The Discipler

The Church, Gospel and Culture

2011-10-15T19:50:00.002-07:00

Congregations seem to have a tough time adjusting to the culture in which they exist. Missionaries adapt quickly or fail in their effort. Missionaries spend time learning the language, cultural values, trends, and preferences in order to gain a hearing for their message.

Bob Kuest, our team leader, spent substantial time with us helping us learn about Myanmar's culture before and during our first trip to Asia. Sometimes these instructions seemed simple and unimportant, but failure to acknowledge these cultural differences build walls that may never be taken down. Like most Asian cultures, for example, the Burmese (people of Myanmar) look upon the bottom of the foot as dirty. Showing the bottom of a shoe or foot, then, is an insult. (The throwing of a shoe at President Bush was intended as a terrible insult.) In Myanmar, you beckon another with the palm down and pulling the fingers toward you. The "thumbs up" sign is insulting. Refusing hospitality or a gift is insulting. Western visitors to Myanmar become ineffective when they neglect or forget these and other simple cultural issues. Then add to that the considerable communication difficulty due to the language barrier (multiple tribal tongues), government restrictions, diet, musical tastes, and more and you can see how important it is for the missionary to adapt to the culture. The missionary should never compromise the message but he/she must often clothe it in forms acceptable to the culture.

It is no different in this country. Christians must get it into their thick skulls they are working "cross culturally." The American culture transformed into something different in the 1960s and 70s. It changed again in the 1980s. It continues to undergo major cultural shifts. Although English is still spoken, the English language uses multiple new words and old words took on meanings unknown 20-30 years ago. Technology dramatically transformed the American culture. I remember when the few businessmen who immediately got on their cell phones upon lighting from an airplane seemed almost ridiculous. Sit on any airplane today and as soon as the wheels hit the runway you'll hear cell phones chirping everywhere. Television transformed the culture. The digital age with projection technology, instantaneous communication, and an intensely graphical medium transformed the way we get messages across.

Christians must see they are increasingly taking the Gospel cross-culturally. Sadly, however, too many churches remain locked into the models of the mid-20th century. Their message, although sound and solid, simply does not resonate with the contemporary culture because it seems foreign and strange. They simply don't speak the language of contemporary culture!

Does this mean the "old style" has no place? Not at all. Can there still be traditional churches? Absolutely! But...they must learn to adapt their "language" and their "practice" so it communicates. For example, there are many who yearn for a church "like grandma and grandpa" attended -- the church gathers in a building that looks like a church, the singing is accompanied by organ and piano (and other instruments), and it has the feel of the older style. Churches must learn the difference between form and substance! Avoid the ritual and repetitiveness of the mid-20th century style, sing more praise hymns (yes out of the hymnal or projected), use digital technology, do things well, cut out "dead spots," and be upbeat. Doing so will retain the feel of the old but use the best of the new. Furthermore, it will communicate!

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

2011-02-22T14:41:00.002-07:00

Perhaps some occasional readers of this blog wonder if I'm dead or alive. I'm very much alive, thank you very much!

One of the major reasons I've contributed little to this blog over the past year or two has been a simple matter of time. Serving as minister to Camelback Christian Church and teaching online have taken far more time than I could imagine. In addition to the church, I now teach for the Christian College Consortium for Distance Learning, Dallas Christian College, and Manhattan Christian College. Furthermore, I write small group questions for Journey Christian Church in Florida. Frankly, part of my hunger for writing is satisfied when writing my monthly column for the Restoration Herald. If you count up, that means I'm balancing six different writing or teaching/preaching responsibilities. I'm actually working harder than I did before I turned the ripe old age of 60.

Something remarkable -- at least for me it was remarkable -- happened last fall. I happened across the Facebook page of an 8th grade classmate who was a great friend in the day. My mother taught all six of us in the 8th grade class in Rutland, Iowa in 19--, dare I say it, 1955-56! There were two girls -- Sandy Albertson and Joyce Thorn -- and four boys -- Gilbert Hood, Jim Mayall, Roger Coltvet, and I, in the class. Gilbert Hood told me Roger Coltvet lived somewhere in Phoenix. A simple Facebook search discovered him and his wife in north Phoenix. We subsequently got together for an evening dinner and he told me he was occasionally in touch with Dianne (Thorn) Christiansen and Rachel (Lewis) Nickelson. Dianne was a 7th grader in the same classroom (there were three classes in one room) and Rachel, an 8th grader who grew up in Rutland, had moved to Fort Dodge. Her mother continued to teach grades 3-5 in Rutland that year. As a result, Rachel and I became good friends and corresponded through high school and the fall of my freshman year in college. Re-establishing relationships with these four terrific people has been extremely rewarding and brought back many memories.

These renewed contacts encouraged me to write a series of recollections about my growing up years. I've been working on that project since November 2010. This collection of memories, with pictures, is undergoing a rewrite and has reached more than 200 pages. So far, my memories have taken me from my grandfather's farm near Mark, Iowa, to my current home in Palm Springs, California. It is, for me, a labor of love realizing that few will ever read let alone be interested in these tidbits from my life. It has been fun, though, and, oh, the memories! Some happy, some sad, some bittersweet ... some extremely unpleasant. Even those, however, have been cathartic as I unwrapped some of the things in my past that created hurt and pain. All of it ... all of it, and all of them who are part of my story, made me who I am. I confess, I'm not much, but I am His!

Well, maybe just to keep this blog open and expanding I'll lift some of those stories out and present them here. We'll see!

The Graying of the Convention

2010-07-09T12:29:00.005-07:00

Indianapolis hosted this year's North American Christian Convention July 5-9. I'm writing this in the Indianapolis airport awaiting a 5:14 flight to Detroit and then to Phoenix. Although I don't go to the annual convention each year I noticed something quite interesting about this year's gathering. Maybe I'm wrong but there didn't seem to be a plethora of young preachers attending the convention. There was, however, an increasingly large number of "graybeards" -- not literally of course.

For years now the NACC has been in the hands of the Baby Boomers. The convention reflects their music preferences, their interests, their methodology and more. From what I saw the dominance may be fading. If the makeup of the crowd becomes typical it will no longer reflect their dominance and it is possible it might not exist at all. When their dominance is gone look for a shift in music styles, workshop emphases, and main speakers.

I keep hearing that younger people want to return to the style and the music of their grandparents. The slick professionally choreographed services in most megachurches are written off as shallow, trite, and sometimes pathetic. They still want excellence but they've not made it their god. We may have had a taste of what's coming in this year's music. In addition to the rock choruses there was a sprinkling of the old hymns. These older hymns, however, we sung to newer instrumentation, projected graphics, and revised arrangements. Nonetheless, unless the music is loud enough to raise the dead it could appeal to some of us older types. What may be amusing, however, is the mashed cat complaining the Baby Boomers will do when music styles change. But then, what come around goes around!

I always enjoy the connecting and renewing of relationships that occur during the convention. Most of the main sessions are challenging even when I don't agree with everything said. It was gratifying to hear a message on discipleship and teaching. Brian Jones said many things I said almost a decade ago. Thank God, someone is seeing some of the weaknesses in what's been happening and pointing out the need for change.

Indianapolis did give me an unwelcome gift -- a horrible cold. My nose is dripping, I'm coughing my head off, and there's a multitude of sneezes. The pile of used kleenex is increasing. I know! I know! That's more than you wanted or needed to know but, hey, its the truth!

On Blood and Bacteria

2010-03-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

Looking over my topics I find I haven't commented here about what happened last summer -- the summer of 2009 which turned out to be the "summer from hell."

Not long after my birthday in June I awoke on a Saturday morning with severe back pain. It took my wife nearly an hour to get me up so she could take me to the hospital ER. After a brief exam the doctors at Desert Regional Medical Center gave me some Vicodin and sent me home. The next morning the pain was worse and we ended up in the ER again. This time they referred me to a Pain Center here in the valley.

At the Pain Center the doctors discovered several things I didn't know. For example, I had some scoliosis in my lower back. After some preliminaries I received the first of three epidural shots for the pain. The first did nothing for me and I spent two weeks taking Percoset and sleeping in a recliner in the living room. A second epidural brought some relief but the pain was still excruciating.

Our family doctor had some other concerns for me during this painful period. Even before the back pain I was experiencing low grade fever and night sweats. That was a concern to our doctor and she couldn't put her finger on what was causing it. Cat Scans, X-rays, and blood tests revealed nothing. She finally referred me to a Rheumatologist. Since I didn't have rheumatism I couldn't figure out why. This new doctor, however, was very thorough and during a lengthy interview asked if I'd had a blood culture. My answer was negative. She immediately prescribed a trip to the lab on Thursday, July 16, so they could work up a blood culture. We headed out for Arizona over the weekend so I could speak at Camelback Christian Church. We returned home Sunday evening to find the message light on our phone flashing to tell us we had a message. It was the lab calling to tell me the blood culture revealed some bacteria in my blood and I was to call in if we got home before 6 pm. We got home at 6:15 so we had to wait another day.

I had an appointment for a third epidural Monday morning, July 20, so we headed out to the Pain Center for that shot. We returned home in the early afternoon to find two voice mails on our system. Both told me to go to the hospital ER immediately where I would be admitted to the hospital. Upon arrival tests were begun and by evening I was awaiting a room assignment.

Tuesday the doctors began running me through a battery of tests -- CAT Scan, MRI, Echocardiogram, and a host of other tests. By Wednesday a diagnosis was reached, a surgeon selected, and preparations were underway for surgery on Friday. The diagnosis: endocarditis. The tests revealed two clusters of bacteria lodged on my aortic valve. The bacteria had eaten through the valve and, as the doctors told me later, I was in heart failure and had been for some time. Had either or both of those two clusters broken off from the valve and hit my brain I would be either an invalid or dead. For that reason the doctors did not wait and on Friday, July 25, an excellent heart surgeon gave me a "bovine valve" to replace the damaged one.

I didn't think about it at the time but later I realized that to perform the surgery, the doctors had to stop my heart so they could work on it. Even now I shudder to think that the doctors literally had my life in their hands.

Recovery time went fairly well. I had a couple of incidents of atrial flutter that slowed things down a bit, but overall the folks in Cardiac Care got me up and about fairly quickly. I returned home to continue a month of inter-venous antibiotic treatments. Following that I began collecting fluid around and in my right lung. This necessitated the draining of that lung. This is accomplished by running a needle through your back and into the lung. The first time doctors drew off 1,440 cc of fluid; the second time it was over 2 liters and they still didn't get it all. So, I was on prednizone which quickly cleared up any inflammation contributing to the fluid build up.

At this point the recovery continues. It's been slow -- at least it seems like it to me. I still tire easily. Nonetheless, I am pretty much back in the swing of things. I've got students in my history courses from Manhattan Christian College, Dallas Christian College, and the Consortium of Christian Colleges. I preach each week at Camelback Christian Church in Scottsdale, AZ, and I started teaching a Bible School Class the first of the year.

It has been an adventure but one I'd just as soon not repeat.

Back Again

2010-01-13T14:45:00.002-07:00

After months in the doldrums I've decided to pick up this blog again. I shut it down for a while but Blogger maintains it anyway. My reasons for shutting it down and starting it up again are enumerated below.

I am writing a monthly column for the "Restoration Herald." The RH is an organ of the Christian Restoration Association and published monthly in Cincinnati, OH. This column gives me ample opportunity to present my observations drawn from the contemporary church culture and Church history. I didn't think I needed another writing spot to siphon off my attention.
I had open heart surgery this past July enabling doctors to transplant a bovine valve in place of my aortic valve. Bacteria took up residence on my original valve and chewed through it creating heart failure. The surgery put me down for nearly two months and I'm still regaining strength in recovery.
I decided to start up again because there are observations I'd like to make from time to time that don't fit well into my column in the RH. My daughter says I'm negative ... and I suppose I am from time to time ... but my reactions are more than just being cranky. I still think someone needs to point to danger signs and act as a "watchman on the wall."

So spread the word, I'm online again through this blog.

Just a Few Shots

2009-03-31T16:47:00.003-07:00

The Emperor Justinian ordered the construction of the Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) during the 6th century. Built on the basilica style, the sheer size of the structure can't be imagined until you walk in the doors. Constantius, the son of Emperor Constantine, constructed the first church building on this site but it and the structure that replaced it were both destroyed by fire. When Islam conquered the region the minarets were added and the frescoes and mosaics, such as the one below, were covered. Today it is a museum and the Christian art is being restored.

On Relics and Things

2009-02-18T08:58:00.002-07:00

My wife and I are in Istanbul, Turkey as I write this. It has been an interesting two days here. On day one we saw the Blue Mosque, Hagia Sophia, a huge cistern, and Korah Church.

Of greatest interest to me was Hagia Sophia. The present iteration of that church owes its existence to the Emperor Justinian. Two previous buildings occupied the spot prior to the current huge domed structure. Constantius, the son of Constantine, built a church with a wood roof on the site several hundred years prior to Justinian's structure. That building burned and another erected. It, too, burned when riots broke out following chariot races at the nearby Hippodrome. The present building served as the patriarchal church for the bishop of Constantinople until the city fell to Islam whereupon it was converted to a mosque.

Today we visited the Egyptian spice market, sailed on the Bosphorus, and visited Topkapi Palace, the home of the Ottoman sultans. This immense structure is home to much of the finery attached to the sultanate. One display featured religious relics associated with Islam. As we viewed the exhibit we saw Moses' rod that budded, Joseph's turban, and the forearm of John the Baptist. We also viewed Mohammed's footprint and other relics associated with the Kaaba and Mohammed. If you believe those things are what they say they are I have a bridge to sell you located in Arizona near the Colorado River!!!

I always assciated the collection and worship of relics with Roman Catholicism but I'm sure it exists to some degree in many religions. Frankly, I think it is a lot of superstitious nonsense, but hey, I saw the rod that budded! Someone once said there are enough Catholics with a piece of the cross to reconstruct dozens of crosses. Relics were a big deal before the Protestant Reformation and, for some, they are a big deal today. Consider for instance all the stuff that goes on about the Shroud of Turin or those who brought splinters back from the Ark on Mount Ararat. I guess if that's the sort of thing that turns you on it is just the sort of thing you'd be interested in.

I certainly don't need some stupid relic -- real or imagined -- to bolster my faith! I have the testimony of reliable witnesses in "the Book." Its testimony to the resurrection of Jesus in space and time is enough for me!

Now, having said all of that, my wife and I leave Istanbul tomorrow for a trip to Cappadocia followed by a tour of "the seven churches of Asia." Read the first chapters of Revelation for a comprehensive list of these churches. I'm looking forward to visiting Ephesus, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and the other churches in the list. I'm not looking for relics! I'm looking for a better understanding of the historical settings for the early church. I'll tell you more about it as we go along.

Silence isn’t golden

2008-11-04T11:45:00.001-07:00

Bob, the president of my civic club, met me as I headed toward the restaurant doors to ask if I would offer the "thought for the day" (read prayer). I gladly agreed. Over the years I've belonged to three well-known civic clubs. Because of my choice of occupation, I guess, I almost became the "official prayer" in each club. No one ever suggested I should edit my prayers or compromise my convictions … until today.

After I offered the prayer I closed as I always do invoking the name of my Lord Jesus. Once we returned to our plates of bacon, pork sausage, eggs, and potatoes, one of the club members sidled to my table to offer me some "friendly advice." I shouldn't pray in Jesus' name at club as there are Jewish members. Evidently the bacon and pork sausage doesn't offend them, but a prayer in the name of a Jewish Rabbi does. Go figure!

It strikes me again how negative our culture's attitudes toward Christians and Christianity have become. Christians are to tolerate and respect the views and convictions of others but rarely is that same toleration and respect extended to believers. Christians who hold strong convictions must compromise those convictions so not to offend those who have no convictions, few convictions, or, at minimum, different convictions. It didn't matter that by telling me, in a friendly manner of course, what I could or could not pray I was offended. I mean, after all, I've opened sessions of the Idaho State Congress and no one told me I couldn't pray "in Jesus' name." I offered prayer on an almost weekly basis at the clubs I joined in Boise, ID, and North Canton, OH, and no one criticized me or told me I couldn't or shouldn't pray "in Jesus' name."

Oh, by the way, all these clubs had Jewish members as well as those who held no religious beliefs whatsoever. But, then, this is, after all, California. You might know that in the nation's most liberal state (except for perhaps New York) you are free only to express views that don't offend anyone else. You see, that's one of liberalism's strongest characteristics – intolerance.

More Christians have died because of others' intolerance than for any other reasons. It has been so since the days of the Roman Empire. Rome tried to stamp out Christianity for its intolerance. You see, Christians dared to say the only way to God was through commitment to Christ. So with the chopping block, the Romans refused to tolerate the intolerance of those who lovingly spread their message by word of mouth.

In honesty, I have to acknowledge that a few boneheads over the centuries tried to spread Christianity at sword point. Charlemagne conquered regions and races at the point of the sword forcing "conversion" at sword point. These conversions were rarely, if ever, heartfelt or genuine. Genuine Christianity can't be forced upon someone; it must come as a response to the "good news."

Christians are losing the "culture war" in this nation as revealed in the increasingly bold suppression and oppression of the Christian message, Christian values, and Christian people. For years now Christians have been the subject of a concerted effort to stifle their talk and their walk. The message to believers is, Keep your faith private and shut up in the walls of your home and your church and don't bug us.

Dear readers, I hope you see this for what it is – a blatant attempt to silence the message. Perhaps we need to hear once again the words of Peter the other apostles, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:20) With the words of the Great Commission echoing in your ears, obey God!

Losing our Freedoms

2008-09-23T21:02:00.001-07:00

Each election cycle endangers our freedoms. This is particularly true for Christians in this election. Recent news out of Arizona reports that Flagstaff is considering raising sexual preference to a protected status. By ordinance, then, the Flagstaff community would accord homosexuals the same protection as that afforded minority ethnic groups.

If this ordinance is not defeated it will have serious ramifications for the traditional Christian community. Jim Dorman, minister of Christ's Church of Flagstaff, reports that while churches would be exempt of the expectations of the ordinance the exemption only applies to ordained personnel. Members, unpaid ministry staff, employees of Christian schools, and even church janitorial services would not be exempt. The ordinance, if passed, would effectively impact a church's right to set membership standards or practice church discipline. Dorman points out that in certain cases church leadership would have to go before a Human Rights Commission to communicate why the church is choosing to be an agency of "discrimination." In worst case scenarios, the Commission could label the church "an agency of discrimination."

This is not just a problem for Christians in Flagstaff. If passed in Flagstaff, other Arizona communities will enact similar ordinances. Regardless of what promoters of such ordinances say, the result is a form of persecution against those who hold a reverence for clear biblical teaching which condemns homosexual behavior.

Other states are well down the slippery slope of decadent acceptance of deviant behavior. This year the California Supreme Court, one of the most liberal state courts in the country, determined that marriage could not be denied homosexual and lesbian partners. Palm Springs is marketing itself as the Gay Marriage Capital in the hopes that homosexuals from throughout the nation will come to the Coachella Valley to "get married." Christians and those favoring traditional marriage are promoting Proposition 8, which will call for legislation to clearly state that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. As of this writing, Proposition 8 is on shaky ground even though the state approved a similar proposition in a previous election. Similar legislation is on the ballot in several other states this year and I predict that most will fail. I pray I'm wrong!

In my opinion, there is a relationship between according sexual preference the recognition as a minority and permitting same sex marriage. Both are attacking the so-called equality issue as seen by the gay rights movement from different directions hoping to catch Christians and traditionalists in a pincer.

Once gay rights activists attain "equality" they will demand that anyone or anything standing in opposition to them be charged with discrimination and punished. The ultimate result will be the removal of tax exempt status from Bible-believing churches or the forced closure of these churches. Preaching or teaching that God condemns homosexual behavior will become discrimination and punished just as it is in Canada today.

Christians must stand up and be counted in this and future elections or the church of Christ will become as persecuted as the church elsewhere.

Standing for Something

2008-09-11T14:00:00.004-07:00

While attending the NACC this summer, I saw numerous friends and acquaintances. Even though I don't think the program has been much to write home about, I always enjoy seeing friends I've known for years.

Invariably, they want to know what I'm doing and where I've been. When I mention that I'm serving Camelback Christian Church their eyebrows go up. Camelback has a reputation! I suppose it's a deserved reputation. Dr. Joe Carson Smith, the founding minister, remains a conservative icon in the Restoration Movement. Camelback is seen as one of those "hold out" congregations that remain traditional in worship, philosophy, and theology.

Then, when I remark that I'm preparing a series of articles for "Restoration Herald," I got the same response. Mark Taylor, editor of the "Christian Standard," remarked something to the effect that I should try to get CRA to be less combative. You see, the Christian Restoration Association has long stood for the traditional Restoration Movement values and has, at times, been just that – combative.

My response in both cases has been, "The Restoration Movement needs churches like Camelback that aren't afraid to take a stand for biblical truth and the traditions of the Restoration Movement. The brotherhood also needs the CRA because someone needs to challenge the thinking that leads to directions destructive of the movement's values and purpose. All too often "the blind lead the blind" and everyone falls into a ditch. There is nothing wrong with change, but not all change is good, beneficial, or helpful. Someone has to challenge the thinking of those who would lead the churches, leaders, and brotherhood of the Restoration Movement down a primrose path leading to its destruction.

