their riders.  They bring war and conquering, death and the sword, famine and starvation, and finally the sword, hunger and death by wild beasts.  This all comes in a relatively short time span causing the unbelieving earth dwellers to hide themselves in out-of-the-way places in the earth.  In three of the four cases John records that this “power” was “given” to each rider.  (The third rider on the black horse representing famine needs no permission since the famine is already in progress).  The same wording appears throughout the book, especially in chapter thirteen where the beast is “given” a mouth speaking great things (13:5) and “given” ability to make war with the saints (13:7).  None of it happens without God’s permission.  Satan could not touch Job without God’s permission (Job 1:12, 2:6)

Some would object that if God has to give His permission for evil to happen then evil is ultimately His fault anyway.  Or some might say that a good God would only allow good things to happen.  But, as we have seen, if evil originated in the choice of angels and men, then a good God has allowed their bad choice in order to bring about a better good.  Geisler writes,

 

Because God does control and order evil, evil itself is part of a total picture of good in the universe.  Failure to see this ultimate harmony in the universe with evil in it is like charging an artist for lack of harmony in his mosaic by concentrating on only one piece of it.  One must step back and view the overall picture in order to get the proper perspective of evil.5

 

The believers’ questions.  Even in the first half of the Tribulation, many will come to saving faith and yet suffer martyrdom for that belief.  Chapter six and verses nine through eleven give a glimpse of the souls of such saints who were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held (vs. 9).  They suffered unjustly for something which they believed in their hearts.  Their question to God is two-fold.  1) How long will their wait be?  2) Will He judge and avenge their blood on those who dwell on the earth?  These questions are identical to the questions today:  Can evil exist in God’s world without judgment?  And how long will it be before the judgment comes?

What we know from reading the whole Book is that yes, God will completely purge His floor and tread the winepress of His wrath, and He will do it in exactly the time allotted by the prophecies of this Book.  But interestingly, God doesn’t answer these faithful saints with exactly that answer.  Neither are His ways always clear to us.  But any saint in any age may affirm with Abraham, Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen. 18:25).

God’s response to saints who suffer.  The divine response that was given is found in verse eleven and it is three-fold.  1) They were to rest yet for a little season.  Since their own personal suffering was over, they were to rest in their resting.  For those who are presently enduring trials, it is enough to know that God is in control and that even this trial will somehow work out for the best in God’s plan (Rom. 8:28).  Peter could write, But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you (1 Pet. 5:10).

2) They were to wait until their fellow servants also and their brethren, . . . should be killed as they were.  They were to endure until evil had run its course.  Sometimes in history sin has brought evil on everyone whether in the form of disease, war or general decadence.  Sometimes evil is directed at believers specifically because their righteousness is an indictment upon the unrighteous.  Cain slew Abel because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous (1 John 3:12).  Jesus did not pray that we would escape the suffering of this world but that we would be kept from the evil one (John 17:15).

3) They were to rest and wait until these things that God was allowing and directing should be fulfilled.  Evil will cease one day, but only when God’s benevolent purpose is complete.  There are many things we know from Scripture that are yet to be fulfilled and it would be useless of us to ask God to by-pass what He has already written.  Such will be the case in the Tribulation when the prophetic clock has begun to move again.  Without being fatalistic, in the age of grace, where we do not see every time and purpose indicator as clearly, we must trust God that  He is fulfilling His purpose in the best possible way, dealing with sin on His own righteous schedule.

 

And so . . .

God is bringing a stop to evil in the world!  But He is doing it in the best way and with the best timing.  His faithful believers know with the Apostle Paul that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God! (Acts 14:22).  We may add two concluding thoughts for those who are in the midst of suffering.

First, prayer is a God-given avenue for relief, comfort and change! The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16).  By the eighth chapter of Revelation we observe the prayers of the persecuted saints coming up before the throne of God as incense (8:3-5).  The effect of these prayers shakes the earth even in the midst of the Tribulation! (see also Psalm 18:6-9 and 2 Sam. 22:5-10).  Our prayers are always answered!  Even if that answer is to endure suffering without fully understanding why.  This brings us to the second thought.

