Skip to main content

The Primacy of the Local Church in this ...

Written by Rick Shrader

The Primacy of the Local Church in this Age

by Rick Shrader

We premillennialists understand the two comings of Jesus Christ.  The first, as the suffering Lamb of God, has already taken place, and the second, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, is yet to take place.  There have always been those who claim that Jesus Christ has returned in some other way, or that He is alive and hiding somewhere on the earth right now.  The Scripture gives no such indication.  But did you ever wonder what would happen if Jesus Christ did come to earth, sometime between His first and second comings, and do something that the world really needed done?  What would He do?  Would the world or His own people respond?  Actually, these are not questions for which there is no answer.  The biblical fact is, Jesus Christ did come back to earth between His two comings—to a single man on a lonely island in the Mediterranean Sea!  He came briefly to this earth and appeared to the last living Apostle, John, and commanded him to write down all that was revealed to him, which he faithfully did.  The message contains specific detail of how the present age will end and what men will have to do if they are to escape the coming wrath of an Almighty God.

I might have imagined that Christ would come back to Caesar’s throne room.  He could have changed the sin and wickedness of the whole empire (the fact that Constantine claimed that this happened, and that the Roman Church is the result, is refutation enough to that supposed event).  I might have imagined an end to slavery, homosexuality and martyrdoms, and success in the evangelization of the world due to the return of Jesus to the Mediterranean world in A.D. 95.  But, no!  His appearance to John would be for a much more earth-shaking reason.  His appearance to John was for the expressed purpose of identifying, examining and charging the local churches, during this interim age of grace, to be faithful in their mighty and divine commission!  These were not large or famous churches.  The persecution that they had already endured and that was yet to come would keep them from becoming Roman Empire mega-churches.  Their mission seemed insignificant to the mighty and the wise of their day.  Their prayer meetings were deemed powerless next to the incense-burning services of the amphitheaters.  Their preaching of cross-bearing was foolishness to the freedom and carnality of the Roman world.  But Jesus Christ’s only concern was the fitness and faithfulness of these congregations.

The local churches were not without their problems.  Five out of the seven letters contain scathing rebuke for sin and error that were allowed to remain unchecked within the churches.  There was fear and doubt that their meager resources could accomplish the great task that had been given them.  It was obvious that the Lord’s promise of blessing was not to everyone who resided in the churches, but to those who would overcome and follow His Word.  Though the letters to these churches differ in significant ways, there are many common ingredients in the charges to all seven churches.

Each letter is addressed to the pastor of the church

In chapter one, John sees Christ with seven stars in His right hand.  He is told specifically, “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (1:20).  The pastors are called “angels” because they are the messengers of God to the congregations.  Paul reminded the Galatian Christians, “And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Jesus Christ” (Gal 4:14).  Christ has the pastors in His right hand and He is about to take them for a walk through their churches.  No door will remain unlocked, no file unopened, no secret activity will be left behind closed doors.  Every letter begins with Christ addressing “the angel of the church of . . .”  and He says “I know your (second person singular) works!”

How local churches need pastors who can walk with God without fear or shame!  Martyn-Lloyd Jones said, “The preacher’s first, and most important, task is to prepare himself, not his sermon.”1 R.A. Torrey said, “Many of us who are professedly orthodox ministers are practically infidels.”2 Dr. Clearwaters used to tell us students, “More of you will fail in administration than in preaching.”  But I would have to say today, more of us have failed in preaching than in administration.  We are information and administration gurus!  But have we prepared ourselves to walk with God among the candlesticks?

Each letter is signed from the Holy Spirit to the churches

At the end of each letter we read, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”  The Holy Spirit is the divine Administrator of the church.  “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us” (Rom 5:5).  These small bands of believers possessed more power within their midst than the whole Roman army could muster in ten life-times.  There was no jail cell in the empire that had been able to hold an apostle when the church prayed.  He is still in the business of restraining the sin and evil of an entire world (2 Thes 2:7) as well as convicting the entire world of sin, righteousness and judgment to come (Jn 16:8).  What could be more important to these churches than the conviction and guiding of this Holy Overseerer?

The pastor has no fear of church business when the members are Spirit-filled.  The voting of the congregations that we see in the New Testament were mere expressions of the Holy Spirit’s will when the majority of Spirit-filled members voted their Spirit-led consciences.  But when the Nicolaitans were writing the curriculum (2:6, 15), and Jezebel was doing the counseling (2:20), and Balaam was scheduling Balak to hold special meetings (2:14), no marquee in the empire could promise “Revival begins next week!”  God gave us one mouth and two ears so we could “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

Each letter has reference to the description of the resurrected Christ

Paul had written to the Corinthians, “yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16).  The earthly ministry of Christ’s first coming is done.  If we want a glimpse of Christ today or in the future, we need to read Revelation chapter one.  With pieces from that picture of Christ with His head and hairs like wool, His eyes like flames of fire, His feet like burning brass and His voice like many waters, He begins each letter to the churches.  To Ephesus, who left their first love, He walks among the candlesticks; to Smyrna, who was suffering persecution unto death, He is the first and the last, who was dead and is alive; to Pergamos and Thyatira, who had not dealt with doctrinal error, He has a sharp sword and feet like brass.

On the Damascus road Paul learned that when he had persecuted the body of Christ on the earth, he had persecuted the Head in heaven.  From that we should learn that our attitude or action toward the local churches on earth is taken personally by our Head who is in heaven.  It ought to give us pause.  A.J. Gordon wrote, “A noble head, lofty-browed and intellectual, upon a deformed and stunted body is a pitiable sight.  Even so, an unsanctified church dishonours the Lord by its incongruity.  To the angels and principalities who gaze evermore upon the face of Jesus, what must be the sight of an unholy and misshapen church on earth, standing in that place of honour called ‘His body.”3

Each letter contains the words of Christ: “I know thy works”

Whether it is to the five sinning churches or to the two churches who receive no rebuke, Christ declares that He knows what they do.  The good works, labor and patience is noted even when the church had serious problems.  Service done to God never goes unnoticed.  He even took note of Cornelius’ good works before he became a believer (Acts 10:4).  But neither does God disregard the sin in the church just because there is a lot of spiritual activity going on.  Ephesus was in danger of losing their standing among the candlesticks (2:5) even though Christ knew their works, labor and patience (2:3).  Christ was ready to fight against the church at Pergamos (2:16) even though He knew their good works and that they had not denied His name (2:13).  When Christ looks at our busy churches and still says, “Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee,”  we are in present danger of losing His blessing!

In the days of American revivalism, local churches found it easy to neglect the important day by day necessities of the church.  “Revivalism’s tendency toward spiritual individualism had led evangelists ‘in a great measure to neglect the church.’ But it was in life within the church that believers could find ‘the truths of the gospel that constitute the food of Christians’ that was ‘essential to their sanctification.”4 There are no important and unimportant sins within the church.

Each letter leaves room for the individual Christian to do right

To the sinning churches, Christ’s simple command is to “repent.”  It is not necessary to give God excuses and reasons why we have gone astray.  He sees every detail immediately and goes straight to the heart of the matter.  He is also ready to forgive at the moment our repentance and confession comes! (1 John 1:9).  The Holy Spirit’s invitation to each church is “He that hath an ear to hear.”  Regardless of what the rest of the church is doing, an individual believer is responsible for himself to God and always has the ability to do right.

When God was ready to throw Thyatira into a bed of fornication with Jezebel, He said, “But unto you and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan . . .” (2:24).  When Sardis was caught in her carnal showiness that lacked any spiritual depth (3:1), the Lord said, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy” (3:4).  When God was ready to spew Laodicea out of His mouth for their lukewarmness, He gives the great invitation, “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and sup with him, and he with me” (3:20).  None of us will be able to plead individual ignorance when we stand before God.

And so . . . .

Local churches are to Christianity what families are to a nation.  When they are redefined, broken down, and lose their authority, the whole will be weakened by the parts.  When the government merely uses families to gain and keep political control, that nation is in trouble.  When denominations and movements lose sight of the primacy of the local church, and merely use them to keep control, those movements will be in trouble as well.  May we remain faithful, vigilant and undaunted in this great business of the local church on earth!

 
Notes:
1. Quoted by Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing:  The Preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) 126.
2. R.A. Torrey, How To Pray (Chicago:  Moody Press, nd)  101.
3. Quoted by J. Sidlow Baxter, Our High Calling (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1977) 91.
4. Charles Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1966) 180.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Why I Have Not Seen the Movie, The Passi...

Written by Rick Shrader

Why I Have Not Seen the Movie, The Passion of the Christ

by Rick Shrader

We all must pause to express our conscience on controversial matters sooner or later even though we would rather talk only of “the common faith” and leave the “contending” to the expert apologists.  C.S.  Lewis said, “The greatest cause of verbicide is the fact that most people are obviously far more anxious to express their approval and disapproval of things than to describe them” (Studies in Words, p. 7).  I have chosen not to see the movie for a number of reasons with which one may agree or disagree.  While I have no desire to make personal attacks, I do desire to speak my own conscience on this very current matter.  Now that some time is going by, there is a growing collection of sincere objections to the film. I offer my own to this list.

1. My life-long boycott of the theater.  It may seem like begging the question to place this reason first but I don’t think so.  I have preached to my church and lived before my family that I believe it is far better for our children/people never to have sat in a theater with their father/pastor than to have done so.  Knowing what has happened to Hollywood in the last forty years, I can’t help but believe the next forty will totally paganize our kids.  My children/people will never recollect me sitting with them there.  To break that commitment now, even for this reason, is more conscience than I care to violate.  I see this as being “blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed” (Titus 1:7).  I think that keeping this principle will reap far greater benefits in the long run.

2. My love, familiarity and blessing in reading the four gospels.  It has been an amazing thing to watch the reaction of our generation to a movie, a reaction that has never taken place from reading the inspired Word of God.  It never occurred to me to see any of the Jesus movies.  But I do read one of the gospels through thoughtfully every month and have done so for years.  The added reality for me is in the theology of the atonement, not languishing in unnecessary detail that the Holy Spirit chose not to include.  Even the rest of the New Testament always emphasizes the reason and scope of Christ’s death, not the added details that humans may have wanted.  Peter is typical when he writes,  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:22-24).

3. The justification of Roman Catholicism by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  Although many feel their use of the movie does not justify Catholicism, I believe it does to the Catholics and allows their view of the blood of the sacrament to be affirmed.  Are we not bidding them “God speed” as they return to their Church altar?  In the third volume of The Fundamentals, written in 1917 and edited by R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon, T.W. Medhurst from Glasgow, Scotland began his article this way, “I am aware that, if I undertake to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called ‘bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.’ Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions” (“Is Romanism Christianity?”, vol. 3, p. 288).  I think we will find it harder than ever to win our Catholic friends and neighbors to Christ once we have given credence to their version of the sufferings of Christ.  What is poetic license to us is church dogma to them.  The obvious exaltation of the Roman Eucharistic Mystery by Anne Catherine Emmerich in her book, as well as by Gibson and his cast during filming, is something with which I cannot have fellowship.  For what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?  And what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Cor 6:14-15).