As I thought about all of this, there were several things that came to mind:

Truth is often seen as negative. Those who "tell it like it is" are simply unpopular because truth cuts … and sometimes it cuts deeply. In our day of political correctness, tolerance, and "politeness" it isn't acceptable to simply tell the truth. Nonetheless, someone has to do it! Speaking about some of the challenges raised by the CRA one fellow wisely said, "Well, even the person who is consistently wrong is sometimes right!" Frankly, during the CRA's history its editors have been more right than wrong.
There is a definite need to keep issues alive and open for discussion. Years ago during the inerrancy controversy, there were those prominent scholars and leaders who would have swept the whole discussion "under the rug." Had they been successful, the issue of biblical reliability would be more seriously questioned than it is – and it remains in question in certain circles. It has been said that "silence is not always golden; sometimes it is just plain yellow!" That is nowhere more evident than in upholding the movement's principles and values.
Those of us who still believe in the Movement's values must remain vigilant. The agents of change will always be with us. Change is indeed sometimes good. Change can also be expedient or helpful. To take an approach, however, that anything that works or seems for the moment to be helpful is good is fallacious. Just because "it", whatever "it" is, works does not make it right! There are almost always unintended consequences and those who refuse to consider that enact changes that destroy. It is right for churches like Camelback, leaders like Joe Carson Smith, or agencies such as the CRA to speak out! All it takes to destroy a nation or a movement is for "good people to do nothing!"

I am happy to be associated with Camelback Christian Church and its heritage. I am happy to be invited to share insights with the readers of the "Restoration Herald." Do I always agree with everything? No, but then I sometimes don't agree with things I said or wrote a month ago! Still, I like what CCC and the CRA stand for. Frankly, I'm not too sure what some of our supposed brotherhood biggies and agencies stand for these days.

Future of the NACC

2008-07-12T12:30:00.001-07:00

For my readers who may not read Christian Standard or attend the North American Christian Convention this entry relates to both.

I attended the recent convention held in Cincinnati. Although the convention was not well attended (there were about 4,200 in attendance), it was probably one of the better conventions of late. I did not attend every session, but those I did enjoy those I did attend. I did not hear the two morning speakers because I tried to catch up on some grading for my summer Restoration History course. With only one exception, the evening speakers were interesting, easy to listen to, and had a decent message. Cam Huxford and Ben Merold were outstanding. Jud Wilhite is a smooth speaker and kept my attention, but I really didn't get much from his message. Honestly, though, I found it hard to listen to him because I kept thinking about the fact that the church he serves no longer maintains a weekly observance of the Lord's Supper as a central focus on their morning worship. As one might expect, eighty-two-year-old Ben Merold emphasized traditional Restoration values including the important place of baptism as the means of "putting on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

The July 6 issue of Christian Standard features an interview with former convention director Leonard Wymore. The printed interview was not the complete interview. To get the full interview, readers must access Standard's web site – www.christianstandard.com. I found Wymore's evaluation of the NACC insightful. He attributes some of the convention's dropping attendance to the fact that convention leadership seems to have forgotten the needs of the smaller and mid-size church.

I would add that this is inevitable given that upper echelon leadership is nearly always drawn from the larger churches. In the past, larger churches were usually those with attendances of over 300 or more. Until the rise of the mega-church, congregations of that size were considered large, especially west of the Mississippi. As congregations grew larger NACC leadership tended to come from the growing mega-churches.

Although we will continue to have growing mega-churches with us for some time, there are still hundreds of small and mid-size churches in small towns and rural areas. Their needs get ignored by the mega-church leaders. I haven't done the research, but I often wonder if that is because there is a tendency to think these smaller churches aren't significant. While many may be dying, others are hugely significant in their communities and often see many won to Christ. They do not always fail to grew because they are stagnant or insignificant. Sometimes they fail to grow simply because movement from small towns and rural areas continue to swell the cities – and the mega-churches, I might add.

As long as the NACC aims its program to the large dynamic mega-church, the leaders of smaller churches will continue to lose interest in the convention. It cannot be assumed that smaller churches always want to emulate the methodology of the mega-church. Such methods often simply do not work in smaller towns and rural areas.

In the interview, Wymore also indicated that rising registration prices make it less likely that leaders from small to mid-size churches will attend. At this year's convention, in spite of $75 for early individual registration there was a $150,000 short fall in meeting convention expenses. Convention leaders made offering pitches at four sessions with offerings totaling $132,000 by the morning of the last day. In addition, sponsors funded workshops and ancillary sessions. Frankly, I hate to think what the convention's total cost was. Although I didn't listen to Jud Wilhite all that carefully, I did pick up on one thing he said that I thought convention leaders need to heed. Wilhite said that he and his congregation – Central Christian Church in Las Vegas – discovered they didn't need more resources; they needed to be more resourceful!

When I served with First Christian Church in Canton, OH, I also participated as a board member of the Ohio Christian Education Association. This inter-denomination group put on an annual convention second to none. The OCEA convention featured hundreds of workshops, a major speaker, excellent music, and tremendous resources. Everything about the OCEA convention was first class. More than 3,000 attended the three day event held in Akron, OH. Registration was generally less than $20 per person for early registration. Earlier this year the OCEA was literally snowed out and the convention lost $30,000. Still the resourceful leadership that plans the annual convention still had an equal amount in reserve for the 2009 convention.

In addition to the large church emphasis and the financial issues, I think there is at least other factor to the drop in interest in the NACC. Many conservative leaders are convinced the NACC leadership is no longer concerned with sound doctrine, biblical preaching, and cherished principles of the Restoration Movement. That may or may not be true, but with few exceptions the workshops continue to feature authors from outside the Restoration Movement. This fact and the multitude of book signing events lead to the conviction they all they want to do is sell books. It is thought that the "big name" draws, but for those of us who hold to the movement's principles there is little interest in hearing Bill Hybels or other big name denominationalists. Where once the convention featured Bible studies and delved into theological issues, the focus is now on pragmatics.

I hate to say this, but I am convinced that the days of the NACC are numbered. I think this is true for several reasons including all of those mentioned above. First, there is a decision to hold conventions to Cincinnati, Louisville, and Indianapolis with an occasional excursion west of the Mississippi. While this region is the heartland of the Restoration Movement it conveys the idea that churches in the west are unimportant. Second, rising transportation costs will only worsen participation from great distances especially for leaders from small and mid-size churches. Third, an ever-widening gap between the needs of mega-churches and smaller churches will continue unless the mega-churches and convention leadership effectively demonstrate their faithfulness to the principles of the Restoration Movement.

As Lee Mason, editor of the Restoration Herald, has said, "We need the NACC." Ben Merold has said, "If we didn't have the NACC, we would need something just like it." It would be a shame if a convention beginning in 1927 as a gathering of individuals would continue to degenerate into an assembly of leaders who only want to congratulate themselves on their successes.

On the Role of Elders

2008-06-23T19:45:00.002-07:00

With apologies to my friend "Kent" of "Kent B. True," I just have to point out some stupidity found in the pages of a recent Christian Standard. It seems one of the brainiacs wrote an article on the role of elders. In the article, the author stated that we can discern from Scripture what an elders is "to be," but we don't much understand what an elder is "to do."

The author says that it was easy to understand the elder's role as shepherd in the first century or in rural America. Now that we live in the 21st century in mostly urban cultures we have to ask, now what? The rest of the article was the result of some reasearch on what contemporary elders do. What they do in the city is serve in an advisory capacity to the staff. Where do you find that role in the descriptive passages of the New Testament elder. Here is what I wrote as a letter to the editor of the Standard.

So we know what elders are but do we know what elders do? Apparently not! Not since we live in a 21st century culture that is often urban and can't identify with the role of shepherd. I have a theological word for that thought: balderdash!

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the author of the article to read They Smell Like Sheep and the Bible. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that a church is comprised of people who are often as dumb as sheep. They still need someone to look after them and to minister to their needs just as much as they did when they lived in rural areas. Maybe those urban sheep need even more shepherding.

The issue isn't that we can't figure out what elders do, the real issue is that elders have abandoned their God-given responsibilities to a group of people who are at best an expedient for their roles are nowhere seen in the New Testament. The New Testament Church didn't have "a staff," it had elders. For a movement that began with a desire to get away from the laity-clergy distinction, our contemporary elders have permitted just such a distinction to exist. Why "the staff' is even using the title "Pastor" which rightfully belongs to an elder. Maybe what we need to do is adopt the denominational practice of letting "the staff" be the elders and the elders be the deacons and the deacons just be just another brand of peon in the church. We seem to be adopting all the other denominational stuff that seems to be so inviting!

Everywhere we look in the once biblically-oriented Restoration Movement we see the abandonment of principles taught in Scripture regarding the New Testament Church. I'm not much into patternism, but I still think there are principles that mean something and can be aptly applied to the contemporary church. We've supplanted the biblical principles of leadership for corporate practices complete with a Board of Directors (Elders) and a CEO, COO, CFO, and so on. We've replaced biblical principles of leadership with the pragmatism of so many irrefutable laws of leadership (with proof texts rather than real biblical support). I don't think elders should micromanage, but I think they should be overseers and superintendents who know what's going on and who know the difference between sound doctrine and false doctrine.

Okay, I now get all the perks of a senior citizen so you can write off my meanderings as the ranting of an old man, but you can't escape the fact that in the qualifications of elders listed in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and Acts 20 you can find out what an elder is supposed to do. Their servant leadership is implicit in their qualifications. Maybe ... just maybe ... our folks need to spend more time in the Bible than in John Maxwell's tomes!

Michael Hines
Palm Springs, California

The NACC and Me

2008-06-04T19:56:00.002-07:00

The North American Christian Convention bills itself as "the connecting place." I plan to attend this summer's convention in Cincinnati.

I've had an "on-again, off-again" relationship with the NACC since 1966 when my wife and I attended the NACC in Cincinnati. We camped at Rabbit Hatch, KY, and drove in each day for the convention. We wore suits to the conventon in those days and it was hot in Cincinnati. After that, I attended the convention a time or two then quit going. I got rather disgusted with what I noted was the political atmosphere of the convention.

I started going to the conventions again when I was at Westwood-Cheviot Church of Christ in Cincinnati. I attended conventions in Indianapolis, Anaheim, Tulsa, Kansas City, Phoenix, and Louisville (not necessarily in that order). While serving at Westwood-Cheviot I ministered to the Convention Director and his wife as well as the coordinator of the Bible Bowl and Teen Conventions. These were great people who wanted the convention to minister to the whole family.

I quit going on a regular basis when the Convention raised their registration prices through the roof. Most of the cost increase, in my opinion -- and I could be wrong, came about because the convention leadership foolishly purchased an expensive Cincinnati property for their offices and got into terrible debt. Not long after that, the convention leadership began encouraging sponsorships of various events at the conventions and began refocusing the convention away from families to church leaders. The last convention I attended was at Corona, one of the venues of a divided convention.

Convention leaders continue to raise prices and raise funds for events through sponsorships. Some of those sponsors are from groups, businesses, and ministries with no direct Restoraion Movement tie or relationship. Various conservative leaders within the Restoration Movement have raised questions about the wisdom of such sponsorships realizing that whoever provides the funds calls the tune. Convention leaders may protest that this has not happened, but those charged with having their hands in the cookie jar can often make the excuses and it is difficult to gain evidence that sponsors have indeed shaped the message and the convention. Those who raise such questions are accused of being out of touch, old fashioned, and just plain suspicous!

In addition to all this, the convention leadership continually brings speakers to the platform who represent theological positions at odds with sound doctrine. Sometimes the messages they bring are helpful, sometimes they are not. A few years ago Edwin McManus, minister of Mosaic Church, preached a typical Baptist "faith only" message. Robert Webber spoke emphasizing the "ancient future" church and spoke glibly of the Acts 2 church. Any references Webber made to the early churh did not reflect an Acts 2 church. Rather, he talked about the church of the second and third centuries. Someone not versed in Church History may not have picked that up, but I did. The only question I have is why are we letting leaders from outside the Restoration Movement set the pattern for the church? Why has Bill Hybels become the guru fr growth rather than men from our own movement? Don't we have successful leaders and growing churches that haven't imbibed the spirit of compromise from Hybels and othres?

You may be wondering, if you see all of this why do you intend to attend the convention? There are a couple of reasons:

I have friends across the broad spectrum of the Restoration Movement. I have always enjoyed the convention as a "connecting place" with friends from across the country. When I attend conventions I spend most of my time wandering the displays looking for friends with whom to visit. I attend the main preaching sessions sitting as far away from the raucous music as I can. Furthermore, I always vote "no" for the slate of officers even though my voice is never heard when the vote is taken.
I don't want to lose what little influence I have. I am under no illustion that my being there will create much of a ripple. But as I visit with a friend or two, it might ... it just might! More and more are abandoning the convention (attendances show that) and some absolutely refuse to attend because of the convention's policies. I would hate to see a repeat of the 1927-29 general conventions that resulted in the formation of the NACC. Maybe I'm too late! The Hillsboro Family Camp may already have done that.
When I do go to the conventions I usually room with my good friend Jon Stedman. Jon and I are best of friends dating back to grad school. We have seen and supported each other through some major crises in our lives. We look forward to just bein together and having fun. We share the expense of the room and take in only what we think might be worthwhile.

I'll bring you a report after this year's convention giving you my insights and evaluations.

Its Been Awhile!

2008-06-04T19:38:00.002-07:00

As the title indicates, it's been awhile since I last posted. There are some good reasons for that. Let me explain:

I took a two week mission trip to Thailand in March. I worked with my friends Bob and Peggy Kuest of New Mission Systems and Ahtapa Sinlee, a national worker and good friend. I spent the first week in Mai Sai one of the chief cities in the Golden Triangle. There were nearly 120 workers from Tibet, Myanmar, Laos, China, Vietnam, and Thailand. One of the most exciting part of that particular segment was meeting two Lisu workers from Tibet who reported the starting of 62 churches without any help from westerners. The second week, I was in a Hmong village near Mai Sot. We taught about 50 Hmong Christian tribal leaders. Those trips are beginning to leave me exhausted when I arrive home.
My teaching load this spring was particularly heavy. I started the semester with 54 Consortium students (about 40 completed). I also designed and taught a course in American Christianity for Dallas Christian College and a Restoration History course for Manhattan Christian College.
I continue to minister with the Camelback Christian Church in Scottsdale, Arizona. Along with the elders, we are working through some strategic planning that I hope will result in growth for that faithful congregation.

Looking to the future, there are other service opportunities on the horizon. Lee Mason, editor of Restoration Herald invited me to write a regular column for the paper. I am currently writing articles for that and publication should begin in a few months. In the column I am focusing on the lessons we can learn from church history. I hope to take events and individuals from the past and put a face on them to help Christians see what we can learn from them. I expect to get in trouble a few times, but that's part of the picture.

I am currently teaching a summer session for the Consortium, 3 students in a Restoration History course through Manhattan, and World Civilizations II for Dallas Christian College. I hope to get more regular with the blog but my wife and I are planning a trip to the North American Christian Convention and some vacationing to see friends in Canton as well as our daughter in Nashville. I also plan to do some videoing at Restoration sites in West Virginia and Kentucky so I can produce some video for my online courses.

"Some Still Shoot Straight"

2008-03-12T21:47:00.002-07:00

I received a recent publication from First Christian Church in Canton, OH. It was interesting to me that the church has instituted a "baptism night" rather than immersing respondents the "same hour." An article telling about "baptism night" was pretty vague and generic causing me some concern for a congregation I grew to love during almost eight years of ministry.

I sent a quick e-mail to John Hampton expressing my concern and asking him if the church had changed their position on baptism for remission of sins. Not only did I get an immediate answer, I got a copy of a message John intended to preach Sunday, March 16. After reading it over I recognized a good part of it as part of a message I had preached myself years before. To be honest, we both borrowed from the same source. There could be no doubt left in my mind that John saw baptism resulting in "inner cleansing" because of faith.

How different from the response I got from the preacher of the new Stadia replant in Gil bert, AZ. Neither owed me a response, but one took the question seriously and moved to alleviate suspicion with an honest answer. The other -- the one who wanted me to "shoot straight with him beause he could take it" -- never bothered to affirm or deny.

There are many things causing concern in the Restoration Movement. (See some of the comments on earlier blogs.) If Stadia is not using some litmus test regarding the preaching of "baptism for the remission of sins" all they have to do is be honest and verify their honesty. Like Reagan, I trust but verify! If the preachers and leaers of some of our mega and not so mega churches aren't adopting Evangelical doctrine and approach, let them say so and demonstrate that they are telling the truth. Honest answers without dissimulation is the only way to alleviate the growing tension created by distrust. Churches and congregations must learn to demand accountability of their colleges and our brotherhood "somewhats." We've had too many in years past who hid their beliefs and their motives resulting in the encroachment of liberalism into our schools, open membership on the mission field, and the near loss of thousands of congregations when the Disciples hid the purpose of Restructure. What the liberals did to the Restoration Movement in the late Nineteenth and the Twentieth Centuries, Evangelicals are doing today.

Churches must remain vigilant in their teaching and in holding parachurch agencies accountable for their actions.

There’s Something About a Feeling!

2008-03-06T17:13:00.003-07:00

Well, now! Hillary has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit "on many occasions in my years on this earth." According to an interview by David Brody, the former first lady professes to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That's great! So does Satan! Not that I'm personally linking Hillary to Satan, of course, but there is a lot more proof to the pudding.

When asked if she believed that faith in Christ was necessary to going to heaven, she replied, "That one I'm a little more open to. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. But, ever since I was a little girl, I've asked every Sunday school teacher I've ever had, I asked every theologian I've ever talked with, whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you're well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that's why there are missionaries, that's why you have to try to convert. And, then there are a lot of other people who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that's how we understand it and who are we to read God's mind about such a weighty decision as that." Hillary, you don't have to read God's mind, just read God's Word! Of course, to do that you are reading the results of what God has communicated! Perhaps Hillary needs to go back to Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me." That's not some Sunday School teacher or theologian; that's Jesus!

As to feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, I have to ask, "Hillary, how do you know it was the Holy Spirit?" Was it just a feeling or did he communicate some objective truth to you? Did you feel the Holy Spirit's leading when you voted to support the president's Iraq policy or do you feel it now that you are running for president and oppose his policy? I don't think the Holy Spirit, who is God, vacillates that much! Did you feel the Holy Spirit's leading when you openly supported the prochoice agenda that has resulted in the abortion of 40 million human babies since 1973? I doubt it!

The problem with feeling the Holy Spirit has been with us since the Montanist heresy of the second century. Every believer (I'll take them at their word) who heads off in some wild-eyed direction supports their heresy, stupidity, or just plain folly with an appeal to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Our Disciples brethren said the Holy Spirit led them to Restructure in the 1960s, a step now admitted foolish. The leaders of Midwest Christian College back in the 1970s professed the Holy Spirit was leading them to purchase a Catholic hospital for a new campus. MCC is dead and buried. That sure makes the Holy Spirit look stupid, doesn't it! Without some objective foundation the profession of the Holy Spirit's leadership comes up way short!

So how can we know whether or not the Holy Spirit is leading? It certainly isn't labeling humanity's hair-brained schemes as such before the fact. It isn't pointing to a copy of the New Testament and saying, "That's all the Holy Spirit you'll ever need!" It isn't relying on our emotional response to felt needs. Then how can we know?

Just stick to the Word of Truth, the Scripture, and obey God's Word. If you want to be pragmatic in an approach to problem solving let it be known you are applying pragmatic solutions; don't lay them off on the Holy Spirit to sound super-spiritual. The Holy Spirit does "lead into all truth," but that promise is ours only in a secondary way! Jesus made that promise to his disciples. They were led into all truth and they recorded it for us so we'd know which way to turn when it was an issue relating to God's sovereignty. Where God has not spoken he leaves the matter to us to figure out a solution that honors him and remains faithful to the revealed Word.

We are experiencing so much post-modern pablum these days that it's really hard to keep our heads on straight. I guess there's something to that old popular song, "There's something about a feeling…."

Stone Campbell Differences

2008-02-29T22:39:00.001-07:00

Considering the Restoration Movement a homogenous people is a huge mistake. The fact is the Restoration Movement is an amalgam of many theological concepts, personal leadership characteristics, and social backgrounds. To my knowledge, only one author, Richard T. Hughes, a scholar in the non-instrumental fellowship, has analyzed the movement according to these criteria. I am of the opinion that differences in these areas continue to create an undercurrent of tension within the movement. If I am correct, it will take only a spark to initiate more unfortunate division within the movement.

Hughes points to two major personalities as the source of the tensions. Although strained in some of his analysis, Hughes points to Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell. Both men were the leaders of the two groups that united together in late December and early January 1830-31. Both were Presbyterians, but both came to conviction about restoring the New Testament Church in different ways.

Hughes says Stone’s convictions arose out of his experiences with the revivals of the Second Great Awakening. It was Stone who organized the famous Cane Ridge Meeting where estimates placed the participants at between twenty to thirty thousand. Preachers from many denominations preached. Stone saw the religious excitement and the apparent conversions. Hughes contends Stone recognized the power of a united witness and became convinced uniting Christians could in turn win the world to Christ. Hughes also contends that, for Stone and his followers, holy living became more important than any concept of “sound doctrine.” The only way to that kind of living was through a return to New Testament teaching.
Campbell, on the other hand, was more intellectual and theological in his approach. Some would say he was more legalistic. Most historians of the Restoration Movement suggest Campbell owed much to Locke and Bacon, both of whom were Enlightenment philosophers. Because of this Hughes suggests Campbell’s approach was more scientific and legal. Thus, Hughes describes Campbell as more legalistic. As a result, his version of restoration required seeing the New Testament as a “pattern” which could be followed resulting in a virtual reconstruction of the early church. For Campbell, then, emotion was downplayed and reason elevated. He viewed “sound doctrine” as something to be restored along with the organizational and functional structures.