Second, history is God’s will!  Once events go from the future to the past, we do not need to pray about them or to worry and grieve over them.  Rather, Paul says, In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you (1 Thes. 5:18).  Once God has allowed even evil to happen, we must realize He did that for reasons perhaps known only unto Him.  Someday in heaven we will see how every prayer of ours affected that outcome, and how our patient endurance was used of God for His own glory and the advancement of His will.

There is a good reason why many of the hymns in our hymn book end with a verse speaking of heaven.  “Don’t think me poor or deserted or lonely, I’m not discouraged, I’m heaven bound” or “I heard about a mansion He has built for me in glory, and I heard about the streets of gold beyond the crystal sea.”  Maybe it’s because that’s the way the Bible ends!  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away (Rev. 21:4).

 

Notes:

1. Quoted by Charles Feinberg, “The Image of God,” Vital Theological Issues, Roy Zuck, ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994) 52.

2. C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962) 26.

3. See Norman Geisler, The Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) chapters 14-17.

4. John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1974) 124.

5. Geisler, 340.

 

 

Worshippers Who Also Come To Church

Worshippers Who Also Come To Church

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

I have often said to the people I pastor, “We do not come together to worship; we are worshipers who come together.”  Though we use the vernacular “coming to worship” to mean “coming to church,” we must have a better understanding of where and how the real worship is taking place.  We know these things, but by losing the battle of definitions we may be losing the important thing: the ability to worship biblically.

A.W. Tozer wrote, “If you cannot worship the Lord in the midst of your responsibilities on Monday, it is not very likely that you were worshiping on Sunday.”1 The German hymn goes, “Alike at work and prayer, to Jesus I repair, May Jesus Christ be praised!”  The familiar point being that we cannot say and perform one thing on Sunday in church, while living another thing throughout the week, and call our Sunday attitude “worship.”  It was at best performance and yet, ironically, performance is what is being advocated today with the attitude of “coming together to worship.”

Our general lack of perspective in worship is our deficiency in understanding the function of our High Priest in Hebrews 8-10 and the heavenly worship service in which He is officiating every minute of every day!  Sunday-only performances  (perhaps “Sunday Matinee” would be a good description) in contemporary worship services are not helping us regain reality in worship, they are, rather, taking us further into formalism and sacramentalism than ever thought possible.

I believe that in a subtle and alarming way, contemporary worship is taking us further back to Old Testament Judaism and even Romanism than it is bringing us to New Testament worship!  By thinking that we are the active ones in worship, that we must become priests or “facilitators” of worship, we are rushing into the presence of God without the real High Priest, the Daysman, the Mediator, who is over the House of God, and who only can lead us in worship, interceding for us by His own blood before a holy God.

William Newell is right when he reminds his readers that the “new and living way” is more of a contrast to the old,  than a fulfillment of it.

If you do not go to the Cross and get deliverance from all ‘religion,’ and find yourself in the presence of God, with all claims met, these Levitical things will have a subtle hold upon you, like the Cross on top of a Romish cathedral—while the ‘Word of the Cross’ (1 Cor. 1.18), the ‘power of God’ which sets people free, is wholly unknown to the monstrous pagan system.  In the Levitical things, you are to see the contrast to what you now enjoy, not the very example of it.2

Where the old formalism became itself the priesthood and performed the worship for the people by sacrament, liturgy and icons, the new formalism (i.e. contemporary worship) is performing the same function with its worship leaders, crafted service structure, and technological shows that require nothing of the attendees in knowledge, belief or practice.

This criticism of contemporary worship should not seem extreme or unfair.  It will be admitted that there is every degree of participation in this new formalism, but the gurus of the movement are making no excuses for what they are trying to accomplish.  Barry Liesch3 argues that “Our entire worship culture is in transition.  We are becoming, in some respects, more Hebraic” (p. 150).  Also, “When leitourgia involves a large group, more vision, more planning, more drama, more mystery, more symbolism are required” (p. 173).  Liesch argues for giving “worship” more priority over preaching, “An increasing number of writers, theologians, and researchers of worship are taking the view that worship should receive priority over teaching, evangelism and fellowship” (p. 157).  He even uses Kierkegaard (the father of Neo-Orthodoxy) as an example to promote worship as performance with God as the audience and “prompters” (read: “worship leaders”) as coaches, rather than God as the coach (p. 123).