4. My opposition to ecumenicalism.  One may conclude that we were wrong to criticize ecumenical evangelism over the last fifty years, but it is hard not to see this as the same thing.  Maybe some can avoid this, but it seems this has been difficult even in the pre-viewing process as well as in the use of the film.  In ecumenical evangelism the lowest common denominator of doctrine is sought so that groups differing on major doctrines may come together for the purpose of evangelism.  This means that you have to acquiesce to doctrine you believe is wrong and which you teach against for what all have agreed is the greater good.  But fundamentalists have objected to this as pragmatic, the end justifying the means, and compromise of doctrinal truth.  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 3:14-15).  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom 16:17).  It is always tempting to use the means that seem (to us) to get the job of evangelism done quicker.  But is it a lack of trust or compassion to stay within the bounds of Scriptural commands and trust that God knows best?  Ask Abraham in Hagar’s bedroom, or Moses striking the rock, or Uzzah holding the ark, about things which seem to work as opposed to what God has specifically said.

5. My view of Revelation 17 and 18.  Though it is becoming increasingly unpopular today to identify the Harlot in these chapters as the Roman Church, it has been a common belief of good Bible expositors.  It is the blood of the apostles as well as the prophets (Rev 18:20) that God will avenge on her.  It is Mystery Babylon, the imitation of Babel that John sees.  H.A. Ironside wrote, “In other words all sects will be swallowed up in the one distinctively Babylonish system that has ever maintained the cult of the mother and the child. . . . Rome alone answers to the description given” (Revelation, 297). In like manner, John Walvoord wrote of this harlot, “It is a sad commentary on contemporary Christendom that it shows an overwhelming desire to return to Rome in spite of Rome’s evident apostasy from true biblical Christianity.  In fact, modern liberalism has far outdone Rome in its departure from the theology of the early church, thus has little to lose by a return to Romanism.  Apostasy, which is seen in its latent form today, will flower in its ultimate form in this future superchurch which will apparently engulf all Christendom in the period after the rapture of the church” (Revelation, 248).  I understand that not every Bible expositor takes this view.  But if this old and common view is correct, and if today’s generation happens to be the generation of the anti-Christ, then we will have done what John started to do and was corrected, I wondered with great admiration.  And the angel said unto me, wherefore didst thou marvel?. . . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities (Rev 17:6-7; 18:4-5).

Again, I know that disagreement over this issue causes irritation to many.  As I have written, “the tyranny of the tolerant” most often closes the door on objections.  But I believe that as time goes on and the emotion of the moment wanes, many such objections will begin to be weighed and considered valid.  God grant us all biblical wisdom.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Tyranny of the Tolerant

Written by Rick Shrader

The Tyranny of the Tolerant

by Rick Shrader

It is the best of times.  It is the worst of times.  Never have Americans been as comfortable in their homes and as afraid in the world.  Never have Americans enjoyed freedom of thought and expression and been so corrupt in the imaginations of their hearts.  And never have Americans been so tolerant of moral decadence while being robbed of every trace of moral fiber.  Dick Keyes described the irony that has taken place; “Tolerance is rightly seen as a virtue.  But today what is often implied by the word is relativism, thinly disguised under the positive connotations of the word tolerance.  If you do not toe the line to relativism you are branded as intolerant, which is not tolerated.”1 That is, the very ones who have insisted on their right to do as they please, cannot grant the same privilege to others.  They cannot allow anyone to tell them they cannot do as they please!

Tolerance can indeed be a virtue.  Even Jesus tolerated the unbelief of enemies and friends alike.  It is tolerance that lets the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.  In nations and cultures, Christians have had to live among corruption, allowing the sin of the lost to coexist with righteousness until the Righteous Judge does the dividing.  During this time God Himself is not intolerant, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).  However, as Peter reminds us in the same chapter, there is a limit to God’s patience and judgment will one day be meted out.

But there is also a spiritual line that must be drawn by the believer.  He knows that granting unlimited tolerance to the sinful nature will quickly breed tyranny of his own heart and mind.  Paul doubly answered the Corinthians’ questions about their desire for personal tolerance by writing, All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any (1 Cor 6:12).  There is no power so tyrannical as the sinful nature of man, and the believer must always know where to draw the line on its desire to enslave.

This tyranny is more obvious in the larger cultural landscape.  We have seen Hollywood change from a time when family and Christian productions were the norm, and only slight indiscretions were allowed,  to a time when debauchery is the norm and Christianity is outwardly attacked.  Our country was built on laws that protect the family as a divine institution designed for a man and a woman.  Now moral deviation has become a powerful lobby and desires to do away with marriage and the family altogether.  What once asked for a little toleration has become the tyrant.

Os Guinness has captured our generation in these words:  “In a day of relativism, tolerance, cynicism, radical multiculturalism, and ‘morally ungrounded morality,’ how is anyone to judge anything, let alone condemn? . . . The 1960s student slogan ‘It is forbidden to forbid’ now covers thinking and criticizing as well as acting.  Censuring is commonly confused with censoring and moral judgment is paralyzed at the same time that gossip is unleashed.”2 Guinness notes that “censuring,” a common form of conversation and critique, is now seen as “censoring,” which is to make something illegal.  “I would like to disagree with you” (censuring) is met with “We are not here to judge one another’s values” (censoring).   Those who demand toleration for their point of view in the group soon become the tyrants of the conversation, eliminating any who might want to disagree.

The tyranny of moral tolerance

The Christian should be acutely aware that the flesh seeks to control the Spirit and the Spirit seeks to control the flesh.  But when the flesh is in control, it is tolerant of everything except restriction, as Paul says, So that you cannot do the things that ye would (Gal 5:17).  Peter describes apostate leaders that use the flesh for their own gain:  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2 Pet 2:18-19).

It is a foolish thing for a Christian to think he can indulge the flesh while remaining above its addictive power.  Even the Christian finds out that if he sows to the flesh he shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal 6:8).  This we know sadly due to the well traveled path of overcome laymen, parents, children and ministers.  Too many modern-day Joseph’s are slaves in the chamber of Potiphar’s wife, opting for a little tolerance rather than denial.  Too many modern-day Demases are of no more use to the ministry due to loving this present world (literally “this now age”) and are now the slaves to it.

Satan is good at getting the believer to see the value of compartmentalizing his sins into separate categories where one does not affect the other.  “A little indiscretion here will not affect my ministry there.”  Satan has convinced some that privatizing one’s convictions allows both for tolerance and diversity.  “What is right for you may not be right for me.”  But these things come from the father of lies.

The tyranny of doctrinal tolerance

In similar fashion to fleshly temptations, tolerance of doctrinal compromise and acquiescence will destroy the work of God.  As the apostle Paul warned Timothy of the last days, these admonitions are packed into sixteen verses:  shun . . .  depart . . .  purge . . .  flee . . . avoid . . . turn away (2 Tim 2:16-3:5).  Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching false doctrine about the resurrection. Timothy was to “shun” them.  In any house (church?) there are vessels (teachers?) of wood and vessels of gold.  Timothy is to “purge himself” from the vessels of wood.  In the last days some will have a “form of godliness” but deny the biblical truth of godliness.  From such Timothy is to “turn away.”

These teachers of false doctrine were sporting themselves among the believers and feasting with them in the early churches (2 Pet 2:13).  They had crept in unawares among the brethren, Jude says, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear (Jude 4, 12).  The believers had indulged those asking for doctrinal tolerance but now could not keep the leaven from leavening the whole lump.  The believer sometimes thinks he can handle a little heresy without it hurting him.  Vance Havner wrote, “He mistakes the stretching of his conscience for the broadening of his mind.”3 He tolerates false doctrine and doesn’t realize when he has been captured by it.

In Ephesians 4, Paul is writing of the development of the believers and the church and their need for unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph 4:13) so that they would not be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men (vs 14).  The word “sleight” (“trickery” NKJV) is the word kubeia or “cubes.”  It means to play at the cubes, or to play dice.  Believers who give themselves to false teaching are like the cubes in a game of dice.  What they believe is determined by chance or by the last teacher they heard or the last book they read.  Their tolerance of the false doctrine has left them slaves to the teachers of false doctrine.

The tyranny of family tolerance

One of the tragic tyrannies displayed all around us today is the subjugation of parents to children.  In the 1960s J. Sidlow Baxter wrote, “Not long ago, according to a radio newscast, a foreign diplomat visiting America remarked that one of the things which had impressed him most about the average American home was the wonderful obedience in it — the obedience of parents to children!  The thing would be comic if it were not tragic.”4 My mother taught in the public high school for twenty five years including the 1960s.  I remember her saying of those days, “The teachers were afraid of the principal; the principal was afraid of the school board; the school board was afraid of the parents; the parents were afraid of the students; and the students were afraid of no one!”

I use the 1960s as a starting place because I was a teenager then.  What began as a request for “rights” and “space” was really a demand for total freedom from any restraint.  This precursor of postmodernism soon turned to tyranny from the very ones who first asked for tolerance.  Soon the arms were locked and the fists were raised and the songs were sung and there was no going back.  Sadly, this was largely due to parents and teachers refusing to “just say no.”  Spurgeon said, “When fathers are tongue-tied religiously with their offspring, need they wonder if their children’s hearts remain sin-tied?”5

C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Four Loves, describes the family love, “storg?.”  As in all the earthly words for love, though it is beautiful in its proper use, it becomes a dictator unless it is tempered by agape love.6 A parent’s love for children or a child’s love for parents can develop into ruthless control if left to itself.  It is not very funny to see a parent indulging little Johnny during his antics, laughing with him and showing him how cute he is.  To anyone else, without the attachment of storg?, little Johnny is not funny and the tyranny that is sure to come is obvious.  Vance Havner wrote, “Fathers sometimes make the mistake of trying to be merely pals to their boys.  They mean well but fathers are not meant to be mere pals but parents; when they lose their parental authority and the respect of their children they have sacrificed too much.”7

The one indulgence that children will not be able to overcome is the indulgence to worldliness.  The world, the flesh and the devil will eat our kids up if we do not set the example of separation and godliness.  The book of Hebrews says that when Moses was grown, he; a) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; b) forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; and c) kept the Passover when it was despised by all Egypt (Heb 11:24-28).  Why could Moses do this?  Because when he was young he was hid three months by godly parents who feared the Lord their God more than the king of Egypt.  Moses learned early that no price is too high to pay for obedience to God.

The tyranny of church tolerance

The church is no more than individuals and families.  If these indulgences have taken place in those areas, we are sure to find them in the church.  How often churches have been held hostage by moral or financial scandal; by doctrinal leaven that creeps in and affects the whole church; by worldliness that begins as a slight acquiescence to gain nickels and noses but ends in a lack of power and respect!  Our churches are filled with little Johnnys and little Suzys who demand tolerance for their lack of manners and behavior while indulgent parents smile with blinded eyes.  But the same indulgence that was cute at two years old is not so cute at sixteen years old.  By then, however, the teen department is running the church.  The tolerance that was indulged for many years in the hallways and children’s programs has now become the tyranny that demands conformity from the rest of the church, including the adults, seniors and often the pastoral staff.  Everyone is afraid that the tantrum that used to be thrown on the hallway floor will now be thrown under the exit sign of the church.  To deny the youth department the music, dress, language and a prominent place on the platform is to risk losing families.  Why?  Because the children will tell the parents they want to leave and the parents, as they have done since their children were toddlers, will indulge them.