I think Hughes sometimes strains out gnats to swallow camels (pardon the pun). He takes the typical non-instrumental interpretation that the early Campbell differed from the later Campbell. He insists the Campbell of the “Christian-Baptist” era differed greatly from the Campbell of the “Millennial Harbinger.” Hughes says the difference can be attributed to the success of the Movement as it moves from “sect” to “denomination.” I disagree with Hughes’s views, but his insistence that Campbell and Stone differed in some significant ways is at least partially valid.

It is my conviction that a good share of the tension existing in the Movement results from these differences. Let’s note just a couple of examples.

There is growing tension over the emphasis of “experience” in worship. We are told today that “seekers” (or whatever you want to call them) are seeking an “experience with God.” Thus, on one hand, those from the Stone tradition feel right at home with experience-centered worship. Like Stone they would avoid excesses of the charismatic movement or frontier revivalism. At the same time, they would not shy away from utilizing music, speaking styles, or other methods designed to impact the emotions. The heirs of Campbell, on the other hand, eschewed all sorts of emotionalism. The Gospel, as Campbell saw, it was a common sense message that could be evaluated, considered, and either accepted or rejected. Campbell believed such a message and its acceptance resulted in appropriate emotional response. It was Campbell, not Stone, who insisted the church’s hymnody be examined so it would express biblical truth. It was Stone, not Campbell, who continued to use the “anxious seat” in his evangelistic preaching.

There is also growing tension over the place and purpose of baptism in the salvation process. Both Campbell and Stone taught baptism for the remission of sin. Stone, however, was a “Johnny come lately” as his “conversion” to this view didn’t take hold until after the union of the Disciples and the Kentucky Christians. Stone came to the conclusion that immersion was the proper form of baptism, but he was not one to emphasize it. For Stone, union (unity) was more important than “sound doctrine.” Campbell, however, began teaching baptism for the remission of sins in the McCalla debate and never once changed his tune. It is true that Campbell refused to condemn or absolve those in the denominations who were baptized with an incorrect mode or an unscriptural purpose. In the “Lunenburg Letter,” he voiced his opinion that those who were mistaught or simply could not understand biblical truth on this matter could be among the saved. It is my conviction that Campbell would not receive the unimmersed into membership of a local church. Rather, he would follow the example of Acts 18 and do some extended teaching leading to immersion for the remission of sins.

There is also growing tension over relationships with evangelicalism. It is certainly true that many congregations and their leaders see the Restoration Movement as part of the evangelical family. Some of our younger historians, theologians, and biblical scholars are trying to minimize distinctions until those they influence see the Restoration Movement as merely one additional denomination in the greater evangelical world. In recent years I have visited several large Restoration Movement congregations and large evangelical congregations. With a few exceptions the service formats and content were identical. Most, if not all, of our mega-churches have services indistinguishable from those in the mega-churches of evangelicals. The exception in some of “our” churches is the weekly observance of Communion. Of course, even that is disappearing!

Would Stone be upset? I seriously doubt it. For Stone, “unity was the polar star.” It was all important goal. The Kentucky Christians wanted to “sink into union with the church at large.” From the vantage point of someone in the Stone tradition, the contemporary identification with evangelicals it is part of the fulfillment of the goal.

Would Campbell be upset? Absolutely! Campbell said he never expected to see “all the grand armies of God unite.” Rather, he was looking for those who were committed more to Christ and his Word than to their denominations to unite with others committed to the same goals. Although some contemporary historians describe the Restoration Movement as a “come outer” movement, Campbell insisted on true evangelism. In fact, the reason he encouraged the Mahoning Baptist Association to call Walter Scott as evangelist was precisely for that reason.
What is the upshot of all of this? It would be tragic if the attitudes and approaches of the most influential leaders of this movement led to contemporary division. Yet I see the potential for division growing on the horizon. Lines are being drawn between those who emphasize baptism for the remission of sins and those who don’t. There are those who will continue to follow the Willowcreek philosophies and they will eventually be indistinguishable from the denominations and they will reject any identification with the Restoration Movement (some are already there). Others will retreat and spend the remainder of their existence condemning and vilifying those who “left them”. Some will, with Hughes, say the Restoration Movement is a “lost cause”. Others will attempt to “hold the line” and some, like myself, will continue to “speak out” while retaining relationships across the board hoping division won’t occur again.

“Shoot straight with me!”

2008-01-26T12:14:00.001-07:00

Stadia will apparently launch Genesis Christian Church in Gilbert, Arizona in the near future. The church has a web site giving information about the church and publicizing the new congregation's "Grand Opening." Genesis replaces Gilbert Christian Church which closed its doors this past fall. It will join an extension campus which Mesa's Central Christian Church recently opened. Gilbert should be an excellent location for a church plant since it is a rapidly growing suburb in the Phoenix metroplex.

Rumors abound that Stadia will not place leaders in new church starts who preach and teach baptism for the remission of sins. I checked out the church's web site and their statement of faith. Like many such statements, the language is sufficiently vague on many points. The section on salvation, however, is so vague as to say nothing. Individuals from any evangelical denomination can interpret it to suit their particular perspective. I rather expected this would be the case because the church planter selected for the church's start, although said to be a product of Mesa's Central Christian Church, was educated in a state university, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Phoenix Seminary. In other words, unless well educated at Central, he has no solid background in the principles and plea of the Restoration Movement.

I emailed the church planter and asked him for a definitive response to his and the church's understanding of the purpose and place of baptism in salvation. I got back an email which gave an equivocal response. He also stated that he assumed I wanted to know how the church viewed the relationship between baptism and salvation and told me to "be straight with him." I responded without any equivocation and asked him bluntly if baptism had anything to do with salvation. To date the man who wanted me to "shoot straight" with him "because he could handle it" has yet to respond.

I know he has no obligation to respond to me but I always wonder what these guys have to hide. I asked an honest question and I hoped I would get an honest answer. I should have known better!

Membership and Discipline

2008-01-24T12:11:00.001-07:00

I recently received two very good questions. (1) What are your thoughts on (church) membership and how important should it be? (2) When you do "exclude" church members, how would you go about this process?

These questions arose because someone surfed to my history web site (www.christianchronicler.com) and found some Q&A I did while at First Christian Church in Canton, OH. Over several years I received numerous biblical and doctrinal questions I answered on the FCC web site. Today it isn't "politically correct" to emphasize doctrine so the Q&A was taken down shortly after I left leaving it in my purview to post it on my own site. One question asked if there were any reasons to exclude (excommunicate) people from a church. My response was that the Bible teaches three reasons for putting people out of the congregation: (1) The denial of Jesus; (2) Sexual sin; and (3) Creating factions or division. Both questions above can be tied to this discussion.

Question 1 In my opinion, the continuing emphasis to grow large congregations contributes to a declining interest in church membership. I'm sure there are many other dynamics contributing to it as well, but in a culture that avoids commitment it is easier to gather large numbers than call for membership commitment. Southern Baptist preacher Rick Warren teaches that membership relates to commitment and identifying with a specific congregation is a statement that the member is committed to Christ and the work of the local church.

I think there is a biblical issue at the heart of the matter. The Bible teaches that when a person is immersed into Christ they become part of the body of Christ. Immersion, according to Scripture, is the time when a person of faith transitions from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. Granted, there is no guarantee that a person's heart is right or that he/she truly believes Jesus is God's Son and trusts him alone for salvation, but baptism into Christ remains an external indication of that commitment. Therefore, membership in a local church provides a means by which the leaders can identify those who have (at least) made that step of commitment.

There is a practical issue, too. Identifying with a local congregation means (or should mean) that the individual is willing to submit to the elders' of a particular assembly. God placed the elders as "superintendents" of God's flock. They are responsible for assuring the teaching of sound doctrine and to maintain a congregation's commitment to God, Christ, and Scripture. This means, among other things, that it is the elders who are responsible for maintaining a congregation's good character and reputation and that implies they are responsible for loving discipline when necessary. They are to serve the church not "lord it over" the members. They lead by example.

In the Restoration Movement the concern has not been simply adding "members" as one would recruit members for a service club or fraternal order. The concern is for evangelism and bringing individuals into relationship with Christ and his church.

Question 2 The answer to this question is partially answered in the response to the first. Church discipline falls into the responsibility of the elders. Biblically, however, the whole congregation must also be involved. The primary method is to follow Christ's directive in Matthew 18:15 and following. Discipline starts with an individual who is wronged or concerned. Galatians 6:1 indicates that an erring brother must be confronted with loving care. The example in 1 Corinthians 5 indicates that Paul insisted the church in Corinth discipline a brother who was overtaken with a serious fault. He recommended "delivering the erring one to Satan" (putting him out of the assembly) until he repented. Contemporary Christians, perhaps afraid of legal ramifications, ignore these biblical instructions and examples. The result is Barna's studies revealing that Christian morality is hardly distinguishable from that of the secular world. Today's church simply does not take sin seriously. To talk about sin is politically incorrect.

In the not so distant past, a church member needed a "letter" to transfer membership from one assembly to another. This letter indicated they were a member in good standing and not subject to any church discipline. By the 1960s, few churches required letters opting instead to write the individual's previous congregation to inform them of a transfer. This provided an opportunity to communicate any problems that existed. In the 1970s and 80s, there was little or no communication between the current and previous congregations other than a note that the previous congregation "should change their records." Today there is no communication at all in most cases. I have known of situations where individuals were members of two or more different congregations at the same time.

A plurality of denominations and an unwillingness to "check out" new members leads to the fear that any discipline simply leads to "going down the road." So, in effect, we are back to the numbers game.

Discipline need not be unkind or unloving. In fact, the biblical picture of church discipline is just the opposite. The recalcitrant were removed and "treated as a gentile." That doesn't mean hatred; that means lovingly communicating the gospel and calling the individual to repentance. No church discipline should ever be practiced "without tears." But…we live in a culture where parents are afraid to discipline their children; it is no wonder church leaders are afraid to discipline the children of God.

Practicing church discipline is not denying the "grace standard." It is, in fact, applying it! Even when such discipline requires exclusion in extreme situations, it must be accomplished with unconditional love for the disciplined. This may seem paradoxical, but much of Christianity is! We save our life by losing it; we gain status by becoming humble and so on. It is entirely possible to discipline, not from anger or vengeance, but from love.

May we seek a restoration of biblical membership and discipline!

Just a Bible Church

2007-11-13T15:10:00.000-07:00

I heard it again the other day. "We don't want to be a 'Christian Church'; we just want to be a Bible Church."

Pardon me! What exactly do you mean?

I guess itmeans we don't want to be in the "Christian Church" denomination; we want to be "independent" and just be a Bible Church.

Pardon me! Don't you know that the Bible Church movement is every bit as much a denomination as those congregations generally recognized as part of the Restoration Movement?

I get a bit testy when I hear drivel like that! It's sort of saying that those churches associated with the Restoration Movement are now a denomination. (I don't want to get into an argument over what constitutes a denomination at this point. Even Alexander Campbell talked about "our denomination" at times.) Maybe its saying that the churches of the Restoration Movement have a specific theology that sets them apart from others where the "Bible Churches" don't!

Well, that's probably true to an extent. Bible Churches, like most "non-denominational" churches are simply part of the typical mish-mash of evangelical churches "out there". Most if not all of them preach the typical evangelical core message that we used to identify with Baptists. In other words it is the typical faith only message that the Restoration Movement largely rejected in the early 1830s. What it is is a populist message that is easy for people to swallow. It is an easily marketable message because it identifies with what people hear parrotted by the most "popular" writers and speakers of our day -- you know, the ones we invite to speak at the North American Christian Convention! Pardon the sarcasm!

It offends me to have someone suggest that any attempt to "preach the whole counsel of God as it is written" is divisive, denominational, and sectarian while preaching the "politically correct" message is right on!

I've had students say stupid things like I started this message with and I expect it from someone who hasn't really studied or understood what our movement is all about. When I hear it from "big guys" who are in their late 50s or 60s it makes me want to ... well, regurgitate!

Listen, folks!

We have a biblical name ... Christian Church, Church of Christ ... although there are many others, we kinda settled on one of those.

We have a biblical structure ... elders and deacons lead local congregations (except where prophet preachers have taken over) and we do not have any extra-congregational structure to dictate our beliefs or practices.

We teach only what the Bible teaches ... or at least we should.

We use biblical terminology for biblical things.

We observe the Lord's Supper weekly just as did the early church; we baptize just as the early church baptized and we hold forth the same message the early church proclaimed.

That's more than I can say for the Bible Churches. I have no quarrel with these churches when the preach the Bible. I don't quibble with them when they immerse. It's when they tell people that obeying all the commands of Scripture is optional and unrelated to salvation ... that's when I get upset.

Ever Feel Like You're in Limbo?

2007-10-31T22:13:00.000-07:00

For longer than I care to remember I've tried to establish in my own mind where I belong. Some may think I belong in a safe padded room. If that's you, you might be right! So far, though, I've avoided the "men in white coats."

No, I'm talking about where I fit in the Restoration Movement.

One reader suggested some time ago that I must oppose the whole mega church thing. That's just not true! In fact I admire those leaders who, without compromise, work with God to build great churches. Over the years I've visited a lot of mega churches both in the Restoration Movement and otherwise. I'm an advocate of the philosophy of the "Purpose Driven Church" model because, in my opinion, it is balanced and doesn't require any sacrifice of convictions. Outside the movement I've studied and visited Overlake Christian Church, Southeast Christian Church, Saddleback Church, Northcoast Community Church, Willowcreek Community Church, and served on the staff at Christ's Church of the Valley. Some of my closest friends are on the staffs of Southeast Christian Church, Southland Christian Church, First Church of Christ in Burlington, KY, as well as several others in the Ohio Valley region. I've had the opportunity to get to know some of the truly big men in the brotherhood and know them to be men of character possessing a sincere desire to reach the lost. I enjoy worship when part of a crowd of hundreds or thousands. It is exciting, stimulating, and encouraging!

Why then am I often so hard on some of the goings on in these churches (and others, too)? It is because I know that many look to these congregations for inspiration and methodology. That's always the way it is. Smaller churches look to larger influential churches simply because they are successful. It is also because I care about strong biblical teaching and get concerned about the drift of our churches into populism and pragmatism without regard for sound doctrine.

The latter concern throws me into another camp -- an ultraconservative camp. It is the camp of the absolutist, the legalist, and the traditionalist. Over the years I've fought two of the three without losing sight of the reality of absolute truth. I hate the brooding suspicion even though it sometimes overtakes me. That's why I complain about some who refuse to "tell it like it is," who think that by preaching a "self help" message they are communicating the Gospel, and are failing to let people know that Christianity is more than just solutions to every day problems. It is, after all, a belief system with tenets that must be believed and obeyed. At the same time, I'm just as uneasy with those who would pass judgment on others, withdraw from fellowship, or draw lines where Scripture never draws them.

So at times I feel like I am in limbo. I love the brotherhood! I have friends all across the spectrum of thought and theology in the Restoration Movement. I know these people. In many cases, I know their hearts and they want to please God. It is just that they -- and all of us -- are misguided and mistaken at times.

Things that Matter

2007-10-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

Paul Williams' column in the Christian Standard for October 14, 2007 hit on a theme I've talked about a lot in this blog. If you haven't read his article, let me summarize his comments for you. If I miss Paul's point, I trust he will forgive me.

Williams told about visiting an influential Christian church where in a message he linked baptism with death and resurrection. Several asked him why he did so since it seemed to make it sound like baptism has something to do with salvation. Williams remarked that it wasn't his decision to do so, it was the Apostle Paul who did so in Romans 6. The usual challenges followed. After the interchange Williams noted, "The pendulum has swung." He then went on to trace the history of the pendulum swing. He noted that one young minister said he didn't preach about controversial subjects like baptism (my emphasis) or Hell. Then Williams basically said what I tell my Restoration History students each term: You have no right to preach anything but what the Bible teaches. God may do what He wishes, but we have no right not to draw lines where Jesus drew lines. Or as Williams put it, "There are terms to the New Covenant, and it is our responsibility to preach them."

Paul, what took you so long? The pendulum began swinging back in the 1980s. John Greenlee's several articles in the Christian Standard warned about the encroachment of evangelicalism and the compromise of biblical standards. In articles such as "Nose Under the Tent," "Silence at Yorktown," and "Tremors" he foresaw the rejection of clear New Testament thinking. Some of us recognized the pendulum swing for most of those years intervening. Thank goodness we only have one mega church (that I know of) that blatantly states "baptism is the first thing you do after being saved."

There is a ray of hope for us who only desire faithfulness to the Word. Williams points to Christ's Church of the Valley in the Philadelphia area as a congregation that does not compromise on the "tough stuff." I checked out the web site (see http://www.moviechurch.com/about-us/baptism/) to see the church does make a clear link between conversion and baptism. I might phrase it in stronger terms but I can't argue with it. In addition, the site focuses on biblical language rather than human terminology. Isn't that part of the genius of our movement? Oh, by the way, CCV - Philadelphia is, according to Williams, "one of the fastest-growing new churches in the nation." CCV - Philadelphia is a lot more sound biblically and doctrinally than CCV - Peoria, AZ which states that faith, repentance, and baptism have something to do with salvation and they hide that in a statement of faith no one sees except those on staff and in all the time I was there I never heard one message that dealt with any controversial biblical doctrine.

A few years ago Joe Carson Smith, retired minister of Camelback Christian Church in Scottsdale, AZ, started a group called "The Remnant." I suppose it was born out of the sense that only a few remained faithful to the plea and principles of the Restoration Movement. I never joined the group and I doubt I'd ever join any group like that, but I can certainly identify with the feelings that gave it birth. When I read Williams' column and found the CCV - Philadelphia web site it renewed my hope that maybe ... just maybe ... there are (pardon if I mix my metaphors) more than 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Sappy Sentimental Symbolism

2007-10-16T15:32:00.000-07:00

I got Victor Knowles newsletter today. Victor has long been a promoter of Christian unity. He is a warm irenic individual who practices what he preaches. That's a bit strange, too, since Victor graduated from Midwestern School of Evangelism. MSE is a school that once sent out a host of narrow divisive and sectarian men who divided many churches in Iowa and Nebraska. Knowles has come a long way!

The latest "Knowlesletter" tells about the final "Restoration Forum" held September 4-5 in Joplin, Missouri. Over the years these forums did much to get those in the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ talking to those in non-instrumental churches of Christ. Those forums and some personal friendships formed along the way probably had a lot to do with the spirit of the North American Christian Convention a couple of years ago.

I'm really glad these heirs of the Restoration Movement are, on some levels at least, talking to one another and even more at times. Sadly, though, I fear these steps forward are limited to a few "big names" in both segments of the brotherhood. You hear a great deal about Rick Atchley, Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, Doug Foster, and a few others on the acapella side. Rob Russell is the one "biggie" often linked to these unity efforts. That's not to say there aren't others. What is interesting is that some of those among the non-instrumentals are seen as apostates by others in their movement. Max Lucado, for example, leads a congregation in San Antonio that, for all intents and purposes, practices Open Membership.

What caught my eye in Knowles' article was the sappy symbolism of 531 people signing "A Pact for Peace." What a gesture! Why that's just about as meaningful as leaders of the North American Christian Convention exchanging Bibles as a show of unity. You could tell how meaningful the latter was when Rick Atchley made a joke of his exchange with Dave Stone in his message at the convention. It's all "touchy feely" sentimentalism; it is style over substance.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am all for reuniting the warring segments of the Restoration Movement. I just don't think it is going to happen because 531 people signed a document prodded by emotionalism and sentimentalism. Unity is generally not going to result from such things. It happens when one individual accepts another individual in spite of their differences. It happens when individuals form relationships and receive one another as Christ received them.

Besides, there are some "brethren" out there I can't and won't unite with. Disciples who deny the deity of Jesus, the authority of the Word of God, and who think Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, and Siva are all names for the same deity. I can't and won't unite with those whose legalism judges my every action and who reject me because I don't measure up to their invented standards.

Unity comes when individuals seek unity and go across barriers to do it. Carl Ketcherside did that! James DeForest Murch did it, too. So did Bill Lown. I could probably name 100 more if I set my mind to it. Then there are those who "talk a good fight" when it comes to promoting unity and fail miserably to accomplish it. Leroy Garrett does that. He writes about unity -- a unity based on compromise -- but snubs those who disagree with him or who might be critical of something he wrote. Others do it too but in reality they're only interested in building up their own little "kingdoms" here and there.

We are living in an era where "style means a lot more than substance." We're into "experiencing God" (whatever that means) and getting all excited by the music. We measure someone's relationship with the Lord by their emotion rather than their obedience to God's Word. We're back where we were in 1803.

Multi-campus Mega Churches

2007-10-09T18:53:00.000-07:00

It is amazing to me how little we learn from history. Of course, to learn anything from history you have to know something about it. In our day of historical ignorance it is no wonder we make the same mistakes again and again. Contemporary churches are doing it again! Conditions are developing that can result in a full blown ecclesiastical system. Once that system comes into being it soon becomes controlling and tyrannical.

I’m talking about the development of multiple campus churches. Multiple campus congregations are as old as the second century church. The developing of an ecclesiastical structure was not intended then but it was an unintended consequence of forces put into play as early as AD 107.

The pressures of false teaching and Roman persecution led to the development of the monarchical bishop. Leadership in the first century local church consisted of bishops/elders and deacons. In those early years bishop and elder were synonymous terms. Recognizing the need for a more responsive leadership, the early church started elevating one of the bishop/elders to a position of greater authority. By the early second century Ignatius of Antioch advised congregations to appoint one elder as bishop. It was a common sense response to the slow decision making of a plurality of elders. When necessary the bishop quickly determined how a church would respond to false teaching or persecution.

As the second century progressed, the bishop supposedly guaranteed orthodox teaching and practice. The second century church soon accepted the idea that without a bishop there could be no communion or baptism.