Robert Webber4 criticizes the break from Catholicism as a step backward in worship, transubstantiation and the Eucharist being far better symbols than what traditional churches have used (p. 136).  He advocates using the Book of Common Prayer (p. 138) and describes a service at Tyndale Theological Seminary in which the students celebrated the Eucharist by carrying the bread and wine down the isle above their heads to singing which may “explode in praise and thanksgiving and may experience the healing touch of the Holy Spirit” (p. 134-5).

In an online article about the Catholic Lenten season titled, “Get Lent: Protestants do the Sober Season,” Andrew Santella writes, “So, maybe it’s not that surprising that more Protestants are now dipping into the well of Catholic ritual and devotions.  In that sense, Lent may be part of a trend:  Check out [another site] which recasts Catholic devotional beads for Protestant use by eliminating those troublesome Hail Marys. . . .  But our shared affection of late for some of the old ways of worship represents a small victory for mystery, ritual, and awe.”5 More sobering is to see our Fundamental churches doing the same things.

My point in this is that rather than being worshipers all the time, the emphasis now is that we can come together and be led by worship leaders into God’s presence with all the emotion and symbolism that the liturgical churches ever had!  Having accomplished this in an hour or two, the attendee is now sufficiently spiritual to make it through the week until the next worship experience.  The contemporary approach to “worship” is facilitating this error, not combating it.  Rather than our worship being based on the church’s understanding and doctrine it is based on the unbeliever’s idea of what he wants church to be.  This could never coincide with Hebrews 8-10.

We have a High Priest over the House of God!  This is what Hebrews 10:21 says.  We only can participate in what the New Testament calls “worship” if we have come unto God by Him (7:25); if our evil conscience has been purged by His own blood (9:14); and we have been perfected forever through His once-for-all offering for sin (10:10).  It is He who has done and is doing any action that propitiates God (9:24-28), none of our actions nor the sacrifices of animals being acceptable in His sight (10:2-4).

Christian worship is, therefore, our participation through the Spirit in the Son’s communion with the Father, in his vicarious life of worship and intercession.  It is our response to our Father for all that he has done for us in Christ.  It is our self-offering in body, mind and spirit, in response to the one true offering made for us in Christ, our response of gratitude to God’s grace, our sharing by grace in the heavenly intercession of Christ.6

Newell wrote it this way,

Yes, we need a Priest, and we have a Priest, thank God, a Great Priest over the house of God (vs. 21).  Let us mark, however, that we do not serve Him as Priest: He serves us.  We are not directed to come to Him as Priest, but to God’s throne of grace, relying on Christ’s shed blood, and having Him as Great Priest over the house of God.7

Hebrews 10:21, where the presence of our High Priest is declared, is followed by the “Let us” patch.  Seeing that this arrangement is true for us, we are invited to do three things.  I submit that these are samples8 of the believer’s true “worship,” that worship not being a “performance” whereby we “come into the presence of God,” but a cognitive recognition that we are always in the presence of God!  Even when we were dead in sins, [He] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:5-6).

We are worshipers who are sprinkled and washed.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (22).  Homer Kent describes this twofold process which makes us continual worshipers before His presence,

Just as the Old Testament priest entered the divine presence by the sprinkling of blood and by virtue of bathing his flesh with water, so the Christian believer may confidently exercise his approach to God on the basis of a heart purified judicially by the blood of Christ and with a life that is cleansed from defilement by the Word of God (Eph. 5:25, 26).9

We are worshipers who are waiting and confident.