In my lifetime I have seen our Baptist churches change in their attitude toward ecumenicalism and tolerance of contrary doctrine.  What once was general agreement among our brethren is now mutual non-agreement.   In 1964, the first Fundamental Baptist Congress of America was held in Detroit at Temple Baptist Church. The congress was attended by leaders of almost every fundamental Baptist group in America and the messages were printed in a book (as were the congress messages for the next several years).   Paul R. Jackson preached a sermon titled, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Church.”  He said:

The interdenominationalists cry that we must ignore the points that divide us, and unite upon a few fundamental doctrines.  To such persons immersion is not important; eternal security is not important; New Testament polity is not important, along with many similar doctrines.  They contend that as long as a man believes in the deity of Christ and the precious blood as the price of redemption that he should be received into the church.  Now, my brethren, this is compromise and nothing but ecumenicalism within the framework of redemptive truth.8

Today, such a statement would cause one to be quickly removed from the roster of speakers rather than to be printed in a book.  Email chat rooms for pastors or pastors’ wives are notorious for allowing the broadest discussion from an ecumenical viewpoint, but quickly censoring any objection.  Even among fundamental Baptists we may talk all day without fear of criticism of things such as Promise Keepers, Women of Faith, Forty Days of Purpose, or The Passion.  But let one brother speak his conscience to the contrary and his objection cannot be tolerated for a moment.  One-way streets are very diverse for all travelers, but only if one happens to be going that way.

And so . . . .

“In our day of diversity and tolerance, where God the Creator has been dethroned, denouncing error has become the ultimate unpardonable sin.  Principal opposition to anything that others hold dear makes you a bigot and a hate-monger.”9 But God has not asked us to tailor His message to fit the likes and dislikes of the audience.  Such a message never ends in victory, only in tyranny.

Notes:
 
1. Dick Keyes, Chameleon Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1999) 26.
 
2. Os Guinness, Unriddling Our Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1999) 116.
 
3. Vance Havner, Why Not Just Be Christians? (Westwood, NJ:  Revell, 1964) 21.
 
4. J. Sidlow Baxter, Our High Calling (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 59.
 
5. Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David vol. II) Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1978) 333.
 
6. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (New York: HBJ Book, 1988) 76-77.
 
7. Vance Havner, Repent or Else!: The Seven Churches of Revelation (Old Tappan: Revell, 1958) 91.
 
8. Paul R. Jackson, in Biblical Faith of Baptists (Detroit: FBCA, 1964) 35.
 
9. Tal Brooke, The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God (Eugene: Harvest House, 1998) 76.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Religious Postmodern Talking Points

Written by Rick Shrader

Religious Postmodern Talking Points

by Rick Shrader

In the last few years we have been inundated with information from within political circles that has been crafted by certain individuals but is intended to be heard by the general public.  Sometimes this is a “trial balloon” of information, floated in public conversation to evaluate its effect.  Often it is a specific piece of information which is intended to feed the public only as much as the operatives want it to know.  As time goes by, these “talking points” become generally accepted information and begin to shape the way people think.  Our postmodern culture is adept at the verbal symbolism even over factual substance.

As believers, we are part of this postmodern culture but we utilize our own unique vocabulary in constructing our own verbal symbolisms.  As time goes by, these “Religious” talking points become as accepted as gospel within religious circles.  Within a few minutes one can list dozens of phrases and wordings that began for some individual’s unique purpose but have now become household terminology.  I cut my list down to a dozen and categorized them into three groups.

Contemporary Talking Points

“I’m sorry if I offended you.”  We hear this every day from Christians and non-Christians alike.  Janet Jackson used this phrase as her excuse for her indecent performance at the Super Bowl halftime.  What has become obvious about those using this line is that they are making no admission that what they did was wrong.  Rather than taking blame and apologizing, they are actually placing the blame on the offended ones.  “If they weren’t so morally weak, shallow people, they wouldn’t have been offended.  Who are they to judge me, anyway.”

Ronald Nash described similar people by writing, “Such people seldom try to argue that there is nothing wrong with cheating or stealing or lying.  Such people attempt rather to find some way of showing that what they did doesn’t violate the principle or at least is a justifiable exception to the moral standard.”1 This has become a mantra for believers who are intent on doing what they want but wish to characterize those who object as weak brethren.

“If you have a problem with it, you shouldn’t do it.”  This is Christian relativism.  I have heard this used more than once as an answer to those who have changed their mind about a questionable practice and have left it.  When some musicians have left the CCM movement due to its worldliness and have gone back to a more conservative approach to church music, this has become the response of their critics.  I think this is akin to Hollywood’s rating system where what is wrong for one age group is not wrong for another.  Romans 14:22-23 concerns truly neutral issues such as which meat to eat or whether to work on Saturday.  Paul has more direct language for culturally moral issues (e.g. Rom 12:1-2).

Wendy Shalit, in a speech at Hillsdale College said, ”When I talk to college students, invariably one will say, ‘Well, if you want to be modest, be modest.  If you want to be promiscuous, be promiscuous.  We all have a choice, and that’s the wonderful thing about this society.’  But the culture, I tell them, can’t be neutral.  Nor is it subtle in its influence on behavior.”2

“You can only help those in sin if you have been there yourself.”  Of course, this would eliminate Jesus as being the “Counselor.”  The truth is, when a person falls into a sin, he/she has stopped learning anything about the sin at that point.  From then on he/she is only a captive of it.  The person who knows the most about how to help is the person who has resisted to a deeper level and has successfully overcome the temptation.  The real danger in this thought is that it encourages Christians to sin so that they may be good counselors.

In reading Oswald Chambers’ devotional book this last year I read, “The saint who satisfies the heart of Jesus will make other saints strong and mature for God.  The people who do us good are never those who sympathize with us, they always hinder, because sympathy enervates.  No one understands a saint but the saint who is nearest to the Saviour.”3 “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Prov 20:5).

“We have to reach people on their own level.”  Besides this being rather insulting to a thinking lost person, what does it say about the power of the Holy Spirit?  Where exactly is it that we ought to depart from living or thinking one way (in which we are convinced biblically we should live or think) in order to reach the sinner?  Do we know more than the Scripture?  Are we more useful to the Holy Spirit now that we have changed into this “relevant” Christian?  This cannot be more effective in evangelism.  Paul’s prayer for Philemon was “That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus” (Phile 6).  The cults, not Christians, use stealth tactics.

In 1 Corinthians 9:22, Paul’s determination to be “all things to all men that I might by all means save some,” is the conclusion to his explanation not to take wages from the churches but rather to work with his own hands.  This is a willful humbling of oneself in order to be effective with people, not a willful violating of conscience or biblical principle.

Francis Schaeffer was sometimes perceived to accommodate the culture.  But in describing the downfall of the Church he wrote, “It is my firm belief that when we stand before Jesus Christ, we will find that it has been the weakness and accommodation of the evangelical group on the issues of the day that has been largely responsible for the loss of the Christian ethos which has taken place in the area of culture in our own country over the last forty to sixty years.”4

Philosophic Talking Points

“We must continue to change if we are to stay relevant.”  This philosophy proposes that we can live in a constant state of change to be relevant to a culture that is constantly changing.  But this is like trying to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth.  The great postmodern dilemma is to try to make a definite statement about the belief that nothing can be definite.  This religious postmodern talking point is also caught on the horns of an opposite dilemma.  How can we adopt a state of constant change in order to convince people that there is a definite set of Christian beliefs?

When we need to make a statement in support of change, however, we become much like C.S. Lewis’ observation, “When changes in the human mind produce a sufficient disrelish of the old Model and a sufficient hankering for some new one, phenomena to support that new one will obediently turn up.  I do not at all mean that these new phenomena are illusory.  Nature has all sorts of phenomena in stock and can suit many different tastes.”5

“We cannot force our values on anyone.”  Why not?  We do it all the time beginning with our children and going right through the university.  Now if we mean that we cannot force a mind to believe what it has determined not to believe, this may be true.  But we do not hear it in that fashion.  What is usually meant is that we cannot put someone in a forced situation and have them learn or become convinced of anything (Of course, not everyone who needs to be forced, needs to be convinced, as in traffic laws, but the human nature does not want to learn many things which it needs to learn).  The amount of force used in learning depends on the ability of the learner and the urgency of the truth to be learned.  Teaching children not to play in fire requires different force than teaching adults to like okra.  When it comes to moral truths, if they exist at all, by their nature they force themselves on us all.  Exam day will not accept personal excuses.

“Culture is morally neutral.”  In trying to find a way to use all of the world’s cultural expressions as our own we often hear it put in this fashion.  It is especially applied to the arts.  Rick Warren has repeatedly said that there is no such thing as Christian music, only Christian lyrics.  He even says that God invented music.6 But the fact is that God created material from which fallen man has invented his music.  All that culture is, after all, is the product of what fallen man does.  He can do some things well on the outside, but always with a self-centered bent on the inside.  As many have noticed, culture is actually the incarnation of our religion, the outworking of what we believe.7 This is no where as true (perhaps highlighted to a greater degree) as in music.  Music is an emotional art that cannot be detached from the soul of the inventor.  It is only as morally neutral as a man’s soul is morally neutral.

“You have been inconsistent too.”  We heard this from the oval office when immorality was defended by pointing out that famous men in history had probably done the same thing.  This is a kind of “lowest moral appeal” argument.  When one’s fault is exposed, he quickly turns the table on the questioner and points out equal inconsistencies.  Such a person has no intention of changing his actions, rather, he wants everyone to be free to do as they please.  Allan Bloom wrote, “The fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is superior to others . . . On the face of it, the difference of opinion would seem to raise the question as to which is true or right than to banish it.  The natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.”8

Theological Talking Points

“You can’t please God by keeping rules.”  The explanation sometimes sounds like a new form of sinless perfection.  “Since all of our sins are forgiven, past, present and future, we should never feel under obligation to strive in overcoming sin.”  This is mixing justification with sanctification.  Just because, in justification, we cannot do good works to gain salvation doesn’t mean, in sanctification, God doesn’t ask us to do good works.  Some people only mean by this, rules that men impose that are extra-biblical.  But biblical admonitions are rules as well.  And so is our valid application of biblical principles to all areas of our lives.  In fact, all morality is obedience to God’s moral laws and in effect is rule-keeping.  The obligation to follow such moral laws is right, regardless of how they may or may not be enforced.