As congregations grew in the major cities churches established satellite assemblies in the suburbs. Each week the bishop blessed the elements of the Lord’s Supper and members of his family (elders) carried the sanctified elements to these satellites. Remember, no bishop no Lord’s Supper! Elders (presbyters in Greek) became identified with specific satellite congregations. They developed into the priesthood. The bishop of the original congregation became the authoritative leader for all of the congregations in his city. Over time the suburban congregations became large enough to reach outside into the countryside where they planted others. The progression started again. The “down town” bishop was now the leader of a region.

Bishops in larger and more important cities eventually exercised tremendous influence on bishops in smaller communities. Bishops in five major Roman cities were soon recognized as Metropolitan Bishops. Appeals from bishops of smaller areas appealed to the bishops of Rome, Carthage, Antioch in Syria, Jerusalem, and Alexandria for advise and direction. All bishops were theoretically equal but the “big boys” still exercised considerable clout. Development continued until Innocent III had full papal power in AD 600 even though he rejected the title Pope. The rest is, as they say, history.

Today congregations of all manner of denominational and non-denominational stripes are establishing satellite churches. Perimeter Church was one of the first I heard about. In the Restoration Movement one of the first was the church in Naperville, Illinois. Many of our mega churches and near mega churches are now establishing satellite churches. Among them are Rivertree Christian Church, Massillon, OH; Christ’s Church of the Valley, Peoria, AZ; and Central Christian Church in Mesa, AZ. These churches invest millions of dollars in facilities for these satellite congregations. The satellites contribute to one central treasury and one eldership oversees the work of them all. Since the elderships of our mega churches generally make the “big decisions” (five percent of all decisions) that means effective leadership for these congregations is directed by the “Senior Minister” of the organizing congregation. All that remains is for them to adopt the title bishop.

I don’t think anyone intends for all of this to eventually end up in an ecclesiastical system. Mark my words, it will. It may take some time but eventually the result will be indistinguishable from the ecclesiastical system of Roman Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or Methodism. It may not happen with first generation leaders or even second generation leadership. After all, it took 600 years for Catholicism to develop.

At some point a core of leaders will arise in these satellite congregations to challenge the leaders of the originating body. Conflict will deepen until there are fissures and ultimately schism. At this point, who will own the facilities? Will there be freedom to follow Scripture according to the dictates of their own hearts or must they adhere to the “creed” of the originating church?

These are legitimate questions and the issues are real. The New Testament Church was always local. The Restoration Movement has always understood the church, wherever it is located, to be one body in Christ. We consistently understood, however, that the church exists as separate congregations each with its own leadership.[1] We have avoided intrusion into the life of other congregations. No matter how we protest, a satellite church soon becomes its own congregation. We long heard that multiple services result in multiple congregations in the same location. If that is true, it is even more likely for a second assembly located in another part of a city. When there are different services in a single location there is shared programming for children, youth, and other demographic groups. A satellite congregation will establish its own programming but it is not certain it will share the same demographics as the originating congregation.

Leaders in many of our mega churches are egotistical enough to believe their formula for success works everywhere. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I know the establishment of multiple satellites comes from a desire to reach people for Christ. I don’t fault their motives. I do, however, fault their long term thinking. Few stop to think through possible consequences. Even those who do can’t foresee all the potential problems. Furthermore, fallen humanity is not in a position to foresee all the possible consequences. Wouldn’t we be wise to learn from the lessons of the past and avoid making the same mistakes again and again?

Just something to think about!

[1] Thomas Campbell, “Declaration and Address.” See Propositions 1 and 2.

Campbell and Abortion and Homosexuality

2007-09-19T17:04:00.000-07:00

A reader of this blog asked where I thought Alexander Campbell would stand on two contemporary "hot buttons" -- abortion and homosexuality. My first response to the question is, of course, "I really don't know."

To be consistent, however, I think Campbell would take much the same tack he did with the slavery question. For the Christian, both abortion and homosexuality represent sinful actions and behaviors. Current law permits, with certain restrictions, abortion in all states in the Union. The states, by law, currently have a hodge podge of legislation regarding homosexuals. Some states have tried to permit homosexuals to marry while others allow various types of domestic partner relations. Variations of all sorts of legislation affecting homosexuals can be found in the states. It is interesting that American attitudes toward abortion are hardening in that more and more reject abortion as a means of birth control. At the same time, however, the media and activist groups are changing attitudes about homosexual behavior. This is true among Christians and non-Christians alike.

Campbell believed slavery was wrong not just because it fostered inequality among humans but because it was harmful to the country. I think he would see abortion and homosexuality the same way although the Bible is far more explicit in its view of the sanctity of life and sinfulness of homosexual behavior. I believe he would agree that abortion and homosexual behavior are reprehensible and need to be addressed in the church. Further, I think he would hold that the church should discipline its members when they abort a baby or are found to be involved in homosexual behavior. I do not think, however, he would be as inconsistent as the contemporary church is for the contemporary church condemns individuals who have had an abortion and those who practice homosexuality while refusing to condemn those who commit adultery or engage in other sinful behaviors.

The Millennial Harbinger did not promote the reform movements of the early 1800s. He rejected any effort to unite himself with the Temperance Movement. Although pacifist in his stance, Campbell did not join the Peace Movement. While he did not argue for women's rights, he acknowledged time after time the contribution of women to the success of the Restoration Movement. At least up to 1845 (that's as far as I've gotten in my reading of the Harbinger) Campbell has said nothing about other reform efforts. The reason he refused to align himself with such reform efforts is simple: these reform movements didn't make people Christian -- only the Gospel in its simplicity and purity brought people to Christ.

I think it is interesting that although abortion and homosexuality were rampant in the first century, there were no demonstrations, no beatings of abortionists or homosexuals, no burning of the places of business of those who sold the drugs that induced abortions. Christian people brought others to Christ and something happened to those who came to Jesus! They reformed from the inside out! They became new creatures in Christ. It took time, but eventually Christian principles guided a growing majority in the Roman Empire and ultimately Europe. Those who formed the Constitution of the United States held firmly to biblical principles. Even though they may not have accepted everything the Bible taught about God or Christ, they recognized biblical principles as superior. At the same time, they refused to establish any religious body -- specifically a church or denomination -- as the official church of the nation.

For well over a score of years Christians have worked politically to return the country to the original value system. The effort meets with limited success and in some cases tremendous resistance. Our Restoration forefathers recognized the political structures as corrupt because men's hearts are corrupt. Some leaders refused to participate in the political process even refusing to vote. Others expressed their principles in the ballot box.

Christians must come to grips with the role of the church as opposed to the role of the government. We live in a country where (supposedly) we citizens are the government. The government's role is to maintain the peace and execute justice through law and, when necessary, force. The role of the church is to seek the world's redemption not through law or force but through love and the communication of God's grace. We should never get those two roles confused. As much as I sympathize and agree with pro-life Christians and their stand, I must reject those who murdered abortion doctors and destroyed property. I must reject their methods as inappropriate. Of all people it was Rush Limbaugh who said that the way to deal with the abortion (and homosexuality) issues is to change hearts!

Christ's church needs to do three things. First, it needs to preach the whole counsel of God and win people to Christ and then expect believers to accept and obey it. Second, it needs to quit expecting unbelievers to act like believers, think like believers, and respond like believers. Third, it needs to discipline its members and hold them accountable to God's Word.

The Role of the Church in America

2007-08-28T18:53:00.000-07:00

The Constitution's First Amendment states that the government will make no law respecting the establishment of religion. That is, the Constitution prohibits the recognition of any religious group as the nation's official religion. Most of the nation's forefathers understood this to mean that no Christian denomination would be named the state church. Thomas Jefferson, however, looked forward to the day when those holding any belief system could freely practice their faith.

Much has been made of the supposed "separation of church and state" called for in the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing of the sort. Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation" in his writings to the Danbury Baptist Association. He told the Baptists there was a "wall of separation between the church and state." In the context of the document, Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists the government was not to involve itself in church affairs.

Having said that, it must also be noted that the Constitution of the United States does not provide for a theocracy -- the amalgamation of faith and politics. As I understand it, the Federal Government was supposed to be a democratic republic. I would put the emphasis on republic! It was not specifically a Christian government; it was in a sense a secular government. It could only be a Christian government as long as Christian values prevailed and those elected to high office lived by and made decisions according to those values. Furthermore, it meant they represented their voters' values as well. In the early years of our republic Christianity formed the majority worldview and value system. Although church membership wasn't particularly high (only about 5% in 1800), there were few who rejected the Christian gospel let alone the biblical value system. That's exactly why James Madison said our nation would only be good as long as its people were good. A moral government depends on a moral population.

The only way to guarantee a Christian nation is to have a population that is overwhelmingly Christian. Church membership is higher now than at any time in our nation's history. With apologies to the Danes, there is something rotten in Denmark! It is obvious that the Christian population is, at best, nominal. Christian faith is so privatized that it means whatever the individual wants it to mean. Churches no longer hold to biblical standards. Rare is the congregation that holds its members accountable to biblical standards or lovingly disciplines its members. The fact is, there is so little shepherding taking place that the lifestyles of most church members is unknown to the leadership. Such methodology is said to be "grace based" but in reality it is sheer disobedience.

In an effort to shore up the nation's moral values, evangelical Christians have tried to use worldly tactics to influence legislation. In many cases churches are turning into political action groups determined to influence legislation deemed Christian. In other cases Christians turned to demonstrations and violence to air their grievances. There are congregations under close examination by the Internal Revenue Service for using their "pulpit" for political ends.

I think it is time to re-evaluate our methods. As I continue my reading in the Millennial Harbinger it became clear to me that it is inappropriate for churches to involves themselves in politics. As national stress over slavery grew in the nineteenth century, Alexander Campbell refused to take a side. To Campbell the issue was a political. Campbell held the Bible regulated but did not forbid slavery. Americans could be abolitionists or secessionists but both views were political opinions and should not intrude into the church. To preach either view was not preaching the Gospel and fellowship was not determined by opinions.

Here's the crux of the issue. If we hope to restore America's greatness and rebuild its moral fiber, we must preach the Gospel. In our contemporary determination to be relevant we are forgetting to preach and teach the Gospel. The Gospel message is always relevant! When Jesus commissioned his disciples to go he noted two components they were to accomplishment. First, they were to preach the gospel and immerse those who believed it. Second, they were to teach them to observe all things he commanded. The command to teach is really a command to disciple. To disciple another is to help the believer live his life as Jesus would live it. When one truly becomes a disciple it is only a matter of time until they begin to think and act like Jesus. When an overwhelming majority are following Christ it will affect the nation.

As I have said so often before, we are doing well at winning people to Christ (translated: building big churches) but we are not doing well at producing disciples. Discipleship requires both knowing and doing the truth.

The church's role is to produce disciples devoted to Christ and who put biblical teachings into practice. If we really want a Christian nation, it is time to refocus on preaching the Gospel and then teaching those who believe how it impacts their daily life.

Thinking Outside the Box

2007-08-20T15:49:00.001-07:00

After a visit to my home church in Sutherland, Iowa earlier this month, I'm convinced smaller congregations need to think "outside the box."

Sutherland is the small town where I graduated from high school with 35 others back in 1961. It was the typical Iowa farming community of about 600 or 800. Consolidation of schools was just beginning back then so the community had its own grade, junior high, and high schools. Today it has none of those! The grade school/junior high is now a senior adult center with exercise rooms, a nice swimming pool, and other amenities for the seniors who predominate in the area. The high school is now the site of a firm manufacturing stained glass.

Back in the "old days," First Church of Christ had about 125 faithful Christians meeting each week. Today there are 80 on a good Sunday. They have not lost their outreach consciousness nor are they content to float along to their demise. The worship building looks better than it ever has with a lot of upgrades such as an elevator, new paint, and a completely redone basement. Within the last year or so, the congregation committed themselves to building a new gymnasium where kids can play basketball and other indoor games. Without the schools, there were no places for the community's children to play. First Church of Christ spent over $300,000 with no help from the government or any outside sources. They are just now beginning to reap the benefits in the eyes of the rest of the community.

In addition to that, First Church partnered with a congregation in nearby Primghar (the only Primghar in the world, I might add) to provide a full-time youth minister. The two churches pay the salary and they combined their youth activities so they could make a significant dent in southern O'Brien County. The churches are looking for other ways they can work together to carry out their God-given mission. Such cooperation hasn't required either congregation to surrender their autonomy or their identities but it sure has increased their effectiveness.

It strikes me that in this day of high tech communication and ease of travel, there are many other smaller congregations that need to consider ideas that might seem "outside the box." As I write this, I am serving as interim minister for a congregation in Scottsdale, Arizona. This is a smaller congregation, but they have an active eldership willing to minister to the needs of their flock. That's what elders should do! Because of the electronic communications media at their disposal, they are able to communicate with each other and with me as often as necessary.

I think there are lots of ways yet to be discovered where smaller congregations can work together to accomplish great work for God. What it takes, though, is an unselfish spirit and a congregation filled with humble people who have a mind to be servants in God's Kingdom. All too often smaller congregations hesitate to work with others because they fear losing their identity. In the process, they find it difficult to continue and in time they die.

Just as God wants all kinds of people in his Kingdom, I think he wants all kinds of churches to exist. I'm glad to see Standard Publishing offering workshops for smaller churches, but I suspect that in most cases those workshops will prod such congregations to become larger churches. A smaller church, when it really accomplishes God's work will grow but it may never become a "large church" let alone a "mega church." Maybe it shouldn't even aspire to! Just as every part of the body is important, even though some parts don't seem to contribute much or get much attention, so every congregation of believers is important. A smaller church is just as important to the Kingdom's overall health as a mega church. Sometimes we lose sight of the tree because of the forest, so to speak!

Mega churches and larger churches are often effective at evangelism -- winning souls. They are not all that effective in grounding those won in Scripture's essential truths. Sometimes smaller churches aren't either, but they could be. Maybe, just maybe, some of those smaller congregations survive because they continue to ground at least some believers in Word and doctrine. I learned a long time ago, it isn't the many I had in class that made the difference; it was the one student "who got it" and went out and did it that did! It isn't the multiplied thousands who make up the mega church who make a difference nor is it the tens and hundreds of smaller churches. In both cases, it is the few who live out their faith that make the difference!

Facts and Experience

2007-07-11T21:25:00.000-07:00

Arthur Ferguson's Land of Lincoln presented another metaphor for the contemporary church's condition. He told about convincing his family to take the "Lincoln Heritage Tour" through Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. His parents took him on such a trip in the 1960s and it made an indelible impression on his mind about the Great Emancipator. He wanted his children to have the same experience. Of course, he had to do a lot of bargaining with them to accomplish his goal.

When Ferguson's family toured the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (ALPLM) in Springfield, he noted the kids had a great time. They participated in most of the interactive activities and came away judging the whole thing a fun experience. Back in the car, Ferguson's wife remarked something like this, "Do you realize there was not one fact presented in the whole museum?" There was a room dedicated to Lincoln's marriage, the war years, an interactive exhibit on Lincoln's law practice and more. It was fun! But there was no timeline, no dates, no information about the Civil War, or particular information about the individuals portrayed. No real facts. The ALPLM's designers worked to create "an experience" but did little to tell the visitor about Lincoln. Visitor's walked away feeling good because of an enjoyable experience but they really didn't know any more about the man than they did before.

I fear the same thing happens in many churches today. So much stress is placed on creating an atmosphere where one can "experience God" that there is little effort to create an atmosphere where you can get to "know God." To really know someone, you not only have to experience their presence, you have to spend time with them, learn about them, and find out what makes them tick. That's not to say there aren't Bible lessons (sermons, topical studies, and so on). Most of these are designed to help nice people learn how to be nice. In Children's and Youth Service, all in facilities designed to be Disneyesque, we teach them to obey parents (that's good), to serve others (that's good), but we don't really teach them much about Jesus (that would be even better). In worship services, adults hear messages on how to live a victorious life (that's good), become successful parents or business leaders (that's good), become good stewards (that's good especially if you have debt service on a multimillion dollar plant), but you don't hear much about who Jesus is and what he has really done for us. We don't hear about his substitutionary death, his resurrection (except on Easter -- maybe), and we certainly don't hear about Jesus' role in dealing with sin and salvation. In some churches you might hear a lot about the Second Coming (that's good) but that's really not Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that you don't have to earn your salvation because Jesus took your punishment for you.

The problem is you can attend a worship service designed to give you an experiencd with God and you can walk away never knowing how to become a Christian. You can go home having enjoyed the music, the sermon or the lessons, but never have heard any substantial truth about Jesus.

Disneyland Jesus

2007-07-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

My son gave me a copy of Arthur Ferguson's Land of Lincoln for my birthday this summer. It makes for some interesting reading as Ferguson delves into contemporary presentations and perceptions of the "Great Emancipator." He points out how contemporary history reinterprets Lincoln making him a mere mortal with feet of clay.

I think we all knew that. After all, Christians know that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:27).

I grew up with a Lincoln who overcame poverty and numerous setbacks to become one of our nation's greatest leaders. I learned he was determined in defeat and generous in victory. My mother, a school teacher, always emphasized that Lincoln permitted the defeated Confederate soldiers to keep a mule and their weapons as they returned to their farms in the South. He was the man whose leadership freed the southern blacks from the tyranny of slavery. In most ways the Lincoln Memorial typified the man -- solid and larger than life.

Today history and historians seem to downplay Lincoln's determined leadership, his integrity and character, to present the "real" Lincoln. It is rare to find much written about his greatness. Ferguson points out that the dioramas portraying great moments in Lincoln's life were removed from the Chicago Historical Society. Instead, the Illinois Historical Society decided to build a presidential library and museum dedicated to Lincoln in Springfield, IL. The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum is filled with special galleries, theater spectaculars, and says it gives you an opportunity to experience the days of Lincoln.

To put all this together, the ALPLM committee hired BRC Imagination Arts to design the museum. Bob Rogers, who Ferguson says heads up BRC, designed some of Disneys wondrous displays for Disneyland, Disneyworld, and Epcot. His goal for the Lincoln Museum was to provide "an experience" for the visitor. There was little concern on his part for verbalizing the facts behind the presentations. In fact, he wanted little or nothing in print. It was enough to put the visitor in the middle of the events even though the presentation may have little resemblance to the actual events. Everything was "historically accurate," but little of it related to Lincoln's importance as his leadership shaped a nation. Rogers designed everything to appeal to the "seventh grade mind" and to "emotions." Ferguson asked Rogers if that didn't result in "dumbing down" Lincoln? Rogers replied that today's seventh graders were really sharp and to aim at them was to hit everyone. About emotion he said, “Get their hearts and their heads will follow.” He went on to say, “You lead with the emotions rather than the intellect. And remember, it’s not just any emotion—the emotion they feel is the one we want them to feel. With Lincoln, we are hooking them into a specific cascade of emotions. Then, if they want to follow up, they can find the intellectual part, read a wall plaque or buy a book or whatever.” (pg. 102)

Take note of Rogers' statements. The Lincoln presented in the ALPLM isn't the "real" Lincoln, it is the Lincoln Bob Rogers wants the visitor to accept. The emotion Rogers wants the visitor to feel isn't their own reaction to Lincoln the man; it is the feeling he wants the visitor to feel. It is manipulation taken to the n-th degree! And, according to Ferguson, the Lincoln one comes away with from the ALPLM isn't the great man; it is the hen pecked husband who couldn't control his children and who was hated, villified, and ultimately assassinated. Everyone who goes to the ALPLM has "fun" and they have a wonderful "experience" but they really don't learn much about Abraham Lincoln.

I read all of this with some concern. Many of our church leaders are reading Andy Stanley's books on Visioneering. Visioneering derives from Disney's methodology just like Bob Rogers and BRC Imagination Arts. Church leaders read The Disney Way to learn the secrets of the success of Disney's theme parks and other ventures. When building new buildings, churches hire designers once employed at Disney to create a children's wonderland where kids can "have fun" and a great "experience." I'm not downplaying the lessons that churches can learn from such things but quite often the emphasis gets misplaced. When there is more emphasis placed on "making everyone's dreams come true" than the Gospel something is wrong. When the emphasis is on management rather than mission things are "out of kilter." When the emphasis is on making people confortable the Gospel, which usually makes people uncomfortable, is being short changed. What is worse, the Jesus portrayed in such situations is an unreal plastic Jesus who makes life meaningful and solves problems rather than the beaten bleeding ugly Jesus hanging on the cross paying for my sins and your sins.

I fear all this emphasis on emotion, or feelings, or experience is getting the cart before the horse. Listen to what's being said today. "People come to church to experience Jesus." "They want to have an experience." "Church attenders want to go away moved and feeling like they've come into contact with Christ." So, we carefully plan, rehearse, and develop services to do exactly what Bob Rogers did at ALPLM: we manipulate the hearers and participants to have an experience that is unreal and one we design for them. Hear me: it is one thing to desire to do things with excellence; it is another to manipulate people toward meaningless decisions built on the foundation of a Jesus who never existed instead of the one who trudged Palestine's dusy roads. It is one thing to "take up a cross to follow Jesus" and quite another to experience the dusty roads in an artificially created setting. I say this gets the cart before the horse because a real experience with Jesus comes after acknowledging him as Lord and becoming his disciple.

The Gospel has never changed! It doesn't take an experience with Jesus or an encounter with Jesus. We're not saved by feelings! We're saved because we believe the biblical testimony about who Jesus is and, as a result, are willing to entrust ourselves to him in obedience.

Think about it!

On the Gospel

2007-06-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

For the past 20 years or so the watchwords among those seeking "church growth" has been "meeting needs." Expressed more acurately it is "meeting felt needs." The result is a consumer mentality that suggests to individuals they should find a church that "meets their needs." One story making the rounds is about a family who began attending a large church. When they were invited to the membership class their response was, "Oh, we're Catholics. You have a wonderful youth program and when our kids are out of high school we'll go back to the Catholic Church." Such an attitude reflects no concern for truth but only a consumer mentality.