And let us hold fast the profession of our [hope] without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised) (23).  Our continual worship should always be in light of His soon return.  Paul commended the patience of hope of the Thessalonians and that they were ready to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come (1 Thes. 1:3, 10).  F. F. Bruce wrote, “Each successive Christian generation is called upon to live as the generation of the end-time, if it is to live as a Christian generation.”10 Our worship is also involved in Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:13).

We are worshipers who are considering and assembling.

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much more, as ye see the day approaching (24-25).  A vital part of our continual worship is to think about how we can stimulate our fellow believers to love and good works.  We cannot do this by forsaking them but by assembling with them as often as the church meets.  In this way we are truly worshipers who come together and the activity we do there is merely a continuation of our worship!

And so . . .

Let us do one more thing.  Should we not put aside the “obvious lie” that is such a part of the superficial world around us?—the gestures, the mechanical voices, the artificial scenery, the rolling of the eyes and the hypocritical motions.  Why should we be any different singing, praying, reading and listening than we are at any other time?  Let’s be real!  And let’s not fall back into the ritualism that has stolen our faith.

Notes:
1.A.W. Tozer, Whatever Happened To Worship (Camp Hill: Christian Publication, 1985) 122.
2. William Newell, Hebrews (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1947) 280.
3.Barry Liesch, The New Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001).
4 Robert Webber, Planning Blended Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998).
5. Slate Magazine (www.slate.com, 2/28/06).
6. James B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1996) 15.
7. Newell, 348.
8. All of Christian activity on earth is worship before God.  Christ and the Holy Spirit are representing it before God for us.  Hebrews 13:13-16 shows that with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
9. Honer Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1979) 200.
10. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 256.

 

Your Body: the temple of the Holy Spiri...

Your Body: the temple of the Holy Spirit

by Rick Shrader

What!  Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Cor. 6:19).  The Apostle’s question is as relevant today as ever, perhaps more so.  Most of us can remember seeing pictures of the “heathen” in foreign lands painting and piercing their bodies, stretching their skin over some bone or arrow, coloring their hair and dancing around a fire or a carved idol.  One not-so-old Bible Encyclopedia comments on the prohibition to cut or disfigure the body (Lev. 19:18) as a “reference to the custom of tattooing common among savage tribes, and in vogue among both men and women of the lower orders in Arabia, Egypt, and many other lands.”1 It seems that today these comments would have to be amended to include not only “civilized” countries but much of the Christian church as well.

What would have been a shocking and offensive practice among believers just a few years ago, now is becoming accepted for laymen and clergy alike.  Tattoos may be anywhere and of anything; piercings are displayed inside and outside almost any body part; “body art” of various kinds is more common than billboards along the highways; hair is colored, cubed or meticulously disheveled; and those uncomely parts upon which we used to bestow more abundant honor (1 Cor. 12:23) are now uncovered with lack of shame and even with boldness.  The discussion is no longer how to reach those poor souls doing these things because they don’t know the Lord, but how to deal with this within the church and among believers.

Though these things are obviously becoming accepted practices, I believe they are dishonoring to the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit; are opening harmful doors to our children and young people; and are doing far more harm than good in presenting the gospel to a lost world.

The body as a billboard

In the world, the marking and piercing of the body is seen as art and artistic expression as well as a place for coded messages.  On one web site a “body artist” says, “In doing so, we aim to shatter all stigmas associated with the body modification culture by proving that tatted and pierced people are, for the most part, just as ‘normal’ as the Baby Boomers who presume to judge us.  But then again, if piercings were totally acceptable by society, we wouldn’t have any more curious twenty-something year old customers taking their first step into the ‘wild’ side.”  One young person wrote, “Well, I for one feel that scarification is a wonderful expression of who you are.  I have a scarification, it is a wolf on my back.  I feel that this expressed my true self, the wolf is my totem, my spiritual guide.  I also have tattoos on my back and arm.  Each piece that is put on my body represents some part of my spirit, my soul and who I am.”  Another online writer says, “There are many reasons in which people obtain piercings and tattoos.  Those who modify, manipulate and mutilate their bodies do so for many reasons.  Some say it’s simply exciting and pleasurable, or part of the latest fad.  Others place it in the context of art, ritual or self-expression, they say it’s an act with cultural and social significance.”2