“God accepts you just as you are.”  This is somewhat like the previous point in that it mixes our standing in Christ with our personal walk with Christ.  But there is more here.  God cannot accept a sinner as he is.  Though we come “Just as I am without one plea,” we must come because we realize (through the repentance process) that we must change or be lost.  That is why the sinner must have his sins forgiven through Jesus Christ, that is, he must change if God is going to accept him.  Similarly, once a person becomes a believer, he starts on a road of progressive sanctification where he is continually being conformed to the image of His Son.  God is not pleased with the Christian who doesn’t grow and progress in his/her Christian walk.  Thank God He doesn’t accept us as we are until we get to heaven where, “we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:3).

“You can’t give me chapter and verse.”  This also follows in the same vein as the previous two.  It sounds good to say that everything we are obligated to do must be found in so many words in the Bible.  But some use this as a justification of sin and a refusal to make biblical application.  How are we supposed to take a statement like, “lay apart all filthiness” (Jas 1:21)?  Does that only apply to things we can find specifically described in the Bible, or does it also apply to whatever is filthy in our life?  Is taking God’s name in vain only true of those expressions we find in the Bible?  This seems to be a sort of biblical minimalism where we apply the Bible downward to its smallest possible import rather than applying it upward to every area of our lives.

“Who are you to judge what I do?”  Often the talking points are borrowed from the very words of Scripture but the real meaning is replaced by subjective meaning.  Though the Bible commands us not to judge motives (James 4:11; Rom 14:3), it commands us to judge actions (1 Cor 5:12-13; Gal 4:30).  People use this today to mean that we can’t voice any disagreement with what they do.  In a postmodern mind, disagreement is a form of hate.  It sees the one disagreeing as being arrogant and condescending, which of course is a dodge to avoid having to answer for one’s actions.  We are in desperate straits if we cannot discuss the merits of our actions.

Os Guinness wrote, “Ours is a world in which ‘Thou shalt not judge’ has been elevated to the status of a new eleventh commandment.  Many people today consider judging evil to be worse than doing evil.  But whatever the antipathy toward ‘judgmentalism,’ there are times when the widely acclaimed attitudes of relativism, tolerance, and nonjudgmental acceptance just won’t do.”9

Therefore . . .

We ought to apply the Bible to all areas of life, and to see those valid applications as God’s will.  Francis Schaeffer wrote some years ago, “You can carry out your intellectual discussion to the end of the game, because Christianity is not only true to the dogmas, it is not only true to what God has said in the Bible, but it is also true to what is there, and you will never fall off the end of the world.”10


Notes:
1. Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1988) 158.
2.  Wendy Shalit, “Modesty Revisited,” Imprimis, March, 2001.
3.  Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest (New York:  Dodd, Mead & Co., 1935) 223.
4.  Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton:  Crossway Books, 1992) 37.
5.  C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1998) 221.
6.  See for example, Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 65.
7.  See for example, T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York:  A Harvest Book, 1949) 101.  Also see Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil (Dallas:  Word Publishing, 1996) 82.  See also the above quote by Wendy Shalit.
8.  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York:  Simon & Schuster, 1987) 39.
9.  Os Guinness, The Long Journey Home (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 56.
10.  Francis Schaeffer, He Is There And He Is Not Silent (Wheaton:  Tyndale House, 1972) 17.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Are You Managing by the Book of the Mont...

Written by Terry Conley

Are You Managing by the Book of the Month or by the Book? (part 2)

by Terry Conley

A business perspective on Church as a business

Terry Conley is Executive Vice President of Primrose Schools Franchising Company in Atlanta and has 30 years of experience in corporate real estate and strategic development.  He is a member of Shiloh Hills Baptist Church in Kennesaw, GA.

 

In building a business, the brand has to be established.  But what exactly is ‘the brand’?  Some may argue that it is a product, colors, signs, or designs.  It is all those, but more than anything, it is a set of promises, expectations, and lifestyle issues.  It identifies a place among the competition of the market.  Users gravitate to the particular brand because their needs change or they aspire to be like someone else or be something other than what they are.  In a business, the brand can and does evolve with the changing demands of the market, but can the Church do this?  Should people attend a particular church in order to feel good about themselves or feel like they are part of a particularly attractive group or those ‘in the know’?  Of course not!  This is something that a church can’t do because the demands or needs of the human soul do not change.

In building the brand position, the commercial company I help manage takes a very narrow look at the market. Our company positions itself at the top, limits the opportunities, and requires a high price and definite commitment.  The result?  We have waiting lists and people who move cross country to gain an opportunity to buy one of our locations.  They see the difference and are willing to pay the price.  The parents who place their children in our pre-schools also see, appreciate, and pay for the difference.  This is the case with most of the top performing and successful companies.  Should anything less be expected for the Church? The church can and should adopt this principle of being the best in its business.

But churches sometimes make the same mistake businesses do in placing an undue amount of importance on immediate results.  In his book Heretics/Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton states, “There is nothing so weak for working purposes as this enormous importance attached to immediate victory” (page 6).  As apparent as it was to Chesterton, it is much more so today because today, if groups are not growing fast, they are considered to be failing.  Sometimes, quantity overrules quality.  In the business world, this can open the door to mis-management and eventual disaster and the same results are usually seen when the same path is followed in the Church.  Clients, customers, and members expect and sometimes demand immediate fulfillment and demand so regardless of the method, whether by lower costs or cheapened products.

This immediacy has the unfortunate quirk of changing from day to day.  What was important yesterday is no longer important today.  Enterprises that try to respond to the immediacy of fads find themselves with a tremendous amount of left over inventory of yesterday’s treasures that very quickly become tomorrow’s trash.  It is marked down or given away as a discounted value and in the consumer’s mind, anything that is cheapened by a sale or given away will never attain the original market position of uniqueness or value.

Knowing Your Core Values

The belief that the role of the Church continues to be unchanging does not preclude the use of sound operating principles.  These ideas are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they are Scriptural.  Lasting value in any endeavor is established by quality.  Quality is established in the organization by having a system of beliefs and practices in place that are stable, non-changing, and provide solid guidance.  This means the organization will react the same way and promote the same message each time there is a decision to be made.  If this anchor is there, the customer, client, or member will feel secure with the product.  Again, we can look to the business world for this direction.  Jim Collins, in his book Built to Last states that with all the world coming down around them in their personal and business life, “…people run the risk of having their moorings ripped away if they only depend on the external structures” (page xx).  He suggests that the only truly reliable source for stability is a strong inner core and the willingness to change and adapt everything except that core.  This same idea was put forth forty years ago by Thomas J. Watson, Jr., former CEO of IBM.  It was in his 1963 book, A Business and Its Beliefs where he discussed the idea of corporate and personal beliefs.  He stated, “ I firmly believe that any organization, in order to survive and achieve success, must have a sound set of beliefs on which it premises all its policies and actions….Beliefs must always come before policies, practices, and goals.  The latter must be altered if they are seen to violate fundamental beliefs” (page 75).

The business world recognizes the importance of these core values, spending time and effort to make sure they accurately reflect the corporation.  In an interview quoted in CPN, a real estate industry magazine, Peter Roberts, CEO of the Americas for Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. is quoted as saying: “…it is important to have strong core values and to stand by them.  (They) provide a bedrock against which strategies can be laid.”  He went on to say “But having them is not enough.  If you don’t (stick to them), you’ll be in a lot of trouble when problems do occur.”  As important as this idea is to business, it is much more so for the Church to have this solid, unchangeable position.

Establishing a Vision and Its Mission

Building from the core values, the vision of the enterprise tells us why it exists.  The vision is an informed and forward thinking statement of purpose.  It is a statement of ambition for the enterprise that tells us where we want to go but not how we will get there.  It is the mission statement that relates to the specifics to be accomplished in support of the vision.  It is ambitious and emotionally compelling and should provide benchmarks to keep everyone on track.

Fortunately, the Church does not have to spend much time in analyzing and deciding about such things.  These have been established by the founder and are unique in that they are unchanging regardless of how the world changes.  We do not have to worry through the decision process, we just have to execute on them.  An example of core values for the Church is found in I Corinthians 13.  They are faith, hope, and charity with the greatest being charity.  And what greater vision can be set than when Jesus said ‘I will build my Church’?  This is followed up by a compelling, clearly stated mission statement found in Acts 1 when Jesus commanded His followers to “Go into the world and preach the gospel.”  We are to reach the uttermost part of the world with the gospel.  It is not narrowed to a specific generation or demographic, just the entire world.  And yet if you visit some services, it appears that these are no longer accepted or a ‘new version’ or application has been found.  It should be of no surprise to read that the Barna Research Group continues to report that the majority of pastors are content with the way things are going in their ministry.  In fact, the larger the church is, the more likely the pastor is to feel pleased with his performance as its leader, even though more than half of his congregation may not be saved and see no need to be.  Is it amazing that only 2% of the pastors themselves can identify God’s vision for their ministry!  Yet they feel competent enough to restructure God’s original plan.  Catering to seasonal trends and emotional whims as businesses do is not one of the ways the church should copy business. Businesses in this kind of market are short-lived or struggling at best.

Avoiding the Shifting Sands

Because the church represents or reflects the current profile of the population, it is facing some of the same associated questions and uneasiness. For the church, as well as successful businesses, the foundation can’t be based on anything but a solid, unchanging position. One of the reasons people tend to argue for change is related to the ongoing demographic changes in the market. Most of the time, these demographic changes point to the younger population and its trends.  Does change relate to age, or lifestyle, or generation?  The erroneous assumption is made that a new group will act like the last group at that age and doesn’t take into consideration the attitude and environment that formed them.  You should take great care that you do not set a church or a business on a confusion based on age related trends versus a generation related trend. If you very specifically target a demographic segment, you may become so narrowly focused that you miss the real, solid growth opportunities.   Don’t make the mistake that the future attractive demographic will be attracted to the same type of product or service as they are today.  You will end up constantly looking for new ways to attract that particular demographic or special group, potentially building upon confusion, and not clarity of message.  The importance of this is brought out by a September 29, 2003 USA Today TV review for Joan of Arcadia in which the reviewer makes the point that ‘the show would not appeal to everybody but that was okay.  To appeal to everyone, you can’t be anything, think anything, or demand anything’.  The message becomes garbled and confusion abounds.  If the business world can see this, why can’t the church?

It is evident that the message is becoming garbled with the results being seen in various studies conducted by the Barna Research Group.  They indicate that Americans identify faith as a key factor in their life, with large majorities claiming that their religious faith is very important in their life.  They describe themselves as deeply spiritual, born again Christians who own a Bible and know all of the basic teachings.  But those same studies revealed that less than half of the people who describe themselves as Christian also described themselves as absolutely committed to the Christian faith.  After claiming that they know the basic teachings and claim to be born again, they say Satan does not exist, the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, and that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works.  To them, truth becomes something that is only understood through reason and experience.  From a business standpoint, it sounds like the brand should go through a major focus group study to find out why the perception is so dramatically different from the reality.  In retailing, when the consumer is this confused, it means the message is not getting out clearly.  In its drive to be all things to all people, the real message is lost.