In the effort to "meet needs" churches confuse pop psychology with the gospel. Teaching individuals how to build successful families is not the gospel. Teaching biblical principles of stewardship is not gospel. Presenting messages about the second coming and the sequence of events preceding it is not gospel. Preaching about the gifts of the Holy Spirit or the "leading of the Holy Spirit" is not gospel. The Gospel is preaching Christ and him crucified!

Am I opposed to preaching and teaching about those things? No! The fact is, these things and a lot more are the results of believing the Gospel and responding to Christ. In other words, Christians need to learn there are biblical principles relating to building a Christ-centered family. Christians need to know Christ is coming again. Christians need to know, too, there are principles guiding the use of resources. The fact is, though, that although unbelievers can successfully apply many of these principles, they will not directly result in meeting their real need which is redemption through the shed blood of Christ.

It is thought that if you meet the need it will open the door for a presentation of the Gospel. I've been a part of churches of all sizes for years now and my question is, "When is the gospel presented? Where is the proof that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God?" That biblical principles contribute to building a good family is no motivation for acknowledging Christ as the Son of God. It often appears the principles of Mormonism contribute to the building of a solid family. If Mormon principles work as well as biblical principles what reason is there to reject Mormonism for Christ? For all of its faults, Islam promotes family solidarity. What reason is there to reject Islam for Christ if both contribute to building a successful family or financial stability or whatever? My point is that when another ideology is thought to work as well or better than biblical truth there is no motivation to acknowledge Jesus as the way, the truth, and the light. He becomes simply another way that a consumer may try.

Many congregations today assume that seekers are already believers who simply need to "join" a church. There are exceptions, of course. Lee Strobel is perhaps the best known. It is clear, however, that someone took the time to teach him about Jesus. His journalistic mind led him to do his own research about the "case for Christ" and his commitment deepened. He is an exception that proves the rule.

We act as if the majority of Americans know who Jesus is. This is a false assumption. It is strange that even Rick Warren tells people that Christ is not Jesus' last name. Many there are who have heard of Jesus, but few who accept him as the uniquely born Son of God. Few preachers spend much time preaching Christ and Him crucified in the New Testament as did the New Testament Church. Many churches adapt Saddleback's "base path" series of membership classes. I've studied these 100 classes (membership) from churches as diverse as Saddleback, Cherry Lane Christian Church in Idaho, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, First Christian in Canton, and Christ's Church of the Valley in Arizona, and, I confess, I've written a few myself. All of them, even mine, assume the attender knows Christ and is seeking church memb ership. The classes highlight the differences between various churches, how to become a member, how the church does its work, what is vision and goals are, but there is little, if anything, about who Jesus is and why he is Lord and Savior.

In 1843 the teachings of William Miller were exciting the nation. Christians of most denominations, including Walter Scott in the Restoration Movedment, got caught up in the fervor of expecting Christ to return in 1843. Remarking on this, Alexander Campbell questioned Miller's understanding but he went on to say that such preaching was really no motivation for turning to Christ. He wrote that the Gospel had not changed from the moment it was first presented on Pentecost to the present. Preaching to frighten men to respond was not preaching "good news." The good news -- the Gospel -- is still the same as it was in the first century!

In this day when false teachers and worldly skeptics cloud the truth about Jesus, there needs to be a clear voice sounding out the message that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The so-called Jesus Seminar presents a human Jesus who did much good but who was only a man. The DaVinci Code confused thousands of nominal believers and the biblically illiterate who became convinced Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. There is a resurgence of Gnosticism promoted by Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman, both of whom are influential writers and university professors. Not long ago we were told about the discovery of the tomb of Jesus complete with his bones and those of Mary Magdalene. We can no longer assume that someone seeking to unite with a church believes the truth about Jesus. He must be preached. He must be taught!

I'm not opposed to preaching to meet felt needs. Let's just recognize that the greatest need is not always felt. Any person's greatest need is to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. The rest of it is encompassed in the "observing of all things" commanded by Christ in the Great Commission. After all, what real motivation is there for the non-Christian to live by biblical principles except pragmatism? Such people are carnal Christians who are "in it" only because it works not because it is true or right.

Think about it.

Ministry and the Mega Church

2007-06-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

Fox News aired an interesting segment Sunday, June 10, about mega churches and ministry. A new book contends mega churches cannot minister to individual needs as well as smaller churches. Let me address that.

First, successful ministry to individuals and families in the smaller church depends greatly on that church's personality. Many small churches never become large because they are not open to meeting a variety of needs and especially the needs of those who are not long term members. Smaller churches -- congregations from 20-400 or more -- often remain small precisely because they are a "closed culture." They see themselves as friendly and concerned and they are: with those they already know!

Second, the mega church becomes large because of a number of factors including individual and family ministry. It is not, as some suppose, merely because they entertain or "put on a show." I know my saying that may surprise some since I've been highly critical of mega churches in some of my previous blogs. Mark my words, the churches depending on "fluff" won't last! Those who successfully "grow smaller as they grow larger" will continue to grow.

Third, too many identify successful ministry to families and individuals with the direct action or ministry of the senior minister. Part of the dynamics that keep smaller or mid-size churches static is the fact that as a congregation grows the senior minister can't be directly involved in every member's lives or meet every member's needs. That doesn't mean he doesn't care and, in my opinion, it doesn't mean he refuses to do ministry (although some do). In a larger church, successful ministry to individuals and families is accomplished through a smaller group. That smaller group may be a Bible School Class, a special needs group of which there can be a huge variety, or even the traditional small group of 8-12 individuals who meet regularly for fellowship, care giving, and Bible study.

Fourth, my criticism of any congregation -- mega church, mid-sized church, or smaller church -- is not related to its size. It is related to several factors including the failure to balance the winning and teaching aspects of disciple making, a tendency to get out of balance on feeling and fact, the tendency to "dumb down" or compromise truth, the failure to recognize the nature of the Christian worldview leading to thinking you can Christianize a worldly perspective by merely changing its descriptive language, a tendency to become a corporate structure with "profit" as the bottom line, and the abandonment of the Restoration Plea, which I believe still has merit and purpose when understood. All of those critiques do not fit every mega church and mega churches, like any church, must be seen as its own entity.

Can mega churches accomplish real ministry? Of course! Do they always do so? No, but neither do smaller churches.

Response to Phenehas

2007-06-04T10:49:00.000-07:00

Phenehas took the time to write a lengthy response to "Unity, Our Polar Star." It is worthy of a response. We are not far apart in our thinking, but without interaction there is bound to be some misunderstanding.

1. Special role for evangelists and a special call to ministry. Phenehas suggests God has a special role for those called evangelists or preachers. He also contends they are specially called to ministry. First, let me state unequivocally that role or function does not place anyone in a special or favored position. The preacher, evangelist, pastor or whatever you choose to call him does not stand as God's chosen prophet in the same sense as Jeremiah, Daniel, or Isaiah. He may be a prophet in the sense that he speaks God's Word, but today's prophet has no directly given insight into God's will and may be utterly wrong at times.

Second, spiritual gifting is not equivalent to the concept of a "special call." When a person becomes a Christian, God gives them spiritual gifts. Over the years I have administered various versions of "spiritual gift tests" and found them helpful at times. At best, however, they are human deductions regarding the purpose and nature of spiritual gifts. When I speak of a "special call" to ministry, I speak of those who claim God revealed to them through an experience of some sort -- whether mystical or neo-orthodox encounter -- that they are called to ministry. I repudiate this kind of call as sheer subjectivism.

Third, I stand by my statement that when a person becomes a Christian they are called to ministry. God gifts them for ministry. Nonetheless, there is no "special role" in ministry. When Paul discusses spiritual gifts, he compares the gifts to the parts of the human body. In so doing, he says it is the "weaker" parts of the body that are "indispensable" (1 Corinthians 12:22). All too often the "specially called" clergyman has mistaken tyranny for leadership and seeks special recognition and deference because of his "calling."

2. The work of the Holy Spirit. Phenehas remarks, "Who cares what Campbell taught?" I guess I do, but no more than the average preacher who looks to Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, or some other guru. Campbell lived and wrote in an era when subjective feelings ruled in churches. One could not be a member of the average American congregation in 1800 unless you could report an experience with God proving you were among the elect. Such an experience occurred because of the direct action of the Holy Spirit prior to hearing the Gospel. The same type of Holy Spirit direct action was given as evidence of a "call to ministry."

How can one be certain they have received a "call to ministry?" Is a desire to preach a special call? Is the encouragement to preach by brothers and sisters in Christ a special call? Over my years of ministry I have seen too many who claimed a "special call" rip the body of Christ to shreds, fall to immorality, and use people instead of loving people. It seems to me that "whom God calls" he would not permit to "fall into sin." Oh, wait! That's Calvinism!! It is, however, the next logical step in the progression.

3. Mega churches and contracts (covenants). Phenehas says, "Most mega churches I know do not have a membership contract." Oh, let's see! Christ's Church of the Valley in Peoria, AZ, has a membership covenant. It is signed after Class 100 and prior to baptism. Saddleback has a membership covenant. It, too, is signed after Class 100. I know that's just two, but every mega church I know about has a membership covenant. It isn't publicized much, but it is presented in the series of classes leading to membership.

4. Mega churches and membership. Phenehas says most mega churches don't have membership. I'm not sure where he gets his information. Christ's Church of the Valley does -- there are about 3,000 members among the 11,000 who gather each week. Saddleback does, and Rick Warren boasts about how many are baptized to become members of that Southern Baptist Church. Willowcreek does and their members meet on Thursday evenings. Southeast Christian Church does! Southland Christian Church in Lexington, KY, has members. I don't know of one Christian Church that doesn't have members.

5. On creeds. I'm for "Statements of Faith." The more complete the "Statement of Faith" the better it is, but there is only one question asked when one submits to Christ, "What think you of Christ, whose Son is he?" Furthermore, I didn't say that one had to believe baptism is for the remission of sins. It is! Acts 2:38 is still in my New Testament. I think those who preach, especially if they have a "special call from God," ought to preach the "whole counsel of God" including "baptism for the remission of sins." What others do with it is between them and God! I don't disfellowship or separate from those who differ with me, but I do reserve the right to teach and to be taught.

6. Bob Russell and baptism. I count Bob Russell as an aquaintance. He and I are the same age and graduated from high school in the same year. I have heard him preach, listened to his tapes, and even preached his sermons. I would agree he has never "watered down" teaching on immersion. (By the way, Phenehas, emersion means "coming out of" not "going down into.") I don't have a serious problem with baptism "as part of the process." It clearly is! At the same time, I think others have considered this an opportunity to de-emphasize the nature and purpose of immersion.

7. Problem with mega-churches. Phenehas charges me with pettiness and having a problem with mega-churches. On the contrary. I worked with First Christian Church in Canton, Ohio, and helped bring it back to mega church status. After doing so, the basis for consideration as a mega church was reconsidered and Canton is now considered an "emerging mega church." I was also on the staff at Christ's Church of the Valley. I have very close friends and colleagues on the staffs of Southland Christian Church, Southeast Christian Church, and other large and growing congregations. I know the hearts of those friends and know they care about the lost and making disciples.

Most of the same problems I'm addressing are found in smaller churches, too. The fact is, that when a church gets larger its successes and blessings become more visible, but so do its faults. It is easier to research the mega church, but in most cases all of the problems of the smaller church are evident in the larger church. Those problems, however, get swallowed up in the sheer numbers present. For example, if 300 people were to get restive at one of our mega churches they could or would (and probably should) leave and their departure would have little effect on the rest. In a church of 500 we would have another opportunity "to start a new church." The attitudes I criticize are just "writ large" in the mega church, but they are also found in those who would sacrifice truth to become something they won't.

Let me give you some examples:

Where do we see leaders acting as CEO's?
Where do we see "management" rather than "shepherding"?
Where do we see "elders as advisors" rather than "shepherds of the flock"?
Where do we see "pastors" rather than "preachers" or "ministers"?

Answer: In the larger church (not necessarily the mega church).

To close this meandering response, it strikes me that my friend Phenehas has little sense of history. He thinks his ideas are all his own and new to boot. The problem with that is that all of us have our biases, our perspectives, our world views, our blinders. An awareness of history helps us know who we are.

Phenehas called upon me to "stop quoting Campbell and start following the Bible. Our only guide should be the Bible." I agree heartily. But Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." I may follow Campbell (to a degree), but only where I think he accurately expresses biblical truth. I will throw away my Christian-Baptists, Millennial Harbingers and other documents when my brethren dispense with Bill Hybles, Rick Warren, Leonard Sweet, Tony Compolo, all their commentaries, Bible dictionaries, and all other books in their libraries and just take the Bible and the Bible alone!

I do appreciate what Phenehas has written. I invite him to continue to interact and even consider submitting articles to this blog. If he is so interested, I need to have some information so I can open it to his work. I do, however, reserve the right to disagree and to respond to any article or comment.

A Step that Needs Taking -- Now!

2007-05-31T20:24:00.000-07:00

I don't intend to venture into the realm of politics often, but I feel a need to comment on the recent warnings from our Islamist enemies. A California traitor issued warnings that Al Qaida intends to hit seven American cities in the near future. A Newsmax headline identifies an individual who is responsible for detonating nuclear devices in several American cities. Strange as it may seem to some, the threat of nuclear detonations on American soil is not new to me.

When the 9/11 disaster occurred I was in the church building in Canton. As soon as it became obvious terrorists had taken down those two buildings I noted to my colleagues that I thought we were lucky. I was a tragedy that so many thousands died, but had it been a nuclear device the casualty list could have been in the tens of thousands. Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears portrays a terrorist attack during a Super Bowl played in Denver. The movie version moved the attack to Maryland but it heightened awareness of the damage and casualties a small yield nuclear device could bring.

The United States remains vulnerable to this kind of attack. Some theorize suitcase nuclear devices are already placed. Those responsible for protecting this nation may have plans to counter or retaliate in the event of such a national disaster. Perhaps it is best we not know what strategies are in place. At the same time, those who would use these devices against this country need to know what will happen should they attack.

It is not unique to me, but we need to announce to the Islamic world that nuclear ballistic missiles are targeted at as many as 10 major population centers in those nations that fund or sponsor terror. If a nuclear device detonates in an American city, the terrorists should know that the attack will result in a retaliatory strike against those cities. Included in those cities should be the city of Mecca with its holy shrine. You can be sure one of the cities slated for a strike in the United States will be Washington, D.C. with its seat of government and memorials to the great leaders of the past.

To some this may sound extreme, but it is essentially the same strategy employed during the Cold War. The policy, called MAD, successfully kept the Soviet Union and the United States from launching an attack. MAD (mutually assured destruction) was a reality and both nations knew it. If one launched an attack the other would launch an attack of such a magnitude that it assured the mutual destruction of both nations. Islamists, who have no respect for innocent life, need to know such an attack on the soil of this nation will result in the destruction of their economic, social, governmental, and religious structures.

No one in their right mind wants war especially a war of this magnitude. You may wonder about the ethical problems such a proposal suggests. Keep in mind that Paul says it is the responsibility of the government to protect the good and punish the evil doer (Romans 13). Deterrence is sometimes the only way to accomplish the former while promising the latter. As long as our leaders believe the whole "religion of peace" propaganda we are in desperate danger. Islamists will not be satisfied until, in their own words, the star and crescent flies over every world capital and sharia rules in every land.

Christians and churches must also take seriously the challenge of evangelizing the Muslim world. As Muslim nations line up behind Islamist radicals such efforts will become increasingly difficult, but it needs to be done.

Just some general thoughts

2007-05-14T17:45:00.000-07:00

We've been in our beautiful new home in Palm Springs, CA, for nearly two months now. It is time for just a few personal observations.

First, it has been an interesting transition. In some ways it is a venture in faith. We moved before our home in Sun City sold. It still hasn't sold. Existing homes in many locations around the country are moving very slowly in a soft market. Everyone wants a bargain! We're still debating on whether we'll try renting and keep it a while as an investment property or continue to try and sell it. We're learning to trust and we're re-learning patience. We may take the house off the market for a time and relist it later. We're just not sure.

Second, God continues to provide. The relocation and issue with the house is just one part of the whole. We relocated to southern California not knowing what kind of income we'd have or exactly how we'd get along. Our son is investing heavily in our home so that is a big help. In fact, we couldn't do it if he weren't doing this. At the same time, doors keep opening. I'm continuing my online teaching with the Consortium. I was hired by one of our Christian Colleges to develop and teach two online courses and I'm waiting to hear from a second school about teaching three online courses for them. In addition, I was recently added to the Mentor Panel for the Londen Institute. My wife signed on with AccounTemps here at was recently assigned to a job in a nearby community at very good wages. While the job is only temporary, it helps immensely.

On another note, I was trying to find out how to get permissions to use clips from the video "Wrestling With God," the story of Alexander Campbell, and my efforts connected me to Jerry Jackson who owns the rights. He is wanting to see the video utilized in education but I'm really the first to ask about using it in eLearning courses with substantial clips. He recently phoned me and we have agreed to brainstorm ways the video could be used. He is already arranging through Warner Brothers to have the video converted to a DVD format. That in itself will make it easier to select and format clips.

Third, the change in circumstances has given me more time for communicating with my students, preparing material for use online, and writing. It still isn't what I hope it will be (I'm still trying to organize our garage), but we are beginning to develop a routine and every step in that direction means life gets simpler.

Fourth, we really are enjoying the opportunity to be near our grandchildren. We get to see our grandson play little league baseball. We get to see our grand daughter grow and develop (she's just 2). Our two other grandchildren who live in the St. Louis area spend designated times with their dad and, for the first time, we get to see them when they come.

Neither of us know how the future is going to work out. But we know the One in whom "all things work together for good."

Unity, Our Polar Star?

2007-03-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

Whoever wrote "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery" included a statement indicating that the presbytery's members should "sink into union with the body of Christ at large." Some segments of the Restoration Movement are well on the way to attaining that goal. There is little left to distinguishing many of "our" mega churches with the principles of the Restoration Movement. They are becoming identical with the contemporary evangelical church. You want evidence? Well, okay!

1. Insistence on the use of titles elevating and distinguishing "the clergy." Barton W. Stone and his followers had a more elevated view of the ministry than the Disciples. (I use the term Disciple in the same way Alexander Campbell used it. I am not using it in the way the Disciples of Christ denomination uses it.) The Kentucky Christians believed only ordained clergy could baptize or preside at the Lord's Supper. Campbell held to the "priesthood of all believers" insisting anyone could preach, baptize, or preside at the table. That difference created tension in the Kentucky congregations where the two movements first united. It took some time before Campbell's view won out. As it did, the use of unscriptural titles such as Doctor or Reverend or Pastor disappeared replaced by Elder, Bishop, or, in the case of aged leaders such as Thomas Campbell, Father. The term Father, however, never carried with it the Roman Catholic concept inherent in it. Today "our" churches are almost universally using the title Pastor to denote the clergy and it is done without concern for the biblical meaning of the term. The poimene in Scripture simply denotes one elder in a plurality of elders. Furthermore, the use of the title Doctor is also emphasized. I don't mind the use of that term for someone who has an "earned doctorate" when used in academic circles. There it applies to academic achievements. It is interesting, though, that most of those I've known over the years who have earned Ph.D. or D.Min. degrees haven't flaunted their degrees. Contemporary preachers, however, flaunt those degrees for the prestige they provide and the measure of separation from the average member that comes with it.

2. The insistence on a supernatural call to the ministry. While early leaders in the Restoration Movement certainly believed in the activity of the Holy Spirit, few, if any, held to the idea that God specially called individuals to ministry. Some who did hold that view left it in the dust when they bailed out of their Calvinist denominations. In the last score of years, however, there is a resurgence of the idea of a special call. I grew up in Christ being taught that "a call to ministry" involved the individual seeing a need and moving to meet it. There was no special call. This was an evangelical idea tied to Calvinism's idea of the direct impact of the Holy Spirit.

Alexander Campbell rightly taught, in my view, that the Holy Spirit works through the Word for salvation and sanctification. Campbell never taught that the Holy Spirit did not work in other ways, but he always worked through Scripture to bring a person to faith. Calvinism taught that man, without the direct action of the Holy Spirit, was incapable of belief. It took regeneration and a special "gift of faith" to lead to conversion. The Holy Spirit's call through Scripture to become a disciple was a call to ministry. God calls all believers to ministry. There is no special supernatural call to ministry.

It is my conviction that God gifts his people in various ways. God gifts some to teach and some to proclaim (gift of prophecy). But all Christians are called to ministry.

It is sheer evangelical subjectivism that claims a special call to ministry. Leaders in the movement are back to using "the special call" as another way to position themselves as a special clergy.

3. The use of creeds for the purpose of maintaining unity. These creeds aren't called creeds any more, they are called Statements of Faith. Thomas Campbell said creeds were sometimes useful. In fact, he said, the more complete they are the better they are. The genius of the Restoration Movement, however, was the idea that individuals could exist in community with a diversity of ideas or views as long as they were united on the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. Today, however, most of our mega churches have a written Statement of Faith and they are used "to make sure everyone is on the same page."

The purpose of creeds, whether the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, or even the Westminster Confession of Faith was to assure that all orthodox Christians "were on the same page." What those creeds actually did was create division with those who disagreed with part or all of the creedal statements. There was only one creed in the first century church: I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That's it! There was room for discussion, for debate, and speculation was not made an issue. Take the case of Aylette Raines, or example. Raines held the view that in time God would save the entire human race. He was a Universalist. He wasn't liberal nor did he deny Scripture or the lordship of Christ. He simply thought God would save all men. This upset a lot of those in the movement, but the Campbells defended him. Eventually Raines surrendered his speculation on this. Or, take the case of Barton W. Stone. Stone was, from start to finish, an Arian in his view of Christ. He and Campbell debated the nature of Christ in their journals but Stone eventually gave up his public speculation while privately retaining his views.