In a Better Homes & Gardens article titled, “8 Signs the Kids are Fine,” the fifth sign is “She doesn’t have any tattoos.”  The paragraph with a quote from Dr. Timothy Roberts the University of Rochester’s Children’s Hospital reads, “Studies of more than 6,000 junior and high school students found that those with tattoos and body piercings (not earrings) were more likely to smoke cigarettes or marijuana, go on drinking binges, have premarital sex, get into fights, join gangs, skip school, and get poor grades.  ‘If a child asks for a tattoo, the parent should recognize that as an opportunity to talk.’”3 I recall knowing a teenage boy, the son of a Christian friend, on drug charges, who stood before the judge in a court room with his longish hair, tattoos, chains and black clothes.  When the boy said he didn’t know how he got into such trouble, the judge reprimanded him sternly about the way he appeared and said, “You are a walking advertisement for every drug dealer in town.”  The body has become the billboard for a person’s coded message, the sermon in picture of his world view.  The atheist Friederic Nietzsche has Zarathustra saying, “But the awakened and knowing say:  Body am I entirely, and nothing else; and the soul is only a word for something about the body.”4

In contrast, David Warren wrote about how God values the body enough to speak often of how it is clothed:

God speaks about matters that matter; He does not waste our time with peripheral details.  You may be interested to know that God refers to clothing more than 530 times in Scripture, using 12 different Hebrew terms in the Old Testament and 6 different Greek terms in the New Testament.  He has something to say about our clothing, and anything He talks about should be of immediate interest to us.  It is kind of Him to speak to us about something that is such an integral part of life, isn’t it?5

The Old Testament admonitions

One would expect to find God’s attitude toward these things in the Law, the only national constitution God ever wrote.  He told Israel, Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD (Lev. 19:28).  God commanded Jeremiah not to intermingle in the lives of the heathen people where he had been carried, and when they died he was not to follow their religious ceremonies:  Neither shall men lament for them, nor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them (Jer. 16:6).  The cuttings in the flesh were done by the heathen for the souls of the dead.  God’s people were not to copy these cultural mores.  God’s attitude toward these things has never changed though He has changed the way He deals with them.  We think because God doesn’t strike offenders dead immediately, He doesn’t care as much about it as He used to.  The New Testament adds an even greater responsibility to these things because now the believer’s body is the actual abode of the Holy Spirit.

Many cling to an interpretation of Gen. 24:22 which proposes that Abraham’s servant gave Rebekah a nose ring.  But to call the jewel a “nose ring” is an opinion and not a translation, nor does it seem consistent with the text or context.  Taking the KJV as a starting point, we find that the man took a golden (zahab-“gold”) earring (nezem-“ring”) of a half-shekel weight (Gen. 24:22).  The NKJV translates the word nezem “nose ring” but as an interpretation not a translation seeing that the word for “nose” is not in this verse.  The NASB translates it “gold ring,” as does the ASV, since both the word “gold” and “ring” are in this verse, while the NIV translates it “a gold nose ring,” combining translation and interpretation.  To see the difference we only have to go forward to Gen. 35:4 where we have and all their earrings (nezem-“ring”) which were in their ears (ozen-“ear”).  We know that ozen is the ear, not the nose as any dictionary or concordance will show.  In that verse, the ring was obviously in the ear.  The reason given why the simple word for “ring” (nezem) is sometimes translated “nose ring” by some is because it is believed that many non-Jewish tribes wore rings in their nose.  This may or may not be the case but it makes “nose ring” an interpretation, not a translation.