The church is not a business to be measured by worldly standards or customer whims.  Jesus used no benchmarks in establishing a vision and mission statement for His Church.  His demographic was the unsaved and His target audience was the lost.  He did not pick the best business model of the day to copy and His message cannot be adjusted to fit the marketplace.  There are no discounts and half off sales.  He established no separate visions or values for the various ages, ethnicities, or income levels.  Rather, Jesus’ message rose above the noisy demands of the marketplace.  His was a message of constancy and commitment with a set of core values, vision, and mission statement that set the Gospel apart.  Jesus did not come to earth as man to die on the cross to fill up auditoriums.  He came and died that man might know God and be transformed by that knowledge.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Are You Managing by the Book of the Mont...

Written by Terry Conley

Are You Managing by the Book of the Month or by the Book? (part 1)

by Terry Conley

A business perspective on Church as a business

Terry Conley is Executive Vice President of Primrose Schools Franchising Company in Atlanta and has 30 years of experience in corporate real estate and strategic development.  He is a member of Shiloh Hills Baptist Church in Kennesaw, GA.

 

Everyone wants to be the industry leader, but I have worked with some companies that appear to manage by the newest business book on the shelf, changing their strategy as often as the book of the month. The problem is that this leads to confusion, so the question is posed: Do we want to manage by the heart and mind of the latest guru or from the heart of God?

Managing by the vision, mission statement, and core values is one of the hot ideas in business that has been adopted into the church. This in and of itself is not wrong, but sometimes the application is, because the original vision and mission statement have been done away with or changed. But the very important difference between a business and a church, that of ownership, should give us pause to reflect. If the owners of a business want to change to match the business climate or the latest market demographics, it can be done and should be done. But with the church, the ownership and the message never change because the owner is constant and consistent. He is everlasting and unchangeable, and so is His Word. His Word also clearly states that we are the stewards, not the designers. Stewards, by definition are caretakers or those who serve the desires of the owner. So why do we, as stewards, not being in an ownership position in His business, even think we can manipulate the vision, mission statement, or core values? With an all knowing, never changing owner, we as His stewards are challenged to stay the course regardless of how the winds of change blow.

In the business world, everyone benchmarks against the leaders. In my world of corporate real estate, some companies try to execute their real estate plan exactly like McDonald’s because they are so successful. Of course the problem is that no one is exactly like McDonald’s. Personally, I think it is better to excel and lead than to benchmark and try to be like everyone else. There is no challenge in copying or following the crowd, but it is easy to get caught up in these ideas, thinking that you can become something more than you are organized to be or that your organization can be. If you have to be convinced that this is happening within the religious organizations, just take a look at the super-churches or TV mega-stars to see how often their styles, mannerisms, and performance is copied from the smallest start-up ministry to the largest congregation. This philosophy can create problems and lead to ruin.

After 30 years of business involvement creating and directing change along with dealing with the associated difficulties, I can see the beginning of similar problems in the Church. In its rush to become something that is acceptable to the world and to meet them at their level, the church has been absorbing many of the ideas of the business world without a lot of selectivity or in some instances, a lot of thought. This approach has proven not to work in business and this wholesale adoption or absorption of these ideas by the church has led to many of the current problems we see developing in the church. Of course, the excuse is that everyone is seeking a new truth that is more in line with today’s world and thinking. In order to appear current and make the message relevant, many church leaders are looking for a newer, more up to date model. The only problem with that thought is that the new truth is not truth at all. It is just bits and pieces of the original Truth with the ‘truths’ for today (refer to Aletheia, July ’02, Compromise Is Always A Synthesis).

One of the current ‘new truths’ is the idea that running a church should be managed and cultivated more like a business. The proponents state their position with a finality that allows no argument. While it is true that there are some sound business principles that should be involved, a church is not a business that is set up or measured by worldly standards. When the Church was established, Jesus did not do so with His eye towards the best business model of the day. He picked out the strong spirited people willing to forego all for the vision. Unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, we have looked at what God has established and said, “You know, we want what the world has”. We are guilty of looking beyond God’s goodness and perfection and settling for less than He has given us. We say, along with the Children of Israel ‘We want a king like they have’ (I Samuel 8:19,20).

Looking in, it appears that many of the business principles absorbed into the church are a direct result of a very real fight for a position of recognition in the world and to increase their customer base. As business does, the church is seeking ways to connect to the customer who is reaching out for something to anchor to and insights that will enhance his life. Some think that organizations that can read the culture, translate core principles into relevant practices and products, and provide value will be taken seriously and grow. Many believe and teach that the more effective Christian communities become at tying their faith principles to lifestyle choices, the more appealing they will be to potential audiences. But at what cost? The marketing that is done to create and support the brand deals with ideas such as the look, feel, and ambiance. It is selling or creating the sizzle, not the reality. Unfortunately, it seems that there are many who do not understand that the Church does not have this latitude. It has to deal with the reality of life today and of that yet to come, but after viewing some of the large, seeker sensitive worship centers, this is not on their agenda. The question needs to be asked: can these things be done without compromising the mission? Is this what the church should strive for? If you believe all you see, all the successful churches have reached that elevated plateau by offering an ‘updated Gospel for today’ making it more appealing to the new audience and being more sensitive to the needs of the ‘seeker.’ That is why the current flock of TV evangelists are busy selling recently revealed diet plans, financial management plans, leadership programs, reading and entertainment programs. Is this why we notice that the church has become an exercise salon, a dating service, a divorce counseling center, and more? Each is important as a part of Christian support but they are not to be the driving reasons for existence.

Who is the seeker we are trying to persuade? In Judges, the Bible speaks of a new generation that grew up neither knowing nor respecting the ways of the Lord and traditions of the elders. This being the case, it appears that there was a breakdown at two levels. The passing generation failed in one of their obligations to teach and pass along the basics of their beliefs. The younger generation failed to take advantage of the knowledge and experience that was represented by the elder. In the business world this approach will eventually lead to a loss of focus on the business of the business. Mistakes will be repeated and growth stymied. It is all about mentoring. This is a topic given much publicity but little execution. A mentor is a trusted counselor, guide, tutor, or coach. It is an Old Testament and New Testament teaching that we are commanded to fulfill. The world has adopted and uses this idea. If you are a golfer, who do you go to for advanced knowledge and teaching? Not to someone on your level. You go to a coach, someone who knows the game or the course. If you are new in an organization, you seek out someone who knows the ropes. Recent activities in the local Church seem to point to the fact that the Church has chosen not to follow this Biblical and business principle. There are many voices saying very forcibly that the elders need to get out of the way for younger, newer ideas that appeal to today’s market. Some think the ideas and times for the elder generation have passed. The process is upside down. In this instance, the Church does need to be more like the world. It appears that both sides need to reconsider. Too often the elder generation becomes angry and drops out and the younger generation continues to push. The elders need to be concerned enough to teach the younger generation of believers and the younger generation must be respectful enough to learn.

Perhaps the new seekers have to be taught just like we teach new business customers. If the business world makes little effort to teach them or to reach them, they will take their business elsewhere. But that does not mean we should let the customer set the course and take us somewhere we may not want to go. It does mean that the more experienced should take the less experienced under their wing to mentor and train them in the way they should go. The business world does not always execute on the idea well as the result of human feelings of jealousy and fear. As Christians, we should not be driven by these feelings. We should be driven by the love and concern for our fellow believers. These younger believers should be able to draw from and call upon the elders, those who have been there and built the brand in the market place. Of course, this works both ways. The younger believers need to be aware of the older, more experienced believers and look to them for direction, thus following the admonition found in the Scriptures.

Are these changes being made out of fear of failure or ridicule, or to keep up with the church next door? What determines success and how is it rated? Where does it all stop? Is bigger better? Is it market share, bottom line, EBITDA, or is it the approval of God and changed lives? Being seeker sensitive, we say – “I am like them; try me, I’m just like they are.” If this is the case, there is no reason for the customer to make the life changing commitment God demands. Where is the conviction that our product is top-notch, that what God gave us is perfect and needs no changing? What does the Bible say about this way being narrow but the rewards being tremendous? And, what about the command to come out from among them? There is a reason God made this a command, not just a recommendation or suggestion. Meeting people “where they are” sounds good, but the problem with meeting people where they are is that they may be keeping you there. Why not turn that around and elevate the lifestyle choices to the level of the faith principles?

What is the role of the church today? Has the mandate given us by God changed? Has the rock Jesus founded His church upon been found to have a base of shifting sand that changes with the tide and needs to be shored up by the hands of man? The role of the church today is as unchanging as its owner.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Tale of Two Cities

Written by Debra Conley

A Tale of Two Cities

by Debra Conley

Every city has its own stories to tell. Among them is the story of contrast between the old and new. To western cities, that contrast is also one of the religious and the secular, from the bygone days of fearing God to the present days of tolerating God. I don’t think it can be doubted that cities (and civilizations) move almost “naturally” in that direction and almost never in the reverse. Since true religion cannot be inherited, at least not in the inward conviction, modern descendents are usually glad for the change, and the faith of the fathers soon becomes a matter of museum nostalgia.

We just returned from our first extended visit to London and the UK. Truly, Great Britain is a land of contrasts. Among this world leader of economics, military might and cultural trend-setting rise ancient steeples and gothic spires, reminders of more civilized and mannerly times that overcame the less civilized and darker times. Indeed, the whole tourist industry itself survives on the attraction of ancient churches, war memorials, college spires and chapels, palaces and royal ceremonies, and the magnetizing effect of knowing that one is standing on hundreds or thousands of years of history in almost any given spot.

The contrast between the old and the new seemed obvious in a number of ways. The religious contrast from old to new was stark. Huge and lavish cathedrals, solemn reminders of a more faithful day, now stand cold, dark and lifeless. Where once there was a need to build multiple religious structures, now whole congregations could gather in a large house. The memory of the royalty and manners of a golden Victorian age are now observed by a populace of slovenly dressed and rude picture-takers reluctantly acknowledging their heritage. From the war memorials to Churchill’s war room, the city of London remembers when it was truly the best of times and the worst of times. Destroyed by German bombs merely a generation ago, the city stood tall with blood, sweat and tears. Now an American visitor must be careful not to mention current military politics for fear of immediate reprisals upon Bush, Blair and all western military endeavors.

Yet one cannot help but enjoy and appreciate the beauty, the history, the culture and the shear magnitude of such a place. We were looking for our own Baptist history and we found a lot. Usually we had to look diligently and were offered little help from the locals, but it is there just the same. With the reader’s patience, I will include this great Christian history within a few thoughts of contrast.

The City Encroaches

I have often repeated the saying, “the wilderness encroaches.” By that is meant that we live in a fallen world where we must keep cutting back the undergrowth or it will take over and engulf us. If we don’t fight the “natural” tendency of the wilderness, we will be overtaken by the wilderness. This is true in manners and morals as well. As fallen creatures, we too easily become like the world around us and rather than fighting to cut if back, it eventually overtakes us. If it doesn’t get the first generation, it will keep encroaching until it can overtake the second or third or fourth.