Most mega churches, and others, too, require members to sign a membership covenant. I see some value to this, particularly in our day when lawsuits are so prevalent, but there is an inherent danger in such statements. Perhaps if we required biblical morality and practiced biblical discipline such statements would be unnecessary. Why do more than Scripture requires? Hold to the biblical standard, let members know they will be held to the biblical standard, and then do it!

4. The deemphasis of the Lord's Supper. The Christian Standard recently reported that congregations are no longer emphasizing the centrality of the Lord's Supper in worship. Following the lead of Willowcreek Community Church, the Lord's Day gathering has become an evangelistic outreach rather than a time of worship. It may still be called worship, but it isn't! How can you expect unbelieving "seekers" to worship what they don't believe or understand? You can't! Okay, so some of those who come together on the Lord's Day are believers, but they are seeking a church home. Then why relegate the Lord's Supper to a place of unimportance? Let's admt it, those who come from the world out of curiosity can't and don't worship. They may sing the words and listen to the preaching, but that isn't worship! Worship isn't a "service" any way. Worship occurs in the heart and is dedicated to glorifying God. I believe the Lord's Supper is part of that process. By the way, I think that's why the eary church observed the Lord's Supper daily and that's why the Roman Catholic Church continues that tradition its daily Mass.

Some of you may wonder why I've made such an issue out of this. Central Christian Church in Henderson, Nevada, is just one mega church that has relegated the Lord's Supper to something secondary and unimportant. Oh, if you believe it is important, you can still observe the Supper in another room after a service. That makes the gathering in the main auditorium less offensive to the seeker (the unbeliever). Technically it is still there, but it isn't in the service. If there is nothing special about the Lord's Supper, then why bother? Observe it monthly or quarterly or annually and make sure only believers partake by quizzing them prior to the observance and give them a token to present so an unbeliever isn't mistakenly served!

If you attend a gathering at Central Christian Church, then, there is nothing that indicates it is anything by an average evangelical church. A large one, to be sure, but it is indistinguishable from Willowcreek (maybe that's why Gene Appel could go there), Saddleback, or Ginghamsburg.

5. The rejection of baptism for the remission of sins. The Republican Methodists and the New England Christians never quite bought into the idea that baptism was for the remission of sins. The Republican Methodists -- later the Christian Church -- remained sprinklers. William Guirey challenged that view but O'Kelly drove him out. The New England Christians immersed. After all, both Smith and Jones came out of a Baptist heritage. While they immersed, however, they never got the idea it was for the remission of sins. The Kentucky Christians didn't get it either for a while. Stone and others continued the Presbyterian "anxious seat" for some time even after they began practicing immersion. The Campbells didn't start out teaching this biblical doctrine either. In fact, it wasn't until the MacCalla debate that Campbell enunciated the biblical statement found in Acts 2:38 that "baptism was unto the remission of sins." After the union of the Kentucky Christians and Disciples the Kentucky Christians began preaching this thanks to the work of John Rogers and B.F. Hall. That baptism was for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit was normal until the beginning of the 1980s.

In the 1980s, one of "our" congregations was well on its way to attaining mega church status. Southeast Christian Church had moved from one structure on Hikes Lane to its second building just a few blocks away. Coincidental with that move, the Southern Baptist Convention was undergoing controversy over the issue of biblical inerrancy. Southern Baptists by the thousands left their Baptist Churches in Louisville and throughout the country. Southeast Christian Church experienced an influx of new members from the Baptist churches in Louiville. Bob Russell, believing he needed to do some teaching on "our views," designed a series of sermons for that purpose. He spoke about avoiding denominationalism, the doctrine of once saved always saved, and the plan of salvation. Rather than teaching that baptism was unto the remission of sins, Russell approached the subject more as Campbell did in "The Lunenburg Letter" correspondence in the Millennial Harbinger. He emphasized that baptism provided the assurance of salvation avoiding the idea that it was the time of formal salvation. He used an analogy of a wedding. He asked, when is one married? Is a couple married when the become engaged, when they express their vows, when they exchange rings, when the minister proclaims them husband and wife, or in the marriage bed. Russell said that we normally don't worry about it, we simply rejoice with the couple in their marriage. So it ought to be with salvation. Does it occur when a person believes, repents, confesses, or is baptized? It doesn't matter. We rejoice in the new birth of an individual.

From that time on, baptism became "part of the process of salvation." Because the process concept is innocuous and isn't offensive, preachers adopted it as their approach to the baptism question. The Statement of Faith at Christ's Church of the Valley simply includes baptism as part of the process and "has something to do with salvation." I did a survey after last year's listing of "our" mega churches in the Christian Standard and that is the approach of a majority of the mega churhes listed.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the statement that baptism is part of a process. It is! But I do object to the tendency to avoid teaching that baptism is unto the remission of sins. No matter what the evangelical world thinks, Acts 2:38 is still found in Scripture. It is so inconvenient to try to explain the difference between real and formal washing away of sins. It is also inconvenient to have to explain that we don't know what God intends to do with the pious unimmersed. I have an opinion about it, but I simply don't know because Scripture doesn't say. Just because something is inconvenient, however, is no reason not to teach the fullness of biblical truth!

6. The development of the corporate leadership model. Restoration Movement churches traditionally followed the American legislative model with two houses -- elders and deacons. Alexander Campbell defended this organizational structure primarily because he as an immigrant was enamored with the government's bicameral legislative model. Thus, early restorationists opted for a congregational, almost republican structure, with elected representatives. Campbell's myopia caused him to forget the church is a kingdom, not a representative democracy. It is a kingdom with delegated responsibility to elders with servants or ministers known as deacons. Over the years, this has taken a variety of expressions until the elders and deacons, and sometimes trustees, combined to form a board. The church board finalized decisions.

While some congregations today have returned to elder leadership, they have done so with the elders constituted as a virtual advisory board rather than the overseers or superintendents God's Word requires. The minister has become the congregational equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer. This, too, is unscriptural and has gone a long way toward separating the "clergy" and "laity."

Nearly every evangelical denomination has moved in this direction. Francis A. Schaeffer taught in the mid-1970s that for a church to be a biblical church it needed to be an elder led congregation. He is right. The idea, however, that the elders are merely advisors who make five percent of the decisions and leave the other 95 percent to the "clergy" is simply not biblical.

Over the last 20 years or so, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ have "merged into the church at large" more than ever before. They have done so, however, by giving up major portions of the goals of the Restoration Movement. It has come by compromise rather than conviction. No longer do our leaders speak of "doing Bible things in Bible ways," or "using Bible terms to describe Bible things." As a result, we are now "speaking the language of Ashdod."

Campbell had no vision of all the denominations melting into one super church. In fact, he envisioned the opposite. He thought the denominations would meander on their merry way in their sectarian and unscriptural directions maintained by their creeds and their clergy.

By the time Pardee Butler roamed Kansas, however, he believed that in time all the denominations would indeed melt together. Butler was a second generation evangelist and abolitionist in Kansas.

The melting (or melding) process is well underway, but it is at the price of compromising a heritage that called for unity based on biblical authority. Biblical authority is today sacrifice for evangelical acceptance. And, quite frankly, that is a shame!

After Three Years

2007-02-19T10:41:00.000-07:00

After more than three years of this blog, it is time to take stock and answer some questions. It amazes me how many stumble across these babblings. Some respond. A few ask for clarification or to seek permission to use something I've written. Others chastise me for my "legalism" or my "old fogey" ideas. All in all, it's been interesting.

To those who think I'm old, perhaps I am. Some cultures, you know, value the wisdom that often accompanies age. To those who think new ideas and thoughts are "with it" and more current, I want to remind you that "the newer the truer" is rarely so. Is the corporate structure of today's mega church more faithful to God's Word than the simple oversight of New Testament elders in the first century? I doubt it! Some think today's Christians must identify with their culture, but when does identification surpass understanding to accommodation?

I think most of the responses I've gotten came over the several entries I wrote concerning baptism. My position in those entries is clear: baptism is immersion in water for the remission of sins. I believe two things happen at the time of baptism. First, baptism in water is a clear and precise picture of one's faith in Christ who died, was buried, and who rose again. In baptism, the believer identifies with Christ, is united to Christ, and it is the time when one's sins are formally remitted. Second, concurrent with water baptism is the "baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit." It is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes the cleansing of the individual not the water.

Having said this, let me respond to some questions submitted some time ago by a Royce Ogle, an occasional reader of this site.

1. In your understanding of the doctrine of salvation must one have faith in baptism as well as faith in Christ? Faith is always directed to Christ. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Because a person trusts Jesus to do what he says, it is always proper to demonstrate that confidence by doing what he tells you to do. The "doing" is an indication of the depth of one's faith in Christ.

2. Is baptism faith? According to the Apostle Paul, faith is "being fully persuaded that God had (has) power to do what he had promised" (Romans 4:21). In Romans 4, Abraham trusted God to the extent he was willing to go into his wife so to conceive a son even though he and she were both past the age of child bearing. Hebrews 11:1 provides us with a description of faith. In the verses that follow, one can easily see that faith always produces an obedient result.

3. Is baptism mechanical? Or, to ask another way; Is every person who is immersed saved? The answer to this question should be fairly obvious. One is not saved by baptism (strictly speaking), one is saved at baptism. It is faith that saves. Therefore, if one is immersed but is devoid of faith it is an invalid act. The same can be said of repentance which is also a response of faith (see Acts 2:38) or confession (Romans 10:8, 9).

4. Why have so many coC folks been immersed more than once? If baptism saves why do it more than once? I have ministered for more than 40 years and have only seen a handful baptized more than once. On occasion, those immersed at a very young age came to question the nature of their response. Some think they responded only because others did so and they "joined the crowd." Others have the erroneous idea that sin separates them from God and thus they need rebaptism. In most cases, I refused to baptize someone a second time. On rare occasions, however, I have done so only because it provided comfort. By the way, I do not save "baptism saves you," Peter does (see 1 Peter 3:20-22).

5. If I adopt the historical view of baptism as taught by Restoration churches must I not conclude that everyone else who believes otherwise is lost? Of course not. The clear teaching of Scripture is that God holds people accountable for what they know or understand. Although it took hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic Church gradually adopted sprinkling or pouring in place of immersion. Tradition and Canon Law took precedence over Scripture. What will God do with all of those who were never immersed? I do not know! The
Bible does not tell us. My opinion is that God takes the intent for the act. After all, salvation is by faith (Ephesians 2:8, 9). In other words, in my opinion, the person who trusts Jesus but mistakenly responds through no fault of his own, is right with God. On the other hand, those who understand what the Scripture says but rejects it or refuses to obey are another case.

6. Just to stir our thinking... If when you get to heaven you discover God loved sinners more than you and I and wanted to save sinners more than you and I want them saved, and in fact did save everyone who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, would it be ok with you and me? Whatever God chooses to do is fine with me! In fact, in some ways I hope God goes far beyond my understanding. I think I expressed that in another way in question 5 as well. I fully expect to see some in heaven I don't expect to be there and I also expect not see see some I expect to be there.

I guess what bothers me about the current state of affairs in the Restoration Movement is the tendency of many to become "baptismal agnostics." In spite of Scriptures clear teaching that remission of sins occurs at baptism (Acts 2:38), that one puts on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:25, 26), that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:20-22), that baptism is a transition point between spiritual death and spiritual life (Romans 6, Colossians 2:11, 12), that sins are washed away at baptism (Acts 22:16), and that baptism is a part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, 20), there are those who say, "We aren't sure about the place of baptism!" In a rush to avoid the denominational accusation that we are "water regenerationists," we are no longer willing to give a biblical answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" What's worse, many of those graduating from our Bible Colleges no longer know the answer to that question either.

Substance vs Style

2007-02-04T12:15:00.000-07:00

Maybe we're turning the corner -- maybe not!

The most recent issue of Leadership Journal featured a few interesting snippets showing that the days where style outranks substance may be ending. In an article titled, "Youth Ministry Gets Serious," Sam O'Neal pointed out that research shows many of today's teens want substance rather than entertainment and shallow teaching. According to O'Neal, the emphasis on "Jesus Light" left teens unable to differentiate between gospel and the pop-culture box they received it in. In addition, Time magazine reported some churches are now focusing more on teaching. Good! It is about time. The article gave two examples of youth groups that grew numerically and spiritually because they emphasized strong biblical teaching including doses of doctrine and adult mentoring.

I wonder if the fact that youth ministry in the late twentieth century existed by presenting "Jesus Light" has any relationship to the lack of spiritual hunger or depth in today's younger baby boomer or older Gen-x crowd. Hmmm!

The same Leadership issue also contained feedback from Tony Morgan's blog (www.TonyMorganLive.com). Stuart Briscoe, now 75 years of age, said, "We don't need to make truth relevant. We need to show and explain and apply it in all its Spirit-empowered relevance and see transformation happen." Briscoe also pointed to Europe and our own nation's founding documents. Nearly every European village and city is filled with chapels, cathedrals, or churches but they are empty. The present generation has nearly abandoned the American founding documents by trying to reinterpret them to make them relevant. Briscoe wrote, "Those who built the cathedrals and wrote the founding documents were not seeking to be 'relevant'; they were showing the relevance of an unchanging truth to those who needed to know it." Truth is always relevant! But I think we've so reinterpreted the truth to make it acceptable that it is no longer relevant. Further, once it becomes irrelevant it dies.

Now lest you think this is simply the meandering cogitations of a couple of old fogeys who no longer know what is happening or going on, as some of my readers sometimes do, I want to remind you that Briscoe has been a "with it" observer and participant in churches for 55 years. Furthermore, Leadership cited a reader 50 years Briscoe's junior (that makes him 25 for those of you educated in the new math) saying, "Stuart said (more eloquently than I ever could) pretty much what I have been thinking. Then the writer asked, "[Is there] anything a church has done before some company in the marketplace has done it?"

In a sidebar in an article entitled, "We Aren't About the Weekends," Bob Roberts had this to say, "I'm unlearning ... the assumption that 'Christian' is defined primarily as acknowledging a moment of conversion. Becoming a follower of Jesus depends on what happens after that."

Having said all of that, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Christians need to get past "style" and focus on "substance." When I say substance, I don't mean simply the learning of facts and information. There is some of that, to be sure. Christians need an understanding of doctrine, biblical history, and Scripture's moral teaching. Accumulating those things in one's overheated brain means nothing, however, if the individual is unable to use or apply them. If knowledge is accumulated for the sake of knowledge, that's wrong! But doing just for the sake of doing is just as wrong! Why? Because it is uninformed and ends up being a shotgun approach. James wrote, "Faith without works is dead." I can say, "Knowledge without application is dead!" I've been judged as "too academic" because I believe Christians should learn more than "the milk of the Word." But I believer greater understanding should lead to greater action!

Think about it!

Demotion of Doctrine?

2007-01-30T10:27:00.000-07:00

Bill Pyle ministers in Los Angeles working in the inner city. I’ve met Bill and found him to be astute and interesting. Each month he publishes “Heartbeat,” a four-page newsletter filled with insights and newsy topics. I’ve found his perspective on today’s church and the trends affecting it to be most enlightening. I haven’t asked Bill for permission, but I want to share an essay from his most recent issue, Issue 208, January 2007.

IS DOCTRINE DEAD OR JUST DEMOTED?

If its dead, we know what killed it: the old cliché, “Doctrine divides, love unites.” Hat supposed verity surfaces every time people of god will disagree on some biblical doctrine. It is axiomatic for those willing to unite on the least common denominators, but not for truth seekers. Truth seekers believe love of truth can also unite. They believe unity that discounts or disregards truth is no unity at all. Union perhaps, but not unity.

Biblical doctrine is harsh, and if the goal of today’s church is to remove all the biblical barbs that might impede church growth, then biblical doctrine is a problem. And if you’ve noticed on church websites, many churches’ doctrinal statements are either

· Brief
· Vague
· Slippery, or
· Non-existent.

One has to be a detective to find out what the church believes about original sin, predestination, repentance, the Lord’s Supper, or baptism.

Once we discovered grace, the question arose: Is perfect behavior necessary for salvation? The answer is obvious, since we never reach perfect behavior. But that doesn’t mean Christian behavior, godly obedience, is unnecessary. Unless we believe “once saved always saved,” we understand that our ungodly living or willful disobedience puts our salvation in jeopardy. Many passages make this clear, as we shall see.

But then, another question arose: To be saved must our doctrinal understanding be perfect? Of course, the answer again is no. But this doesn’t mean doctrine is unimportant, nor that incorrect doctrine is inconsequential, as we shall see in the passages cited later in this place.

We seem to have given up large pieces of ground with regard to acceptable behavior for Christians; so much so that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Now what will we do with the demotion of biblical doctrine to a place of relative unimportance in the modern church culture?

How bad is it, really? If one is scrupulous about doctrine, he is seen as picky at best or prickly at worst. Picture this. A seeker attends a seeker-sensitive church, and at the door afterwards engages the pastor with questions about free will. Many pastors give a brief answer, some will give a vague or slippery answer, and some will say we don’t hold a position on that doctrine. It is just not pastorally correct today to discourage a seeker with an answer that would sound dogmatic.

Let us say it unequivocally: the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace in no way conflicts with other Bible doctrines, nor does it depreciate them. There is no “hierarchy of doctrines” in Scripture. Either we submit to all Bible doctrines, or we reject them all, and opt for a feelings-based faith. We need not even refer to Scripture for guidance in understanding and living out the doctrine of love. (Yes, there is a biblical doctrine of love.)
What did the Bible writers say about the importance of their teachings? Did they consider them opinions? Points for debate? Relatively unimportant? Hear from them:

“In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9, KJV).
“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 29:29, 30).
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them” (Romans 16:17).
“We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God” (2 Corinthians 2:17, KJV).
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:6-8).
“Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 1:3).
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves… Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping” (2 Peter 2:1, 3b).

Correct understanding and teaching of God’s commands has always been required of God’s leaders. The purveyors of false doctrine in the Old Testament, the prophets and priests, the very teachers God had set among his people, were excoriated in many passages like this one: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, no from the mouth of the Lord. They keep saying to those who despise me, ‘The Lord says: You will have peace.’ And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, ‘No harm will come to you’” (Jeremiah 23:16, 17).
What will we do with those passages (and a dozen more we might have cited)? First, they make us realize that doctrine matters. Second, they drive us to admit that there is false doctrine among us, and it must be confronted and condemned. To do any less is to make a mockery of the 19 New Testament books that are primarily doctrine (teaching).

If doctrine is being demoted in the interests of church growth, unity, peace, or any other seemingly worthwhile reason, we need to commit ourselves to preaching all the gospel and teaching all the Word.

So writes Bill Pyle. He is right! I’ve seen it firsthand and know that those who “demote” doctrine do so thinking they are practicing the principles of the Restoration Movement summed up in the adage, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things love.” I believe that adage is an excellent guiding principle, but I do not believe it limits the search for truth. Besides, every one of us has our own list of essentials. It used to be that the essentials could be summed up as belief in Jesus and whatever it takes to unite an individual to him. Alexander Campbell said it this way, “The belief of one essential fact – that Jesus is Lord – and obedience to one essential act – baptism resulting from trust in Jesus. For many, the essential element is “belief in Jesus.” Obedience to Christ in all things is relegated to the non-essential. But can belief without obedience to biblical commands save you? James tells us demons believe! Jesus linked love for him with obedience to him. If that is so—and it is—we neglect a search for truth at our own risk. For, you see, truth not apprehended and lived out is not truth.

Feelings!

2007-01-26T21:26:00.000-07:00

Today I reviewed some of my notes taken during the Consortium retreat I attended in Joplin earlier this month. Leonard Sweet was our speaker. Although he is sometimes identified with the Emergent Church, Sweet is actually more of a futurist. That is, he is cut along the lines of the author of that old standard, Megatrends.

Part of the discussion zeroed in on trends Sweet identifies in today's church. He indicated that all of the emotion surrounding the use of music in the church surprised him. He emphasized that worship services today are all about feeling. He rightly pointed out that historically Protestant Christianity focused on content rather than feeling. In other words, orthdox or fundamental Christianity was more about understanding the Gospel and responding to it than about feeling. Genuine repentance depends on understanding sin, its effects, and the solution so an individual can make a clear and informed decision.

The emphasis on feeling harkens back to Frelinghuysen, a Reformed preacher on the east coast in the 1700s. Frelinghuysen said God could not be known, but he could be felt. Worship and Christian living depended on a feeling of utter dependence on God. He associated no content with that feeling. Those holding to biblical Christianity said God can be known through the Word. The Word reveals Jesus to us in historic testimony that can be understood and applied.

The "conservative" Bible-centered church today has accepted the idea that at its root, Christianity is felt not comprehended. The term emotion or feeling is not used, however. The term utilized is "experience." Blackaby wrote, Experiencing God, a book that encourages the believer to get on board wherever God is moving. In light of Satanic counterfeits, how does one know with certainty that God is moving here or there? It all depends on a "feeling." We are told that people want to "experience God" in worship, but that experience is created with rock bands so loud they damage the ears. The bass booms so loudly that it vibrates your whole body. They call that "experiencing God."