The Hebrew word for “nose” is aph and appears in the context of the “ring” (nezem) in a few related passages.  In fact, in the 47th verse of this chapter of Genesis (24) we read and I put the earring (nezem-“ring”) upon her face (aph-“nose”).  Now that may seem to mean “in” her nose, but it does not necessarily.  It actually says “upon” (‘al) the nose.  This is an important distinction and some commentators (and parallel verses) understand this to picture a different thing.  John Gill, for example, says, “This was a jewel that hung from the forehead upon a lace of riband between the eyes down upon the nose.”6 The idea would be that the jewell hung on a strand of some kind around the head but hung low over the face to be “upon the nose” (my Bible footnotes Gen. 24:47 with, a jewel for the forehead).  This picture may be supported by contrasting two prophetic verses, one positive and one negative.  Ezekiel 16:12 is the great chapter where God is describing how He found and rescued Israel in her infancy.  In that graphic description He says, and I put a jewel (nezem-“ring”) on (‘al-“upon”) thy forehead (aph-“nose”).  The ring is said to be “upon” the nose as we have seen.  A negative contrast to this is in Isaiah 3:18-21 where we see God’s wrath poured out in the Day of the Lord.  In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings (lit. “amulets”), the rings (nezem-“ring”), and the nose jewels (“rings of the nose”).  Here we have the word “nose” with the word “ring” which both appear in this verse.  But what is interesting is that these rings are actually “of the nose” which is closer to meaning “in the nose” whereas in Genesis 24:47 the ring was “upon” the nose or face, perhaps, as we have seen, worn as a head-band.

Now one last note about Rebekah’s gold ring needs to be made.  Just because we have a true record of what was given to her and what she wore (even if it were a nose ring), this doesn’t mean it should become a model for us.  If the society we live in has given it a coded connotation, it should be discarded.  I have to agree with the following rather long statement by John Calvin,

But it may be asked, whether God approves ornaments of this kind, which pertain not so much to the neatness as to pomp?  I answer, that the things related to Scripture are not always proper to be imitated.  Whatever the Lord commands in general terms is to be accounted as an inflexible rule of conduct; but to rely on particular examples is not only dangerous, but even foolish and absurd.  Now we know how highly displeasing to God is not only pomp and ambition in adorning the body, but all kind of luxury.  In order to free the heart from inward cupidity, he condemns that immoderate and superfluous splendour, which contains within itself many allurements to vice.  Where, indeed, is pure sincerity of heart found under splendid ornaments?  Certainly all acknowledge this virtue to be rare.  It is not, however, for us expressly to forbid every kind of ornament; yet because whatever exceeds the frugal use of such things is tarnished with some degree of vanity; and more especially, because the cupidity of women is, on this point, insatiable; not only must moderation, but even abstinence, be cultivated as far as possible. . . . The women who desire to shine in gold, seek in Rebekah a pretext for their corruption.7

The New Testament Admonitions

1 Peter 3:3-4.  Peter recalls the Old Testament saints who honored God with their outward appearance and admonishes us all (but specifically wives) to follow their example.  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.

1 Timothy 2:9-10.  Paul sounds much like Peter in addressing specific excesses in dress and jewelry.  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamedfacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.  If today we cannot seem to apply these admonitions to avoid worldliness without the “either or” mentality (i.e. either we eliminate every tiny piece or we allow everything that can be dreamed up) then let us err on the side of the godly women of old who received the blessings of God because of their inward beauty not any outward advertisement.

Romans 6:13.  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourslves unto God. . . and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  Paul’s word for “instruments” in this verse means “weapons” (hopla).  Our bodies become weapons in the fight for righteousness!  The believer’s body can be a weapon on either side depending on how he/she yields it.  No wonder we will be judged at the Bema Seat for things done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10).

1 Corinthians 3:16-17.  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.  Here our translators show their love of variety in vocabulary because, in verse 17, “defile” and “destroy” are the exact same Greek word (to “destroy”, “defile” or “corrupt”).  When the believer sets about to “destroy” the body in which the Holy Spirit dwells, God sets about to destroy that body.  Vine calls it “God’s retributive destruction of the offender who is guilty of this sin.”8 We are seeing this corrupting influence dragging down the lives of many believers in our own churches.

1 Corinthians 6:15.  Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?  Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot?  God forbid.  Our Lord is jealous of the whole person.  He intends to save all of us, not just our soul, by raising the body from the dead (vs. 14).  If we will not carry unnecessary marks on our bodies with us into heaven, then they are out of place on this earth too.   He is possessive enough of our body that He is willing to share it with our earthly spouse but that is all.  All else is fornication whether it be physical or spiritual (Jas. 4:4).