In the cities of Great Britain, with their rich religious heritage, it is obvious that the wilderness has encroached and taken over many churches and their influence. But ironically, the wilderness is the city. After all, the Adamic fall was primarily in the moral nature of Man himself, while the natural world was secondarily affected by Man’s action. From the time of Babel, man’s fallen moral nature is nowhere seen more than in the cities which he builds. God made His natural world for the humans He created. The Bible is full of descriptions of nature and its pictorial analogies of God’s handiwork. Though the natural world is truly affected by the fall in its death and decay, a person left alone in that setting still beholds God’s majesty and Godhead.

One can stand in a city such as London and look in every direction, listen to the sounds, smell the smells and (unless he looks directly up) never see anything of God’s natural world. He experiences only what fallen man has made. One can even spend most of the day in the subway (the “tube”) which is an underground world in itself. Now it may be beautiful, in the way that art is beautiful, or it may be fantastic in the sense of an engineering feat, but it has taken over people’s lives. The natural world is gone, and with it a major avenue for discovering God. If nature can be a help in preaching, the cities have reduced the gospel’s effect to the spoken word alone.

The city has also encroached on the testimonies of our faith. John Wesley’s church and grave marker have a steel and glass walkway that spans the space directly overhead. The jail where John Bunyan was imprisoned and where he wrote his great classics is marked by a bronze plaque that people walk on without even noticing what it says. In “The Dissenter’s Graveyard” lie the tombs of Susanna Wesley, John Rippon, John Owen and John Gill but they are crowded into a small space between new city buildings and are closed off by steel fences and gates and are not open to the public. Nottingham boasts of Robin Hood, a fictional character, but no one in town had even heard of William Carey or the Friar Lane Baptist Chapel. The cities of long ago are lost under the wilderness of steel and concrete.

The Church Must Engage

The City Besides the encroaching steel and concrete, the moral thistles are even more daunting. As in any metropolis, the language is coarse, the dress is anywhere from weird to lewd, the sounds are overbearing and animalistic, the billboards and ads are almost R-rated, and manners are something that disappeared before Dickens. Sadly, the churches are being forced to acquiesce or die. It is not surprising to see St. Paul’s vesper service with about twenty people or Westminster Abbey occupied mostly with tourists, because the gospel has never found life in such mausoleums of religion. But it is sad to see true gospel preaching churches of old either closed or overgrown by the world. What you see in the city is what you eventually get in the churches!

In the midst of this world-wide epidemic of worldly encroachment upon and within the churches, there can always be Smyrnas among the Laodiceas. On Sunday morning, in a pouring rain, we found the Metropolitan Tabernacle where Charles Spurgeon preached to thousands. It is still there and still preaching the gospel. Peter Masters preached on the condition of the world in the end times and our obligation to remain faithful even when the Devil seems to be winning the war. He sounded like a religious Winston Churchill encouraging the citizens to never surrender. Services are still being held in John Bunyan’s church in Bedford, and the elderly pastor who met us there spoke of his small flock and the blessing it is to uphold such a rich heritage. A new Baptist church, currently meeting in an apartment, was handing out tracts at Hyde Park, a place notorious for its public airings. Two Baptist pastors were street-preaching outside the Tower of London, the spot where many “dissenters” were beheaded for their faith in the days of Bloody Mary and King James I. That ministry had been going on for years and was begun by Spurgeon’s Tabernacle. I am reminded of the Lord’s words to the church at Smyrna, I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich).

Encroachment Is A Universal Plot

Even traveling in London, one is reminded of being in a “foreign” country. The language is English, but not my father’s English! You are constantly aware that you are the one with an accent and you had better be careful what you say out loud! “Mind the gap” means to watch out for the gap at your feet, and “mind your head” means to watch out so you don’t bump your head. I think that “mind your manners” though, is archaic in both countries! In fact, the same thistles of sin that encroach upon America are plainly evident in England. And why not? Sin comes from a common root.

Loud and obtrusive music sounds the same in any country. Nakedness and indecency are the same in any country. Swearing and cursing are recognizable in any language. There are only so many ways to pierce one’s nose or ear or tongue (I think). Cigarette smoke and alcohol smell the same no matter where you smell them. And if I see another belly button of any nationality I think I’ll write a complaint to the “navel” reserve! In any city in the world you immediately recognize: those places you should avoid; the advertisements of a night life that is corrupting a world of young people; or a film industry that is willing to sacrifice a whole generation for a fast buck!

England is an example of the influence Christianity can have on a nation, and also an example of how quickly that influence can be lost. Part of the official title of the King or Queen is to be a “protector of the faith.” There is still much Christian language left in the official speaking and writing, but few seem to take notice of its meaning any longer. The Victorian Age was a golden age for preaching and spreading the gospel around the world, and its effects are still seen everywhere in the country. But those effects have become mere relics in the form of words, steeples, crosses and cemeteries. The average Brit on the street is as amoral and nonreligious as anyone anywhere else in the world.

If there is one thing that is obvious, it is that Satan is the god of this world, and he has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them (2 Cor 4:4). No generation or nationality or culture is exempt when it comes to the expression of this common ancestry. Satan is the Pied Piper of lost souls, and around this world they all march to the same old tunes without question and without complaint. How sad it is to see this “death march” culture repeated in every country (and too often danced to while Satan pipes within the churches). The remedy for it is the gospel, and we should praise God for the faithful voices that are still holding forth a light in the darkness.

God Uses Godly People To Stem The Tide

In a time of national crisis it took a Winston Churchill to stand tall and lead a whole nation (if not most of the free world) against the encroachment of evil. Visiting the War Rooms where his operation took place and plans were made to defeat the enemy is a moving experience. How thankful we are that those dedicated men and women made such a sacrifice to keep the world free. But our enemy, the devil, is constantly working to overthrow nations, churches, families and lives. Resistance in this arena calls for diligence as well.

Whether it was a John Bunyan or a John Gill, a Charles Spurgeon or a William Carey, a Joseph Parker or an Alexander Maclaren, God has raised up men and women to stem the world’s encroachment in every age. Sometimes I begin to doubt that there is a John Bunyan today who could spend nineteen years in a one-room jail cell and still affect the world to the extent that he did; or a William Carey who will give his life to “mine for souls” in a dark continent while only a few hold the ropes; or a Charles Spurgeon who will be willing to lose his standing among his brethren for the truth of the gospel. But, of course, there are such ones even today though you or I will not hear of them until we get to heaven, or perhaps our grandchildren will know of them generations down the road. They are not the movers and shakers of this world, but they are the movers and shakers of heaven and heaven’s blessing. They have changed cities and countries with their preaching and their prayers, and they asked no one for applause, a silent cloud of witnesses being acknowledgement enough.

It doesn’t mean that because cities and countries finally are given over to the encroachment of sin that such people failed. God’s purposes continue to move toward the day of reckoning. But when the crowns are handed out, I think that I will have found why what appeared to be first will be last, and what the world thought was last will triumphantly be first.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Thing...

Written by Rick Shrader

Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Things? We Have! (part 2)

by Rick Shrader

I have been defending the small church. I have not said that a church must be small to be spiritual or that largeness is an evil in itself. But I have said that the small church is the normal church; the one seen most often in the New Testament and throughout church history. I have also implied that there seems to be a feeding frenzy on the small churches by the church growth movement which infers that the small church is inferior because it has not grown, and that therefore it must change its whole way of doing things into a more “progressive” worship style or die. I disagree that the small church needs to change in order to be accomplishing God’s will, and I object to the view of the church growth movement that it must. When we do this, we despise the day of small things—things that have no choice but to trust in God’s Spirit.

We despise the suffering

Martin Luther once said, “Wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy.”1 I think it is no doubt that one reason we dislike small churches is that we are embarrassed over what people may be thinking of us if we belong to it. Even though the church may be doing everything to the glory and honor of our Savior, to some people that is not enough to compensate for the disdain that the world has for things that don’t appear to be successful. This is a kind of suffering that we just cannot bear.

Paul told the Galatians, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased (Gal 5:11). Paul suffered persecution in Galatia because he would not intermingle his pure gospel of grace with the legalistic gospel which included the fleshly work of circumcision. For this refusal he suffered being stoned and left for dead. But accepting the offense that came with the cross was of more honor to him than men’s praises. He said, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world (6:14) . . . . from henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus (17).

I am not proposing that the church growth movement is guilty of gospel legalism as were the Galatian Jews, but if it is true that some allow the world’s demands for worldliness in order to avoid their disdain, is that not the same kind of thing? Hasn’t the offense of the cross ceased for them? It is a hard thing to watch a visitor come into a service in which he is uncomfortable or even antagonistic. You can tell he wishes he had not come and that he probably will not come back. This is where we find ourselves in a battle over this kind of cross-bearing. It may not be a bearing up under physical torture, but a bearing up under social disdain can be an equally challenging dilemma.

The easy solution for escaping this kind of suffering is a total immersion in “redefinition sanctification.” By redefining the long-standing terms of worldliness, godliness, separation, et al, we are able to change our approach to ministry, satisfy the demands of the waiting public, and still maintain a use of the Bible’s terminology. Where separation meant a removal from sin, now it can mean a mere attitude within the sin; where liberty in Christ meant a freedom from sin, now it can mean a freedom to sin; where perfection meant a striving for holiness, now it can mean a satisfaction with confession; where a weak brother meant a backslider, now it can mean anyone who is offended by sin. Where Fundamentalism meant an attitude of conviction about doctrine, it can now mean an irreducible minimum of doctrine.

Even the winsome Os Guinness has observed, “But Scripture and history are also clear: without maintaining critical tension, the principle of identification is a recipe for compromise and capitulation. It is no accident that the charge of being ‘all things to all people’ has become a popular synonym for compromise.”2 The biblical path is to live with the tension and realize it is the path of Scripture, of our Lord and His Apostles.

We despise the soul-winning

This may sound odd, especially if it is true that the church growth movement has adopted the new posture “in order to see as many people saved as possible.” But I would say that the new posture avoids personal confrontation over the gospel and therefore will fail rather than succeed in bringing as many people to Christ as possible.

It is only natural that in larger churches lost people avoid personal contact easier than in small churches. Add to this fact that many larger churches are softening or doing away with invitations and in many cases eliminating the preaching services where invitations were once given. I do think that the small group concept has actually helped make personal contact with unbelievers, but the small church is already a small group (it is the “small group concept” found in the New Testament) and has found this personal contact easy all along.

A greater danger is in making the church a concert and performance hall where we attract the lost but they are just faces in the crowd to us. And if the crowds are large, who will complain that the messy business of altar work, personal soul-winning and especially house-to-house visitation gets lost in the shuffle. I’m not saying that it always does, but I am saying that a smaller church must live or die by these methods of personal contact with people. Alexander Maclaren said, “It is better for most of us to fish with the rod than with the net, to angle for single souls, rather than to try and enclose a multitude at once. Preaching to a congregation has its own place and value; but private and personal talk, honestly and wisely done, will effect more than the most eloquent preaching.”3

We have also seen “redefinition evangelism” in our day. By redefining what a true believer is, we have done in a stroke of the pen what evangelists and missionaries could not do for two thousand years. On a large scale, the ECT documents4 simply took a long-standing definition of “Christian” that excluded Catholics and drew the line differently to include them, thereby, in a single stroke, bringing millions into the family of God. On smaller scales, I have attended funerals for Christian saints, where known unbelievers (to me and others) talked about faith and God and were praised for their “testimony.” In sports and Hollywood, anyone who talks at all about God or Jesus Christ is accepted as a true believer without further question. No doubt, by dropping all barriers within professing Christendom (especially denominational ones) we have opened ourselves up to this danger. And nowhere is this danger more apparent than when numbers mean more to us than true conversions. It has become easier to redefine them than to win them.