When criticizing this approach, those attempting to create an experience label the critics as old, out of touch, unable to identify with today's culture, or whatever. We are told that to reach today's culture, we must adapt or die. I agree that we must go cross cultural to reach today's culture, but I don't have to become a member of that culture. I must speak their language. Rather, I must learn how communicate the old message in understandable terms. When I go to Burma, I don't have to become a Buddhist or dress like a Buddhist or adopt a Buddhist worldview. I need to learn Burmese, appreciate the cultural differences unrelated to religion, and share the message as simply as possible. I don't need to tell them how to live their lives successfully, parent effectively, or develop dress properly. I teach them the old message of the Gospel of Christ. That's what they need first and foremost. I think the same is true here in the old USA.

Faith is more than a feeling. It is the understanding of the testimony relating to Christ. It is comprehending that Jesus makes a difference. Those truths are as relevant today as they were a thousand or two thousand years ago.

Furthermore, if you want an "experience" with God, you'll get it when you identify with God, grow to know Him, and respond to Him. Experience follows relationship!

Decisions, Decisions!

2007-01-18T15:55:00.000-07:00

My mother used to say, "Getting old is heck!" That's exactly the way she said it too. Although I don't feel old (except after climbing a mountain trail), I know it doesn't get much easier.

After giving consideration to our future, Delores and I have pretty well decided it is time to do something else. I've been in ministry for 45 years. Those years took me from congregations of 50 to a brief stint at a congregation of over 10,000. I've taught at three different colleges and one seminary here in the good ol' USA. I still teach online courses and recently received a commission from a Christian College to develop and teach two online history courses for their program. I will continue to do that as long as I can. In fact, I'd like to have another opportunity or two to teach online. Otherwise we are in the process of redirecting our lives. Delores plans to return to the accounting field for a while, then slow down after she become eligible for her retirement benefits.

Our son moved to Palm Springs, CA, late last year and wants us to join him and the family. We spent the holidays there and took a day or so to look at housing options in the area. Provided our home here sells, we will most likely relocate there within the next 3-6 months. The real estate market in our area is slow (as it is elsewhere), so we are realistic and know it might take longer. Join us in praying that we can sell and move in a realistic time frame. Our home is going on the market this week. Finding a realtor to represent us was not an easy task. Each realtor thinks their service and their company is the best. So, we simply throw caution to the wind, take a risk, and make a decision.

In an earlier entry to this blog -- the one about the Boise State win over Oklahoma -- I noted that football is a funny game and the football often takes some strange bounces. That's just the way life is! It too takes some "funny bounces." But the old adage is still true. (Pardon me if I mix my metaphors.) "When your dealt a lemon, make lemonade."

Oh, one other thing. If we can figure out how to free up the time in all this, Delores and I are wanting to take a 10-day tour of the Seven Churches of Asia. We can do it for something over $2,000 a person including air fare from Arizona, 3 and 4 star hotels, morning and evening meals, and professional guides, connecting flights and more. The tour would take us to the Seven Churches, Cappadocia, and Istanbul. If any of my readers would like to join us IF we go ... or when we go ... give me a comment on this entry with your email and I'll get back to you.

Consortium Meeting

2007-01-04T12:11:00.000-07:00

As I write this, I am in the Kansas City International Airport awaiting a flight to Joplin, Missouri. I'll be meeting with those who teach college classes for the Consortium of Christian Colleges for Distance Learning. This organization has existed for something over five years. During that time hundreds of students from Christian Colleges across the country and in Canada have taken courses.

Dr. James North got me involved shortly after he offered the History of the Restoration Movement online. More students enrolled than he could handle along with his full time teaching load at Cincinnati Christian University. Over the years the number of students enrolling in the course has grown tremendously. This past semester more than 30 students enrolled in the course and 31 are pre-enrolled for the spring semester. I generally get the majority of the students from colleges and universities other than Cincinnati Christian University. This semester students are enrolled from Great Lakes Christian College, Manhattan Christian College, Ozark Christian College, Kentucky Christian University and several other schools as well.f I generally have more students online than I ever did in Restoration History classes at Intermountain Bible College or Boise Bible College.

I have long been a believer in online higher education. I also believe in using online educational opportunities for the local church. As in most cases, the Restoration Movement is behind the curve in adopting the technology to its fullest extent. Churches, even the mega-churches, have barely scratched the surface. Most of the hesitation results from the belief there needs to be "face to face instruction or relationships" for education to be effective. Don Wilson at CCV was such a "Luddite" that he refused to see the effectiveness the use of really good online learning opportunities could provide.

In my view, the whole idea that education depends on "face to face" instruction is ridiculous. The success (and misuse) of such interactive exchanges in MySpace.com or various chat rooms reveals that relationships are formed. The issue is communication, not proximity. The push back is that face to face exchanges are more honest because you can see facial expressions and other feedback. Posh! It may be true in some cases, but there are those proficient in cheating, prevaricating, or misleading in face to face encounters as well. I can tell you from personal experience and observation that ministers trained on college campuses have no guarantee they can positively interact with people and be successful in the work of the ministry!

The secular world is seeing the value of Internet education. Several states are using "virtual high schools" to provide education for those who do not adapt well to public school learning environments. More and more colleges are offering complete degree programs online without any (or very little) residence requirement.

Let's be honest! It is all about money! We have invested millions in more than 35 campuses across the country and more around the world. It takes millions more for upkeep, housing, and other services provided on campus. Internet-based education requires excellent and innovative instructors and sufficient software and servers to handle the load. With today's modern technology it is possible to create virtual classrooms with visual interaction and feedback. It is possible to use live streaming teaching sessions or those that have been videoed. It is possible to utilize excellent graphics, maps, illustrations, and other teaching aids to help the student learn.

Yes, I know education is more than passing on information. Still the college is the place where students receive foundational preparation for life. In today's world education is focused on the pragmatic. We have John Dewey to thank for that! As a result, we have men on the field who can pull people together but are unable to disciple them. We also have men on the field who can disciple Christians but can't get a crowd if their lives depended on it. (I may be one of those!!) Ah, such is the body of Christ where interdependency is part of the Kingdom plan.

I have to draw my rambling to a close, but you have gotten the point. I favor Christian education -- foundational, biblical, doctrinal education. I don't care how a person gets it. Ideally, it would be provided in the local church. Less ideal, but proven effective, is the Bible College. The "wave of the future" though rests with those who can use the technology at our disposal to accomplish the goal of teaching what the apostles taught to faithful men who will teach others (2 Timothy 2:2).

One for the Underdog

2007-01-02T17:20:00.000-07:00

In all the years I played, coached, or officiated football I don't think I've ever seen a "Statue of Liberty" play. I've seen the swinging gate, the hook and lateral, the "fumblerooskie," and a lot more. Watching Boise State University lose momentum then come from behind with a "Statue of Liberty"-like play was fun. It was definitely one for the underdog!

I've walked on the blue football field at Boise State. I watched games in the stadium when BSU was still a I-AA program and Idaho and Montana State were their opponents. I sat just two rows below Cecil Andrus, the state governor at the time. That's the nature of Boise. Now that Boise State has come of age, the university wants to build sky boxes and deluxe suites. It will both enhance the Bronco's stature and take away the university's small town feeling. But then, Boise has boomed in the last decade and it isn't the same Boise it was when I lived there and taught at Boise Bible College.

Most who know me know I am usually a Big XII fan (Nebraska in particular). In most bowl games I root for the Big XII team. Not last night! My wife and I both cheered for Boise State. It brought back memories of an Air Force Academy bowl game we watched just after our son graduated from the academy. The Falcons played Ohio State and all the pundits, sportscasters, and most fans all said the academy didn't belong on the field with the Buckeyes. The Buckeyes themselves said as much. The Falcons ran away with the game beating OSU handily. Well, it wasn't quite as easy last night but it was fun listening to the broadcasters vascillating one way then another as the fortunes of the game changed. Though the margin of victory wasn't the same, the BSU Broncos showed the "big guys" they could play with them. As the old saying goes, "It is not so much the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog!" It was a blast watching the game.

You may wonder what all this has to do with the Restoration Movement or the state of the churches tied to it. On one level, nothing I suppose! At the same time, we have become enamored of the big dogs. Most of our churches look to the mega-church preachers for their inspiration. What they're missing, however, is the fact that the "little guys" still have a lot to offer. Both have positives and negatives (see an earlier blog entry). I'll have more to say about this as time goes on.

Diversity

2006-12-26T16:39:00.000-07:00

The Restoration Movement has always been a diverse movement. At times disagreements seemed more prevalent than agreements. I think this fact existed from the movement's inception. Let me give some exampls.

James O'Kelly is often credited with one of the earliest efforts resulting in "Christians only." He led a number of Methodists to withdraw from the Asbury led Methodist Church to form the Republican Methodists. William Guirey brought a group into fellowship with the O'Kelly movement only to fracture over the issue of immersion. Both Guirey and O'Kelly made contact with the New England Christians (Abner Smith and Elias Jones) but there was never complete agreement because the New Englanders tended to deny aspects of the Trinity. Nonetheless fellowship continued but there was less than complete excitement about it.

The Cane Ridge Meeting birthed another expression of the Restoration Movement. This meeting occurred during an era when Presbyterians were transitioning from a strict Calvinism to an understanding that preaching led to responses and experiences confirming election. Five participating Presbyterian preachers concluded that faith was the belief of testimonyand humans hearing the Gospel could respond to it. Political maneuverings on the part of some strict old-line Presbyterian elders led to the filing of charges against Richard McNemar for preaching an Arminian doctrine. Defending themselves in a documnt often called "The Apology," five men withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Synod of Kentucky to form their own structure, the Springfield Presbytery. These five men--Barton Stone, John Thompson, Robert Marshall, John Dunlavy, and Richard McNemar--disassociated from one another with the signing of "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." According to that document, these men gave up any organizational structure beyond the local congregation and sank into union with the church at large.

It is often taught that it was mutually agreed to break up and continue as independent local congregations. What is not so clearly seen is the tension existing behind the scenes. It is known that Richard McNemar hoped to continue the religious excitement and the sometimes strange events seen during the Cane Ridge Meeting. Apparently Marshall and Thompson weren't so keen on all that "enthusiasm." They returned to the Presbyterian Church and later wrote a document critical of "The Newlight Church." Taken at face value, it becomes apparent that these two men opposed the extremes McNemar advocated. Richard McNemar and John Dunlavy eventually ended up in the Shakers proving exactly what Thompson and Marshall feared -- that such excesses would lead to heresy. Barton W. Stone was the only one of the five who remained steadfast to the theological principles spelled out in "The Apology."

Most of the events regarding the Springfield Presbytery took place before the Campbells arrived in America. That meant the Kentucky Christians, the New England Christians, the followers of O'Kelly and those of Guirey were well entrenched prior to the coming of the Campbells. When "Father" Thomas arrived in America the Seceder Presbyterians assigned him to Western Pennsylvania. He soon got in hot water for offering communion to all varieties of Presbyterians and was drummed out of the Chartiers Presbytery. For most of a year, Thomas Campbell preached to friends who formed the Christian Association of Washington. To inform others of the nature of the association, he wrote "The Declaration and Address." Alexander and the rest of the Campbell family arrived just as Thomas was putting the finishing touches on the document. That document combined with the experiences of Alexander in Scotland led to the establishment of the Campbellian reform movement.

This brings us to the relationship of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. It is commonly thought that the two men were "fast friends." Frankly, I doubt that! Major differences stood between the two men. Campbell and Stone held different views on the Trinity. Campbell was a strict Trinitarian, Stone verged on a Unitarian or Arian view of the Godhead. Both had divergent views of the nature of the atonement. Campbell held firmly to the substitutionary atonement believing that Jesus died for to pay sin's penalty on our behalf. Stone held to a view usually called the "Moral Influence Theory." That is, Jesus died to demonstrate self-sacrificing love. Although both men believed immersion was the biblical form of baptism, Campbell strongly argued that baptism resulted in "fomal" forgiveness of sins. Stone, however, came to believe baptism resulted in the forgiveness of sins but he was "softer" on it and preferred not to make an issue of it. Campbell held that the proper name for Christ's followers was "Disciple," and he continued to argue for it long after the two movements united in Georgetown and Lexington, Kentucky. Stone pled for the name "Christian" to the exclusion of all others. Campbell and his followers held that any Christian could baptize new believers and preside at the Lord's Table. Stone and his followers were of the persuasion that an ordained minister was required for both. I think both men respected each other and recognized each other as brothers, but I do not see them as hearty friends. Respected colleagues who called for unity and acceptance in spite of differences, you bet. Buddies! I don't think so.

Over the 200 years of the movement one can see tremendous diversity on a multitude of other issue: instrumental music, Sunday Schools, millennial theories single cup or multiple cup communion services, organizations, colleges, radio programs, publications. There were always those who refused to permit others to pigeonhole them, but in time fractures occurred. The fractures occurred because someone insisted everyone had to think alike on this issue or that.

The same attitudes continue today. Is baptism for the remission of sins or is it a part of the process of salvation? My answer to the question is, YES. Sponsorship of various programs and organizations led to doctrinal error in the past. Some argue that's a sufficient argument for rejecting organizational sponsorship of the North American Christian Convention or portions of its program. Others respond that just because it was damaging in the past it does not necessarily mean it will lead to "digression." Signing contracts with sponsor organizations for constructions projects resulted in lost buildings when congregations withdrew from fellowship with the organization. That's enough of a reason to avoid such contracts even with church supported lending agencies say some. Others argue it is only good business to protect the investments of numerous Christians who saved with the agency. In the past, mission sending organizations capitulated to Liberalism, comity agreements, and Open Membership. Therefore, Christians should reject all such organizations and support missionaries drectly. Wait, say others, it isn't the concept of the organization and cooperation that is bad, it is the wrong-headed theology of their leadership. I could go on!

What should we do? Remember that in your biological family it is rare for every family member to see all things alike. In spite of these differences, the familial ties remain strong. A brother is still a brother. You may not agree or even like what he does but you can't change the DNA. You may discuss your differences loud and long. Feelings might even get hurt, but when the "chips" are down you are still brothers. It is only a dysfunctional family where such animosity creates withdrawal and ostracism.

Should it be different in Christ's body, the church? I think not. I heartily disagree with many of my brothers in the Lord over biblical, structural, and leadership issues but they are still my brothers. Like T.B. Larimore, I don't want to push away with whom I disagree. Unlike Brother Lairmore, however, I will give my position. I will hold to my convictions until proven by Scripture or reason that I'm wrong. Believe me, a lot has changed in my 44 years of ministry. A lot of my convictions have matured. Some have changed. But some things don't change. I love the Lord. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. (I admit there are a few I don't like much, but I love them.) I still think everyone else has as much right to be wrong as I do! There are still some areas where I draw the line, but they are fewer now than years ago.

Should this reduce any concern you or I have for spiritual drift in the church? Absolutely not! We must, however, be careful that we separate genuine spiritual drift from our own uninformed conscience (see Romans 14). We must also be careful to warn in a spirit of concern and love, not a spirit of vindictiveness and rancor. We must also be ready to rescue those whose rejection of our warnings -- if correct -- produce difficulty while rejecting the temptation to say, "I told you so."

Think about these things.

Q & A

2006-12-22T08:28:00.000-07:00

I designed and published First Christian Church's (Canton) first web site over the protests of those on the Publicity Committee. Bless his heart, my good friend Bernie Clements just didn't see much value in such a thing. Bernie went home to the Lord a couple of years ago, but the web site has undergone several iterations since then. Each time the site became more professional and more effective.

As the site developed, one of the pages we put up was an "Ask Mike" page. Mark Martens wrote a page permitting surfers to ask questions. Each of those questions came to me and I wrote an answer. After I left Canton the questions remained on line for a while then were taken down and the files came to me. Several friends over the past couple of years said I should put them back online. You can now see them at www.christianchronicler.com, my personal web site. Most of the questions remain unedited so you will see First Christian Church's name occasionally. In time I'll edit those and make them more generic. Once I learn how to do it, I will prepare a response page permitting new questions. Until then, you may email questions to me at mhines5@gmail.com.

Enjoying the Rest

2006-12-19T09:24:00.000-07:00

I've been unemployed for 3 weeks now. I've spent the time several ways.

First, I've spent a lot of time networking letting friends and family know what's happened and asking them to keep their eyes and ears open for me. We have always sought God's will for our lives and we're not changing that.

Second, my wife and I are considering all our options. At this point we are in no hurry to make a decision. That hasn't been too hard regarding a different ministry because there's not a lot of options there at this point. While our emphasis may change, we are concentrating our search west of the Rockies. Our son and his family recently moved west and they are not anxious to see us relocate across the country. Should God open an obvious door we will, of course, reconsider. Another option is semi-retirement. We would both continue to work some to maintain a positive cash flow. I currently have some on-line teaching and I am interested to see if there are other opportunities for that sort of work. So, I've been sending out resumes, spending time in prayer, and discussing other opportunities.

Third, I've been getting a lot of rest. Frankly, I found I needed it. The months spent at CCV were stressful and tiring. That fact alone should have revealed to me I was "out of my element."

Fourth, I've been writing. A few years ago I wrote a history of the early church for Moriah School of Ministry in Australia. I used it here in the states in my training class in Canton and in the church history class I taught at CCV before I went on staff. Now I'm writing the history of the later church. My overarching thesis is that most changes in Christ's church result from unintended consequences rather than overt efforts to pervert it. Satan had his plan, to be sure, but the human element involved is just that--human effort to do the right thing with unintended consequences. There are exceptions and these exceptions prove the rule.

In the process, then, of waiting on God I've kept busy doing my part.

Thanks for the support

2006-12-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

The ball of life bounces in funny ways. In fact, it bounces more strangely than a football after a squib kick. Right now the ball of my life is bouncing more strangely than ever. I want to thank those of you who commented on my last page, whether published or not, to provide me with encouragement. Your thoughtfulness is appreciated.

When I went to CCV I knew I was taking a risk. Some of my readers felt there were serious doctrinal concerns with the church. If you read my previous posts, you know some even suggested I'd "gone soft" or "changed my theology." The fact is, there should be little concern over doctrine at CCV. If you understand the Restoration Movement, you know that in 1831 the followers of Alexander Campbell (the Disciples) and those of Barton Stone (the Christians) united in Georgetown, KY. Campbell, in spite of what some may think after reading the Lunenburg correspondence, strongly held that baptism was for the remission of sins. Stone came to agree that baptism was immersion in water for the remission of sins, but was characteristically silent on the issue for the most part. He chose not to make it an issue. That's pretty much the stand at CCV. As it is taught there, baptism is immersion in water and part of the salvation process. As with Stone, the matter is then closed.

While there were undoubtedly issues with me that I know nothing about (specifically), I was seen to be "too academic" for the CCV DNA. Because it takes me time to get to know people and to build rapport, I was judged as possessing poor relational skills. Okay, I like my books and communicating through writing is often easier for me than face-to-face even though in disciplinary or teaching situations I prefer the latter. As a result, my efforts were seen as inconsequential. Perhaps so!

As I said above, I knew I was taking a risk to accept a position at CCV. I recognized the corporate mentality before I went there. I understood that much was expected. I also know that I didn't mesh with the church's personality. It was, as they say, a matter of time. I had hoped I might have more time to communicate my philosophy and get a program off the ground. I didn't. So be it!

What are we going to do? I don't have a clue! If I am going to practice what I preach, then I must continue to remember that even when things are most confusing God is still in control. We may look toward semi-retirement. I'm networking and looking for places where I might fit in. We may seek employment in other fields (Walmart is always looking) for a few years. I plan to continue my on-line teaching as long as possible. If you know of places where an old guy might fit in, forward them to me at my home email which is in my profile. If not there, post a comment. God provided enough through severance and emergency savings to see us through for a while. I would be lying if I said I wasn't stressed and just a tad afraid. But something will work out. In a worst case scenario, my cousin from Europe left us with two new tents we could use!!!

2006-11-27T22:21:00.000-07:00

As of today I am no longer employed at Christ's Church of the Valley. I received my termination notice this afternoon (Monday, Nov. 27). I was deeply disappointed that it didn't work out. I felt for some time that I wasn't measuring up and I was experiencing substantial stress as a result. So I wasn't entirely surprised when the word came down. I have no regrets, no bitterness, and no anger over all this. I just wasn't gifted to perform at the level of the expectations at CCV.

I don't know what God has in store for my wife and I at this point, but we will trust God to open doors. To date He has never let us down. I can't say that at my age there isn't some fear, but we will wait upon the Lord.

Tonight I taught my last class at CCV. We went through two lessons on Joseph and his dreams. He had a dream, too, but his dream was denied, frought with doubt, destroyed, and then in God's own time revealed and accepted. It was providential that I had that figured for the last lesson in this sequence.

The next chapter has yet to be written.

Defining Moment

2006-11-23T22:41:00.000-07:00

Some time ago one of my colleagues asked me if I could think of one defining moment in my life. I thought for a moment and replied, “It was the night Joe Eggebrecht, my minister at First Church of Christ in Sutherland, Iowa, came to our house to volunteer to be my guardian for a year."

Let me explain! It was February of my junior year in high school and my mother was let go from her teaching job. She’d exploded in the classroom in part because her principal would not support her efforts at discipline. Her temper resulted in her dismissal although the School Board graciously paid her for the remaining months of her contract. Her dismissal meant that I would have to go to a third high school. I did not want to move again. I had become a Christian, made friends at school, earned a football letter, and was a leader in several school clubs. Completely unknown to my mom and me, the church leadership met and decided that the church would “adopt” me for a year and Joe would be my guardian. If mom and I accepted, and if mom would pay the $25 legal fee to set up the guardianship it would all happen.

She accepted; I was elated. For all intents and purposes I was almost on my own after school let out that year. The church got me a job with Burdette Weaver. I lived on the farm and worked for him until football started in late August. He tried me at cultivating, but after I tore out about 12 rows of corn, he gave up on that. I spent the summer painting outbuildings, baling hay, checking electric fence, and doing chores. I had a salary, although I can’t remember how much it was, along with three squares and a bed.