Galatians 6:7-8.  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.  “Corruption” is the same word as “defile, destroy” in 1 Cor. 3:17.  We cannot sow into our flesh the elements of the world without reaping a corruption directed by God Himself!  This is extremely serious when God tells us that such sowing to the flesh is mocking Him!  It is thumbing our noses at God’s very warnings about how we treat the body which He gave us to be used as His temple.

Ephesians 2:2-3, 11; 1 Peter 4:3.  The phrase that is of interest in these verses (and many others like them) is “in time past.”  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world. . . Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of the flesh . . . Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh.  Peter says, For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walkeded in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.  The time when we lived for and by our flesh is history to the believer!  We have left the world’s indicators behind, even though (Peter writes in the next verse) unbelievers may speak evil of you, it is only because the old things have passed away and they like the old better than the new.

Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5.  If ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.  Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.  “Mortification” is one of those doctrines that is lost on our generation.  Like a couch potato who tries to get up and run a ten-mile marathon, the worldly Christian tries to mortify the fleshly desires of his body and fails.  The church today is much more interested in making theologies to indulge the flesh and pacify immature saints than it is to subject itself to rigorous spiritual training.  It is always easier in Rome to do as the Romans do (otherwise they may not like us and that would hurt our precious self-esteem).  Paul reminds us that For thy sake we are killed all the day long (Rom. 8:36) and that he was always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus; and that he was always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:10-11).  But we cannot seem to reserve even the skin of our teeth for Him.

Other Admonitions

The dignity of causality.  I have read this phrase in older Christian writers that God has given us two dignified means by which we may change things.  One is by doing things, and the other is by prayer.  Prayer is the greater and yet the lesser used of the two.  We usually pray as though little depended on God and work as though it all depends on us.  But doing things with our body is also a dignity God has given us.  We have this “space” that we live in to offer to God as a stewardship because it is the means by which we can do things.  It is the “space” for which we will be held accountable at the Bema Seat.  John says there will be shame before Him some day rather than confidence (1 John 2:28-29) because we have not used our bodies as effective instruments of the Holy Spirit.

Godliness for evangelism.  When Paul admonished Timothy to exercise himself to godliness more than to physical exercise (1 Tim. 4:7-8), it was for the express purpose of evangelism:  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.  It has pleased God to draw the lost to Christ by His children exercising themselves in godliness and not in physical exercises.  We have fallen into the unbiblical notion that we can reach the world better by avoiding godliness because lost people are turned off by it.  We certainly have no right to criticize the questionable methodologies of past evangelists when we have no concern of our own for the holy things of God.  Where did we hear that we can reach more sinners by offending the Holy Spirit?  For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.  He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit (1 Thes. 4:7-8).

Threshold separation.  We ought to have learned by now that opening a door and crossing the threshold exposes us to everything that is in that room.  When we cross certain thresholds of cultural and worldly practice, we are exposing ourselves and our loved ones to everything related to it.  Social drinking will not stop there; lower rated movies will not stop there; another hole in the same ear will not stop there; slightly crude words will not stop there;  a little aggressiveness in boys will not stop there; a little cleavage on girls will not stop there; a little tattoo on the arm will not stop there.  Paul scolded the Thessalonian church for being busy-bodies because he knew it would not stop there.  But ye, brethren, be not weary in well-doing.  And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thes. 3:13-15).  Whether bodily markings and piercings or any other culturally/worldly initiation, when we cross that threshold we seldom go back or even slow down.