We despise the Spirit

Paul asked the Galatians, Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3:3). He wrote to the Philippians, For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:3). Zechariah was criticizing the Jewish remnant precisely for their lack of faith in God’s powerful Spirit when he said that God’s work was not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts (Zech 4:6). How can we deny that the modern mega church with its lights, sounds, screens, bands, videos, and multiple programs finds it easier to lean on the arm of the flesh for its strength and success than on the smaller church who must trust God for provision?

Tozer wrote, “Our meetings are characterized by cordiality, humor, affability, zeal and high animal spirits; but hardly anywhere do we find gatherings marked by the overshadowing presence of God.”5 Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote, “Churches are emptied in proportion to the failure of pulpit occupants to discover the anointing of the Spirit.”6 And G. Campbell Morgan wrote, “There has been much quenching of the Holy Spirit by service that does not wait but rushes, and by the burning of false fires upon the altars of God. The attempt to carry on the work of the kingdom of God by worldly means, the perpetual desecration of holy things by alliance with things that are unholy, the pressing of mammon into the service of God, have meant the quenching of the Spirit; for God will never allow the Fire of the Holy Spirit to be mingled with strange fires upon His altars.”7

Have you ever noticed that the Holy Spirit’s ways are not our ways? None except the Son of God Himself, including the Apostles, seems to be able to discern completely how the Holy Spirit is pleased to work. Paul wanted to go to Ephesus from Galatia on his second missionary journey but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6). The same was true for his desire for Bithynia (16:7). But the Holy Spirit called him to Macedonia (16:10) and he went, suffering opposition and leaving small churches of baptized believers in every city. It was not until his third journey that he could stay in Ephesus and plant a church. This time the Holy Spirit blessed and did His wonderful work upon twelve men. These twelve men, before Paul’s life was over, planted churches all over Asia which remained until the end of the century. This was more common in New Testament church life than Pentecostal growth found in the early chapters of Acts.

In truth, the only safe way to follow the Spirit in ministry is to follow His Book in detail. It is impossible for us to devise how the Spirit will work if we depart from what He wrote through inspiration. It alone is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16-17). In a day of large things as well as small things, it is dangerous business to despise a particular path because it seems unwise to us. God only knows what can be accomplished if we, with His Word in our hands and His Spirit in our hearts, are stirred (Acts 17:16), pressed (18:5), purposed (19:21), and bound (20:22) to follow Him in church planting and soul winning.

And So . . . .

Let us not despise the day of small things, nor the value of small churches. A hundred years ago, in the third volume of The Fundamentals, Bishop Ryle wrote,

“This is the Church which does the work of Christ upon earth. Its members are a little flock, and few in number, compared with the children of this world; one or two here, and two or three there. But these are they who shake the universe; these are they who change the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the life-blood of a country, the shield, the defense, the stay and the support of any nation to which they belong.”8

Notes:
1. Quoted by R.C. Sproul, Willing To Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997) 19.
2. Os Guinness, Dining With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) 28.
3. Quoted by A.T. Robertson, Paul and the Intellectuals (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1959) 132.
4. “Evangelical and Catholics Together” has been an attempt by Evangelicals such as Chuck Colson to persuade us that Catholics have always been true believers.
5. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill: Christian Publishers, 1997) 30.
6. From Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) 37.
7. G. Cambell Morgan, Understanding the Holy Spirit (AMG Publishers, 1995) 166.
8. Bishop Ryle, “The True Church,” The Fundamentals, vol III, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon and others, eds.(Grand Rapids: Baker Book Reprint, 2000) 319.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Thing...

Written by Rick Shrader

Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Things? We Have! (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

When Zechariah was asked that question by the interpreting angel in the fourth chapter of his prophecy (Zech 4:10), the present temple project looked dreadfully small compared to the glory of the former temple. But the prophet as well as the people who worked on the walls were reminded that God’s work is Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts (Zech 4:6). One day, in a more glorious age, the Lord Himself will build a temple in Jerusalem that will overshadow Solomon’s, Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s combined in glory, beauty and splendor.

The churches of Jesus Christ today are apt to forget the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are being persuaded to forget it! George Barna, for example, has a current online article1 (advertised, ironically, on many local church web sites) in which he proposes that smaller churches (defined as 100 or fewer) have fewer spiritually active people (percentage wise) than larger churches and even fewer born again people. The survey (the church’s current prophetic voice) is taken of 4501 adults from “Protestant” churches. Barna proposes that people in larger churches are more likely to have a solid theological foundation. Some, I suppose, might take that at face value. But one must understand what a “Protestant” church is and what all the “Protestant” congregations, liberal and otherwise are like, which would be represented in that class.2 Also, the fact that people in larger churches are more “spiritually active” does not necessarily mean spiritual. In addition, of course, I always question the answers given in a phone conversation compared to the reality of a person’s life.

It has been my opinion for a long time that the present-day church growth movement is the same as it has always been but with newer methodologies and with wiser terminology.3 Smaller churches are told or given strong implication that they are inferior, that they lack a proper vision, that they are out of touch with reality, etc., because God has not blessed them with growth. This theme comes across strongly (as every small-church pastor knows and senses) although we always hear the caveat that smaller is not necessarily wrong, if God has so willed it. In a more postmodern lingo, we are even boldly told that they believe smaller is better. But that claim always comes with “insider” understanding (for example, that a small group may be good under the umbrella of a large church oversight).

I am still trying hard to believe that the church-growth movement is doing what it is doing in order to see as many people saved as possible. The idea is that if the churches are larger more will be hearing the gospel, more may be called into full-time service, more money will be given to missions, and the organizational institutions will continue (all worthy and honorable objectives). I am trying hard not to believe that a more sinister motivation is at work here—that the church growth movement is uniquely connected to a change toward a contemporary4 ministry philosophy and that this new style of church is what the masses are really after (not those other objectives). Yes, they will come and give as long as that is what they experience and they will be gone if it ever stops. In the meantime, however, church leaders are willing to do this in order to bring in the resources for getting people saved (or so they think).

Regardless of the motivation, the proposition that “bigger is better” when it comes to winning the world to Christ has not been, and need not be, the attitude or the methodology of God’s people and churches. More has been done throughout our history by small churches and personal evangelism than in any other way. These are the biblical norms as well and we should not despise them. As a matter of fact, we ought to embrace them as the blessings of God and seek to promote more of them. I think that our modern day rush to find success in bigness will not bring the best results, but will only cause us to despise the day of small things—things that can only succeed by God’s Spirit and not by man’s might or power.

We despise the size

Although the church at Jerusalem grew rapidly due to the influence of Pentecost, it is not the normal thing we see in the New Testament. We are glad for the blessings of God when they have truly come, but neither should we be sorry when we find ourselves within the biblical norm of small, local church congregations. Charles Ryrie wrote, “Indeed, one receives the impression from the New Testament that the Lord preferred to have many smaller congregations rather than one large group in any given place. And there seemed to be no lack of power that stemmed from lack of bigness.”5 One of the articles in volume 3 of The Fundamentals (from 1917) argues strongly for a return to this biblical pattern so that true evangelism and church life may continue.6

Many today are criticizing the smaller, pastor-led, church as a “hub-and-spoke” model.7 This church, they say, can only grow as big as the pastor can handle the situations. This is limiting growth, they say, and only with a change in philosophy can a church like this break out of the smallness mentality. But I see the “hub-and-spoke” church as the normal church in the New Testament. The pastor is responsible before God for all of the members and it is his stewardship to be involved in their lives (Heb13:17, 1 Tim 4:6). When the church grows to the size where he cannot do his God-given responsibility, the church should divide and start a new congregation. Who knows how many soul-winning churches there might be in America today if this had happened rather than building empires to men’s glory.

If a particular church grows to the size a pastor can handle and remains at that size, what is the difference between that and a mega-church growing to a certain size and stopping? Both have reached a plateau. Neither is growing now. Is a church of 1000 which has leveled off in growth doing more for Christ because they have 1000 than ten churches of 100 which have leveled off? It is wonderful if a man can faithfully pastor 1000 people. It is equally wonderful if a man can faithfully pastor 100. Ten churches of 100 and those ten faithful pastors can accomplish a lot for God.

In 1792, in the area of Nottingham, England, a group of pastors met to discuss foreign missions. They had about $50 among them and “were pastors of small, poor village churches with congregations numbering in some cases no more than twenty-five members.”8 But among them were Andrew Fuller, John Sutcliff and William Carey. More was done from those few small churches for missions than we can imagine. Similarly, included in a list of Baptist churches in Shropshire, England from 1839 to 1851 are thirty churches, the largest having 103 members. When these churches overcame the cold hyper-Calvinism and the lethargic worldliness of their day, they truly attempted great things for God and expected great things from God.

Recently, in a day away from my own pulpit, my wife and I attended the most well-known Baptist church in Colorado (a SBC church) for the morning service, and then probably the least-known Baptist church for the evening service. There was no comparison when it came to the blessing, warmth and evangelistic atmosphere of the two. The large church of about 1000 was a mix of contemporary music, videos and lights and sounds, and a light message geared for the light-hearted. In the evening we found ourselves in the midst of about 50 people giving testimonies, singing (all of them!) hymns from the heart, and hearing an expository message geared for the thinking person. If I had to take a lost friend to one of those two churches for the conviction of sin and moving of the Holy Spirit, it would no doubt be the smaller of the two.

We despise the shame

Usually we find ourselves in a position to either be ashamed of the gospel or shamed by the world. If we fear the world, we will be ashamed of the gospel, but if we fear God we will, no doubt, be shamed by the world. Jesus said, Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (Mk 8:38). Paul admonished Timothy, Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord (2 Tim 1:8) and reminded him that Onesiphorus was not ashamed of my chain (16). Timothy was to be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed (2:15).

If Saul of Tarsus persecuted Christ because he persecuted His church, I think that most Christians today are ashamed of their Lord because they are obviously ashamed of His church. They are ashamed to have a lost person walk in and see them the way they should be: kneeling, bowing, in quietness of spirit before the Lord, reverent, as well as singing, listening, and responding in a way that would make their lost friend uncomfortable. That is why we have decided to make the churches more comfortable for the world than for Christ or the Holy Spirit. John R. Rice once wrote that he was sure that the Holy Spirit made His home in every believer, but was equally sure that most of the time He locked Himself in His room!

American churches are the only places where we look at pictures of brothers and sisters in foreign lands under persecution, meeting in small, dirty places, giving their very lives rather than to recant their faith, and then in the next hour discuss how we can keep a crowd coming and giving in order to pay off our multi-million dollar church building debt. William Wilberforce once paraphrased John Owen as saying, “Religion in a state of prosperity is like a colony that is long settled in a strange country. It is gradually assimilated in features, demeanor, and language to the native inhabitants, until at length every vestige of its distinctiveness has died away.”9

I have never been there, but I recently saw pictures of the catacombs under the Coliseum in Rome. It is a ghastly sight, even in pictures, to see the graves, human remains and desperate writing on the walls. Above all of that is the magnificent structure of the Coliseum where Christians were tortured and killed while Roman citizens cheered. America’s twenty-first century legacy has moved from the catacombs to the Coliseum. The world cheers with us now and our churches are larger and more entertaining than even Rome could have devised.

Are we ashamed or shamed? Herman Melville in Moby Dick had his Father Mapple preach a sermon before the sailors left for sea, “Woe to him whom this world charms from Gospel duty! Woe to him who seeks to pour oil upon the waters when God has brewed them into a gale! Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appall! Woe to him whose good name is more to him than goodness! Woe to him who, in this world, courts not dishonor! Woe to him who would not be true, even though to be false were salvation.”10

To be continued in the next issue:

We despise the suffering

We despise the soul-winning

We despise the Spirit

Notes:
1.  In a long “copyright disclaimer” at the end of the article we are warned that no part of the article can be reproduced in any way including being quoted. So I have purposely avoided a specific quote of the article other than to highlight specific words (like “Protestant”) that were used.
2.  For example, Barna’s statistics on the divorce rate being the same among church people as among non-church people is simply not a fair representation of the average Bible-believing congregation.
3.  See my review of Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Church, on our web site.
4.  I know that many are pointing out that “contemporary” only means what is going on currently. But I see no reason to become a purist about words at this point, especially when words are usually twisted at will by most people in the rest of the conversation. Besides, the contemporary culture is worldly and so the vernacular use of one is the same as the other.
5.  Charles Ryrie, Balancing The Christian Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) 20.
6.  John Stone, “Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One,” The Fundamentals vol. III (Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 2000) 178-198.
7.  Leith Anderson writes the first four articles in Vital Church Issues, Roy Zuck, ed., in which he uses this term to criticize the smaller church as opposed to the pyramid-style, top-down, organization.
8.  James Ray, “William Carey, God’s Plodder,” BIMI World, Volume 39, Number 2, 2003.
9.  William Wilberforce, Real Christianity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997) 99.
10.  Herman Melville, Moby Dick.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Historical Supremacy of Christianity

Written by Rick Shrader

The Historical Supremacy of Christianity

by Rick Shrader

Christianity claims to be both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive in that it claims to be the only way to God, and it is inclusive in that it claims it is the only way to God for every individual in the world. Diogenes Allen wrote, “We cannot relinquish the claim that Christ is the Savior of the world. If Christ were our Savior only, he would be a parochial god, and that for Christians is impossible.”1

Jesus said He was the light of the world. It is either the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said or the most profound! The world itself has never accepted it but where ever it has taken root, Christianity has done nothing but lift societies and cultures to higher levels of civilization. Calvin Linton wrote, “It would appear that if anything about the past two thousand years is obvious, it is that the world has not been run in strict obedience to Christ’s teachings. But when Christian principles have been tried, even with very imperfect obedience, the alleviation of human misery has been immediate and dramatic.”2

The truth is that there will always be Christian civilization somewhere in the world. It will grow like a green plant because it is an offshoot of the root which is Christianity. And Christianity will always be the living root because it is intrinsically tied to Christ Who is the Light and Life of the world. The smallest form of Christian civilization is the local church. The world can never stop its appearance and growth because it has a divine promise to exist. But churches are people and people affect society at large. In times of revival and blessing, communities and even entire nations can be lifted to the lofty heights of Christian principles and morality. Such times in history, however, quickly diminish as Christian individuals diminish from societies, cultures and even churches.

There have always been those nonbelievers and detractors who felt Christianity was a curse rather than a blessing. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.”3 Perhaps that is what motivated his admirer, Adolf Hitler, to say things like, “Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again? Nonsense! Never again. That tale is finished. No one will listen to it again. But we can hasten matters. The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes.”4 But regardless of such invectives, Christianity remains and they are gone.

The supremacy of Christianity over all religions and philosophies is obvious to anyone who sees with open eyes and mind. We can see this superiority, however, by examining the Source Himself and moving upward to the manifestation of that Life in the world.

The moral authority of Jesus Christ

What kind of a man is to be taken seriously who claims: that He forgives people their sins (Mk 2:7); that the angels in heaven do His bidding (Mt 13:41); that He is supreme in heaven as well as on earth (Mt 25:31-46); that He will assign the mansions in heaven (Jn 14:2); that He will give the right to the tree of life (Rev 2:7); that He is Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8); that He directs the Spirit of God (Jn 14:16); that He can raise Himself from the grave (Jn 10:18); that He is equal to God (Mt 11:27)? Other self-claimed messiahs and holy men went to great pains to be careful how they spoke among men, and how they were perceived in the public eye. But not Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Many others have taken note of this marked difference. In 1917, John Stock wrote,

“But can such representations as these be harmonized with the notion that Christ is merely a gifted man? Would they not deserve to be called hyperbole run mad on such an hypothesis? And imagine a mere man to stand forward and proclaim himself the choicest gift of God’s love to our race. What a monstrous exaggeration and egotism! If Christ be greater than all other divine gifts combined, must He not be the God-man?”5

Not long after Stock wrote, G.K. Chesterton, in 1925, penned these words,

“No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all.”6

Then, shortly after Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, in 1943, penned probably the most well-know words to this effect regarding the moral authority of Christ,

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”7

What other person than this God-Man could provide redemption and forgiveness from our sins; save us and call us, not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace, but the One who has abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through His own gospel than the holy Son of God, Jesus Christ? (see 2 Tim 1:9-10).

The infallible witness of the Scriptures

In his article in The Fundamentals, William Moorehead used the fact of Christ’s peculiarity as proof of the inspiration of Scripture. He wrote, “Who taught the evangelists to draw this matchless portrait? The pen which traced these glories of Jesus—could it have been other than an inspired pen?. . . . Men could no more invent the God-man of the Gospels than they could create a world.”8 That is, it would be impossible for mere men to invent the Christian Scriptures. The same moral authority that resides in Jesus Christ, the Living Word, is passed to the Holy Scriptures, the Written Word. Among all the things Jesus claimed, He also declared the Scriptures to be His, and to be about Him! “Search the scriptures,” Jesus said, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jn 5:39). “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” Jesus said with all the moral authority of the very Creator, “but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35).

“The Word of God is living” (Heb 4:12, zwn, the root for zoology, the study of life), created by the very breath of God and containing life-giving characteristics such as no other piece of literature could ever claim. Peter spoke of “the word of God which liveth” (1 Pet 1:23). It claims to have characteristics as a living person would have: it searches the heart (Heb 4:12); it cannot be bound (2 Tim 2:9); it takes a free course (2 Th 3:1); it abides in believers (1 Jn 2:14); it withholds the judgment of God (2 Pet 3:5-7); it engrafts itself to us (Jas 1:21); it framed the world (Heb 11:3); it can be blasphemed (Tit 2:5); it sanctifies (1 Tim 4:5). It is also described with words of personality and volition: it is the Word of God (1 Thes 2:13); of life (1 Jn 1:1); of truth (2 Tim 2:15); of righteousness (Heb 5:13); of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19); of wisdom (1 Cor 12:8); of faith (Rom 10:8); of grace (Ac 20:32); of promise (Rom 9:9); of salvation (Ac 13:26).

No other book in history could ever claim and accomplish what the Christian Scriptures claim and accomplish. Calvin wrote in his commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16, “This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestions, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.”9 In like manner the Living Word declared, “He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him” (Jn 8:26).

In addition to these things, what other book could endure the foreign travel on which the Scriptures thrive? All other books are stuck and become stagnant within the culture and times of their writing. Attempts at translation and cross-cultural application fail, and are relegated to the library shelves of ancient history. Not so this Living Word. The darkest corners of time and space await its arrival and are immediately transformed by its Light. As Francis Schaeffer wrote, “It is possible to take the system the Bible teaches, put it down in the market place of ideas of men and let it stand there and speak for itself.”10 It becomes bread for the hungry, light for the darkness, water for the thirsty, and hope for the hopeless, a standard of supremacy for the Christian faith.

The peculiar testimony of the Church

As the life of God was incarnated in the God-Man Jesus Christ, and the Living Word is manifested in every respect in the Written Word, this life is given as a gift to His creatures as they will receive it. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not, but as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (Jn 1:11-12). Through that transaction, He is “not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb 2:11) seeing He has become “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29).

The Scriptures call this life “peculiar.” Our Lord “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit 2:14). We are “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet 2:9a). If this life of Christ is truly in us, and if we truly live by the Book which mirrors His life, then the Life in us will cause us to “show forth the praises of him who hath called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9). This showing forth of His praises is what makes Christianity unique in a world of mere religions. Oswald Chambers put it, “If sin is a radical twist with a supernatural originator, salvation is a radical readjustment with a supernatural Originator.”11

Consider what qualities the new person in Christ has: We are “dead,” “buried,” and “risen” with Christ (Col 2&3) and now sitting together in the heavenly places with Him (Eph 2:6); We have been “baptized into Christ” (Gal 3:27), “reconciled unto Christ” (2 Cor 5:18), “justified by his grace” (Rom 3:24), made “members of his bone and of his flesh” (Eph 5:30) and are now waiting for Christ from heaven (1 Th 1:10); we have the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16), the “Spirit of Christ” (1 Cor 1:22), are “crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20), are “the body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:13), with the “treasure” of Christ (2 Cor 4:7) and have the “Word of Christ” dwelling in us richly” (Col 3:16). The description “convert” carries no parallel among this world’s religions.

And so . . . .

As the old adage goes, history is truly His Story! How sad is life’s perspective without that knowledge. One American statesman said, “The end of history will be a very sad time . . .[in the future] there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history.”12 How strikingly different are Martin Luther’s words,

That world above all earthly powers—no thanks to them abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours Thru Him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also; The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still—His kingdom is forever.

Notes:
1. Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief In A Postmodern World (Louisville: W/JKP, 1989) 186.
2. Calvin Linton, “Man’s Difficulty—Ignorance or Evil?,” Readings In Christian Theology, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992) 129.
3. Quoted by Dave Robinson, Nietzsche and Postmodernism (New York: Totem Books, 1999) 9.
4. Quoted by Erwin Lutzer, Hitler’s Cross (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 104.
5. John Stock, “The God-Man,” The Fundamentals, II (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000) 270.
6. G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993) 203.
7. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillan, 1960) 56.
8. William Moorehead, “The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ A Proof of Inspiration,” The Fundamentals, II, 71,74.
9. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, XXI (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) 248.
10. Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1968) 85.
11. Oswald Chambers, Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: DHP, 1998) 277.
12. Francis Fukuyama, quoted by David Ashly, “Postmodernism and Antifoundationalism,” Postmodernism and Social Inquiry, Dickens & Fontana, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press, 1994) 53.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More