Eschatological sensitivity.  The decline in preaching and belief about the coming Tribulation and the rise of the Anti-Christ has allowed the church to be less discerning about a one-world global culture.  Though this subject has fallen prey to many excesses and fantastic interpretations of the prophetic details, we cannot just stop living in the light of this coming judgment of God.  One of the details that we know is coming and that will have devastating global effects is the mark of the Beast.  The Bible uses a few different words for things resembling a mark.  Jesus is the image (icon) of the invisible God (Col. 1:14).  This word means “representation” or “likeness” and is a fitting description of Christ’s incarnation.  Paul said, I bear in my body the marks (stigma) of the Lord Jesus (Gal. 6:17).  These were, no doubt, the scars from his stoning in Lystra.  This is the common word for a “brand” or a burned “mark.”  But the word used to describe the mark of the Beast is charagma which is an engraver’s mark, a purposed scarification.  Though it can be used in its simple meaning,9 it is almost always used with a negative connotation in the New Testament.  In Revelation, the 144,000 are said to have God’s name “written” in their foreheads, but that is NOT this word.  Only the Beast and False Prophet use this kind of a mark (charagma) to imitate as closely as possible what God does supernaturally.  Paul used this word on Mars Hill to describe the pagan idolatry of the Athenians.  We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven (charagma) by art (technes) and man’s device (Acts 17:29).  The Anti-Christ will use this method to inscribe his mark on the heads or hands of the whole world that worships him and Satan.  Interestingly, the False Prophet somehow brings a technological reinforcement to this through the image (icon) he makes to the Beast.

In all of our modern and cultural “sophistication” the churches are indulging more and more into these things, and becoming less and less sensitive to their potential use for evil.  We think we are so culturally relevant because we can read the face of the sky, but we are not discerning the signs of the times.  Being culturally relevant is not simply to know how to get along in the world, it is knowing how to be God’s steward of truth in the time of falsehood, knowing how to be lights in a dark world.  How can we doubt that the world is being conditioned to receive the Anti-Christ and his one-world system with its vital key, the mark of the Beast.  Is the Church of Jesus Christ helping this conditioning?  Are we making it easier for the great enemy of Christ to deceive the rest of the world?  Do we not care that Christ will cast into hell those who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name (Rev. 14:11)?

And So . . . .

We ought to make the best use of this body that we have been given by God, and use it in a discerning way in the time which we have.  It is the only “space” we have to carry out our stewardship.  If we err, let us err on the side of wholesomeness and effectiveness for the truth’s sake and the gospel’s; let us err on the side of the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings that we might know more about the power of His resurrection.

When facing more severe hardships than ours, the eighteenth century writer Jean Baptiste Massillon wrote,

The children of Israel offered animals in sacrifice to the Lord, and Egypt worshipped them.  Their situation was typical of ours.  We form a people apart, in the midst of the world, because we ought to sacrifice to God those passions of the flesh which the world adores.  As soon as we break the barrier which separates us from the world — as soon as we leave this happy land of Goshen and go to mingle among idolaters, their worship becomes ours.  Separation from them constitutes all our safety and maintains a diversity of manners; by mixing, we form but one people with them and become like them.10

The believer’s walk in the world has become difficult for our generation to discern.  We’re told that any physical separation from the world is unbiblical and is like the ostrich with his head in the sand.  We forget that today’s lack of separation is just that—only today’s.  It has not been the church’s testimony for these last two thousand years.  The great work done for Christ by preachers and missionaries and many other godly saints, was not done in the worldly mode we are trying to use today.  The great cloud of witnesses is crying to us to be faithful!  They gave their bodies and their lives for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.  Surely we can do no less.

Notes:
1. Dwight M. Pratt, “Mark, a stigma,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. III (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939) 1986.
2. These are taken from various sites by searching for Tattoo and Piercing.
3. Better Homes & Gardens, July 2005.
4. Friederic Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (New York:  Penguin Books, 1978) 34.
5. David Warren, “Clothing Communicates,” The Baptist Bulletin, May 1999.
6. John Gill, Dr. Gill’s Commentary, vol. 1 (London:  William Hill Collingridge, 1853) 132.
7. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. second (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 22.
8. W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1966) 242.
9. This is used, for example, in Heb. 1:3, where Christ is said to be the express image of his person which shows the exactness of His divine image.
10. Jean Baptiste Massillon, “On the Spirit of the Ministry,” Orations from Homer to McKinley, vol. IV (New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1902) 1713.