When football started, I moved into town into a room in the home of Harriet Reist, a widow lady who lived about two doors from the church. My mom sent me $50 a month to pay my rent, buy my meals, and take care of my recreation. I had no car in a small town of about 800 people, so there was little outside of church activities for me to do. After the first semester, I moved into the basement of the parsonage and helped the Eggebrechts some with money for meals. The basement was just that! It was an area cut out of the dirt with a cot. Church members took turns doing my laundry and taking me home with them on the weekend for meals.

I also spent a lot of time at the home of Harold Steele. Harold was the uncle of one of my best friends and classmate Phil Steele. Whenever Harold had work, he got me to come do it. I helped him dig a trench across the drive for pipe to carry water to the barn. I helped him clean the chicken house, hog house, and barn. I helped him bale hay. After I graduated from high school in 1961, I spent most of the summer at his place. On one occasion, he took his family on a round robin vacation trip to most of the Iowa State Parks. While he was gone, I kept the place going for him. In addition, he let me drive his pickup and bale hay for other farmers in the area. When the family returned from their trip, he permitted me to drive his new Ford Fairlane. I remember driving that car on one of the few dates I worked up courage to get. It was with Pat Prunty, a lovely redhead from Cleghorn, Iowa. Pat later went to Morningside College and then eventually to the music staff at Ozark Christian College.

Throughout that last year, I thought a lot about what I could do to thank the Sutherland church for doing so much for me. During that time I flirted with the idea of Bible College but wasn’t sure I wanted to do that since my dream was to coach football and teach in public schools. I thought that might become a reality when the coach of NAIA powerhouse Northwestern College of Iowa spent some time with me in an attempt to recruit me to his program. He promised a half tuition scholarship until I made the traveling squad, then it would become a full ride scholarship. Knowing I could not afford the tuition, I asked what he would do if I lettered two years in Junior College. He told me Northwestern would give me a full scholarship. With that in mind, I contacted the coach at Norfolk (Nebraska) Junior College and asked if there were any scholarships available. I was 6’ 2” and 227 pounds and had lettered in both my junior and senior years. He replied that NJC would offer me a half tuition scholarship. Well, that was $25! It was, however, in my price range and with Nebraska Christian College in the same town I could afford it.

To make a long story shorter, I left for NCC and NJC in late August to arrive in time for “two-a-days” with $125 saved from summer work. I registered for 16 hours at the junior college and 4 hours at NCC (that permitted me to live in NCC’s dorm) and reported to the National Guard Armory for football. In December of 1961, I committed my life to ministry of some sort and the rest is, as they say, history.

It was a small congregation of believers in Sutherland, Iowa, who made a major difference in my life. While I owe the most to my Savior, there is also a debt of gratitude I’ll never be able to repay to that group of leaders who made a difference in one boy.

I owe a lot to Terry Miles, who, to my knowledge, never became a Christian. It was Terry who nagged me into my first visit at First Church of Christ. I owe even more to the Steele families. Si and Doris kept in touch and have been interested in my ministries to this day. Si left us to go home with the Lord a few years ago. Because of distance and expenses I was unable to attend his services and I regret that. His sons, Phil and Tom, remain fast friends – men I care about and appreciate for their encouragement and friendship. I lost track of the other boys in the family and Virginia, the oldest in the family. I still pray for Sue, with whom all of us high school boys were in love with, because she is fighting cancer.

I still owe Harold Steele a lot, too. He did more than give me jobs. He provided counsel and direction in my life. I know this sounds terrible, but I think I wept more at the time of his untimely death beneath his tractor wheels, than I did for my mother. One of his gifts to me when I went to Bible College was his collection of Christian Standards. He had several decades saved and I kept them for many years. Today those papers are part of the collection of the library at Boise Bible College in Idaho.

What I’ve been trying to say is that the defining moment in my life was when one small Iowa church stepped forward and took me under their wing. My life was changed forever. I wasn’t the moment I accepted Christ. It wasn’t an emotional experience at all. It was the decision of a small group of people to “be the body of Christ.”

Rick is oh, so naive!

2006-11-22T11:40:00.000-07:00

Rick Warren’s recent observations on the circumstances Christians face in Syria is just another example of now naïve Christians can be. As the guest of the Syrian government, Warren undoubtedly saw only what the Baathist regime wanted him to see and hear from those the regime wanted him to hear.

Muslim governments do allow Christians and Jews to live within their borders. In some cases there is overt persecution, but more often than not the persecution is more difficult to see. One of the greatest obstacles believers face in Muslim countries is the general prohibition against “proselyting.” Christians can live among them but they can not overtly share their message. To do so results in arrest and incarceration! I know of an Egyptian Christian who returned to his country and was arrested for sharing his faith with another. Christians and Jews are often required to pay special taxes or face other, more stringent, restrictions.

My wife and I regularly visit believers in Asia. From all outward appearances, they seem free to worship and move about the country as they choose. As an observer visiting that country only briefly I would conclude the church is not persecuted and is free to do God’s work openly. As someone who has been there, I know that is not the case. There are limitations on what we can say, where we can go, and what we can do. Too many Americans in one location is a cause for concern. It is true that as long as the believers conform to the government they enjoy some freedom, but one never knows when that can be removed. In some instances where Christians object to governmental restrictions or call for greater freedom there are instances of overt persecution. Only the most naïve would say the church enjoys complete freedom to exist alongside Buddhism.

Our president recently visited Vietnam. While there he spent time in a church in personal worship. One would think Christians have freedom to worship under the communist government of Vietnam. That is not the case. Government officials confiscate Bibles, destroy church buildings, and warn believers not to evangelize. I’m sure the press corps accompanying Mr. Bush have the impression that freedom of religion prevails in Vietnam. Such is the naiveté of the press!

I greatly respect Rick Warren for his ministry in southern California. The Saddleback Church is a great church and has tremendous impact for the Gospel in southern California. At the same time, I think he has little experience with the world situation or how the godless rulers of various nations can present a pleasant face while ugliness lurks beneath the surface. And Christians are sometimes the world’s most naïve!

I know Rick Warren has a heart for those in need, but he needs to stick with what he knows and not pontificate on what he thinks he knows.

Thoughts on God

2006-11-20T17:16:00.000-07:00

“Christian Standard” magazine recently published a two-part series on “open theism.” I found them stimulating. It will be a while before that issue impacts the local church, but the concepts of “open theism” will undoubtedly stir controversy.

At issue are the existence of evil, man’s free will, and predestination. Open theists argue that if God genuinely permits free will then He can’t foreknow those choices which have not yet been made. Further, prayer truly impacts God and He can decide another course of action. It is all thought provoking and challenging. The arguments also tend toward the philosophical and disregard or reinterpret those passages speaking of God’s foreknowledge, predictive prophecy, and providential control of individuals and events.

I like articles like those in “the Standard” because they challenge me to try to get my mind around difficult concepts. Some around here think I’ve done that so long that I can no longer communicate for the average person. After reading these articles, however, I pretty much returned to my earlier conclusion that finite man simply can’t comprehend the actions of an infinite God. God chooses to reveal Himself to us. He did so through the prophets, but in these last days He did so through His Son (Hebrews 1:1, 2). God could never reveal everything about Himself, but when Jesus came He came with skin on and when we see Jesus we’ve seen the Father.

The articles have the impact of raising our comprehension of the Father beyond the mundane. One of the dangers, in my view, of open theism is the insistence that love is God’s primary characteristic. If so, the open theist must do more than make the assertion. They must also explain what they mean because this culture’s concept of love has little relationship to the biblical concept. It is precisely because we’ve identified love as God’s primary characteristic that our culture has lost any sense of reverence for Him. We tend to see God as a loving God who overlooks every errant behavior because He loves us. Such a soft incomplete view of God has been “out there” for a long time. I’m old enough to remember the song “He” back in the 1950s. Those who sang it on the “Hit Parade” sang it just as written:

Though it makes Him sad to see the way we live,
He’ll always say, “I forgive.”

Garbage! That’s just not true and it has the stench of hell around it. The second line needs amending to, “He’s always ready to forgive.” Now that’s more like it.

You see, the open theists got it all turned around. God’s primary characteristic isn’t love. He is love, but that’s just one of His characteristics. First and foremost, God is holy. Our God is a holy God! From God’s holiness come the twin demands of love and justice. God’s holy justice demands sin be punished. God’s holy love desires the salvation of the sinner. Only the atonement satisfied both requirements (see Romans 3).

Wrestling with the concepts presented systematic theology is great fun. I’ve learned so much from a study of systematic theology. But when the “rubber hits the road” it all comes back to “what does the Bible say.” We “speak where the Scripture speaks ….” I don’t have to understand everything there is to know about God to establish a personal relationship with Him. I expect to learn a host of subtle nuances about Him as my faith in Him grows deeper. At the same time, it is not knowing a lot of information about God that is so important. Knowing God trumps that! Having a relationship with Him does not require exhaustive knowledge. I’ve been married for 41 years now and I’m still learning things about my mate. Why should I expect it to be different with God?

On Ministry in the Larger Church

2006-10-26T16:15:00.000-07:00

Not long ago Paul Williams offered some great observations about leaders coming into the church from the corporate world. These leaders come with tremendous decision-making and project experience. They know how to get things done through people. They also know how to communicate with and motivate people. At the same time, Williams said, they often do not have a depth of biblical knowledge necessary to Christian ministry. I would add one other observation to that. I am not certain if these leaders understand the "heart" of ministry. The project and the "bottom line" sometimes take precedence over the needs of people.

The executive would cut to the chase and point out that the "needs of the many" outweight the "needs of the few." Perhaps so in the business world, but this isn't the way Jesus conducted ministry. He took the time to minister to the needs of individuals and care deeply about their needs. On one occasion when his disciples were off rounding up dinner, Jesus took the time to minister to the deepest needs of a sinful woman who came seeking water. Another time, Jesus healed an infirm man by the Pool of Siloam who was unable to get into the water. A Roman official came to him imploring him to heal his child. Jesus did so. The Gospels are replete with such stories. The "one sheep who had gone astray" concerned the Master.

Let me turn that last situation around. I'm often concerned that we are so concerned with the 99 who have gone astray that we forget the one lonely sheep struggling to live for Christ. There was a day I understood that! Maybe getting older heightens the recognition of the needs of the struggling sometimes forgotten believer. Those needs are as varied as those with whom Jesus came in contact. Some are trying to win their workmates but are having a hard time because they can't get answers to questions and they're gradually getting sucked into another orbit. I think, too, of those who sacrificed a great deal for Christ's Kingdom and now feel unwanted and unneeded because everything is targeted toward the young. How often do we give up meeting such needs for another meeting or another project or another program?

Please don't misunderstand me! I want to do everything we can to reach the lost and bring them into an adventure with Christ. I just think we need to always remember that people come first! I know projects have deadlines and things need to happen, but people still need to come first. If we get the cart before the horse it will bring harm to the cause of Christ.

We need the vitality, the drive, the decisiveness of leaders from the corporate sector who are willing to allow Christ to make their lives significant. We also need those with a heart for people -- the lost and the saved. Perhaps like those old commercials for Reeses Cups, we need to let the chocolate of the world of ministry and Bible knowledge dip into the jar of peanut butter and produce something better!

Just a thought!

On Barna's "Revolution"

2006-09-28T15:08:00.000-07:00

Praise God for the revolutionaries George Barna writes about in his recent book Revolution. Barna anticipates the rejection of his insights as he writes almost apologetically about what he sees “out there.” While there are, I think, some legitimate concerns, perhaps reactions should be more positive. This blog is a reaction to Barna’s little Tyndale book.

Barna’s research discovered that millions are developing dynamic spiritual lives without dependence on a local church. Holding a firm conviction that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, these highly literate individuals seek to discover and apply the living Word to their lives every day. According to Barna, their experiences in local churches sometimes enhanced that effort but more often than not they felt frustrated by the their churches’ inability to match practice with profession. As a result, Barna says many of these frustrated Christians are turning to other types of relationships and activities that better express Christ’s call to action. This is especially true among those Barna labels Mosaics (those born between 1984 and 2002). While I don’t have the statistical data Barna does, my own observations and experiences tell me why this is happening.

1. Church is ill-defined and understood by most religious leaders and church members alike. While it is true that Christ’s body reveals itself in local assemblies, the typical local church may or may not be a valid expression. Thomas Campbell said the “church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the scriptures.” Campbell follows this quote from the “Declaration and Address” with the recognition that the church exists in distinct and separate societies – local congregations or gatherings. Barna is right, however, in that there is no specific description given to local congregations in the New Testament. It assumes such assemblies or communities exist in areas described – Rome, Galatia, Corinth, and so on. The only organizational structure discussed is elder oversight and deacon service. New Testament churches met in homes, in the temple court in Jerusalem, or in catacombs; anywhere two or three were together there was the church. It is time for us to take the blinders off and see that Christ’s church is far larger than most of us want to admit. Perhaps in the 21st Century it would be better to think in Kingdom terms rather than church.

2. We’ve encouraged a false idea of worship. For well over a thousand years, the church has focused on specified time segments set apart for coming together for worship. We have “worship services.” Worship isn’t a ritual to be performed; it is a condition of the heart! One of the reasons we’ve had the “music wars” is the fact we tend to identify music with worship. We think worship occurs when we are “singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord.”

The fact is, there is nothing in the New Testament about a “worship service.” Some take Acts 2:42 as an outline for worship, but it tells us what those early converts in Jerusalem did when they came together. Singing is notably absent!

In another article on this site, I made a case for seeing worship as sacrifice. It is a heart response that presents self to God as a “living sacrifice” and sees all of life as the altar where it is accomplished. You can worship at 10:00 am Sunday morning if your heart is right, but you can also worship at 10:00 am Thursday morning in your work place as you work hard to please the living Christ.

Barna’s revolutionaries apparently understand this compartmentalizing of life into spheres of worship and everyday life is false.

3. We’ve misunderstood the role of professional ministry. In fact, we might have more of a medieval concept than we want to admit. Many of us are certainly afraid that if Barna’s vision is true, we’ll “lose our jobs.” You know what? As a young minister, I thought my responsibility was to “preach myself out of a job.” In fact, I did just that in Anita, Iowa, when I got fired from my first full time ministry. That’s not what I mean by “preaching myself out of a job.” I saw my task as God’s servant to prepare the saints for works of service. I believed that ideally individual believers – the priesthood of all believers – should step up and “be the church.”

Back in those days – the 1960s – we lived in perilous times. The Russian Bear still stalked the earth and the communist threat felt all too real. I believed part of my responsibility was to prepare the church to exist without titled ministers. We thought that if the communists ever took over, biblical preachers would be executed.

Those fears never realized, of course, and the Iron Curtain rusted apart. Let’s face it, though. We are still living in perilous times! It is becoming increasingly fashionable to bash Christians. Barna points out that his research shows that the church hardly impacts our culture. All too many Americans see biblical Christianity as a threat. In addition to the internal stress, there are increasing pressures from those who wield the scimitar (spiritually speaking). Haven’t you noticed the increasing messages from the Muslim world boldly stating the way to end terrorism is for all of us to convert to Islam? A day may come when Christians will go underground. Shouldn’t we be preparing believers to follow Christ without our (the professional ministry) prodding?

I could say much more, but I also want to mention a couple of areas of concern in what Barna outlines in his book.

1. Barna is not consistent in his descriptions. Early in the book, he states that most revolutionaries come out of the Mosaic generation although he would include some Boomers as well. One of the descriptors of the Mosaics is their tendency to reject the idea of absolute truth and elevate tolerance. Later in the book, he describes revolutionaries as those who accept the Bible as absolute authority. I don’t think he can have it both ways. The postmodern stereotype is that all faith systems are seen as viable for the individual. Now I suppose that the revolutionaries could see the Bible as absolute for themselves, but they could hardly live that out consistently if they accepted all other faith systems on equal footing.

2. Barna is very general in his understanding of the revolutionaries’ core beliefs. He says “revolutionaries have a wholly biblical outlook on life, based on the belief that the Bible is God’s perfect and reliable revelation designed to instruct and guide all people. The core beliefs of these Christ-followers relate to the existence, origins, character, and purpose of God; the origins and purpose of people; the need for and means to eternal salvation; the expository and content of moral and spiritual truth; and the existence, powers and role of various spiritual beings …” (p. 88).

All of that is well and good, but most of these revolutionaries will not read the Bible itself to determine their beliefs. They will rely on a lot of printed material available in the popular Christian press. If they would just study God’s Word, and only God’s Word, I would be less concerned. I still think they would need some assistance in understanding the context and backgrounds of each book and author found in the Bible. With the plethora of study Bibles and commentaries “out there,” there is a hodge-podge of theological and heretical material as well. I still believe “the Bible only makes Christians only,” but I’m not so confident of all the other stuff.

So what can we do in the long haul if Barna is right?

1. We must begin to see the place where the assembly meets as a resource center. It is time we returned to a biblical perspective of seeing the gathering of Christians as a time for encouragement and instruction. The elements we generally link to “worship” can be part of that, but those things – the Lord’s Supper, for example – can be done any time any where.

2. We must faithfully fulfill 2 Timothy 2:2. American Christians, those who take so much for granted, need to get a grip not only on the pragmatics but the foundational. Scripture considers a balance of content and application. We must consistently seek new methods and new structures to communicate the meaning and purpose of God’s Word to a new generation. The old message must remain at the center and we must never confuse method with message.

Well, there you have it. Another tome!

Preliminary Thoughts on the Emergent Church

2006-09-26T15:10:00.000-07:00

Four years ago, when I attended my first National Pastors’ Convention, I first heard about the Emerging or Emergent Church. It was an “add on” to the convention sessions I attended. I perceived it to be sessions designed for those commonly considered Gen-X or Millennial. Walking through the area designated for the Emergent Church sessions, it became clear there were “older” preachers interested in those sessions as well.

Four years later Zondervan Publishing produces a complete line of books and materials for the Emergent Church. Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Dan Kimball are, pardon the expression, emerging as leaders. At least one Cincinnati Christian University graduate, as demonstrated in Gibbs and Bolger’s The Emerging Church identifies himself with the Emergent crowd.

Writers, preachers, and an assortment of scholars finally became aware of the Emergent Church in the past year or so. D.A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is just one of these. Zondervan published his largely negative critique just last year. Dale van Dyke critiqued Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, on his web site, www.reformation21.org last February. The leaders of Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus, Ohio, also panned the Emergent crowd on their web site. Christianity Today evaluated the movement in November in an article entitled, “The Emergent Mystique” by Andy Crouch.

With all of the attention focusing on the Emergent Church, I felt like I need to say something about it. At this point, however, my observations are preliminary and not all that well thought out. But let me give it a go!

1. Don’t stereotype Emergent Churches. Some of the criticisms leveled at these churches assume that all of them are alike. While there are similar characteristics found in many of these congregations, they are not all alike in doctrine and methodology. Furthermore, they are not fully consistent in all they do or say. I have found that the one thing consistent with human beings is their inconsistency. When we stereotype, we project the idea that all of those identified as this or that are exactly alike. Therefore, when you see the characteristics identified remember that these apply to the Emergent Churches in general but do not necessarily apply in specifics.

2. Many, but not all of the Emergent leaders, are young. That means their theological base is not fully formed. It also means they do not always see the consequences of their thinking. Brian McLaren is only one exception and anyone who reads his material must admit that trying to nail down his thinking is like trying to nail down a helping of jello. Reading McLaren makes me uncomfortable. I reject some of what he writes because he comes from a Calvinist background making some of his foundational assumptions questionable. Other ideas he proposes makes me uncomfortable because I sense he has serious questions about Scripture. That makes me nervous. Still other ideas make me uncomfortable because they challenge some of my own preconceived ideas. Rather than turning me off, however, these things prompt me to rethink my stand and go back to Scripture.

The same is true with Rob Bell. I heard Rob Bell give a fascinating exposition of Leviticus 16 at one of the National Pastors’ Conferences. He made the Old Testament teaching about the Day of Atonement come alive. There was no questioning of the historical significance of Scripture or any attempt to see that biblical teaching as metaphorical – typical, maybe, but not metaphorical. Still, reading Velvet Elvis and watching one of his “Nooma” DVDs made me uncomfortable. Again, I’m not exactly sure why, but some of his statements raised the hackles on the back of my neck as he challenged my presuppositions.

3. Robert Webber doesn’t go back far enough. Robert Webber spoke at the North American Christian Convention Regional Conferences in 2005. His books The Ancient-Future Church and The Ancient-Future Gospel are interesting books. Webber used those books as the basis for his message at the conferences. As I listened to him attempt to identify himself with the Acts 2 church, it became clear he had no idea what that was all about. Nearly every effort on his part to go back to the early church reached the Second Century and screeched to a halt. He talked about the Acts 2 model, but identified it with the second century. He needed to go back to Acts 2!

Dan Kimball’s seminal work on the Emergent Church speaks often about the “ancient Scriptures,” the “ancient Church,” and the “ancient Faith.” When I first read his material, I was interested in an approach that sounded much like our own Restoration Movement concerns – redigging the ancient wells. It became clear, however, that it wasn’t all about “restoring the New Testament Church.” It was more of an attempt to reclothe the second century church with post-modern clothing. Frankly, I like some of what he said, but wasn’t thoroughly convinced.

4. Contemplation and Spiritual Formation isn’t all bad. My daughter first turned me on to Dallas Willard. I first read The Divine Conspiracy and then Spirit of the Disciplines and Renovation of the Heart. I just finished Revolution of Character by Willard and Don Simpson published by Navpress. Those critical of the Emergent Church would have us think Willard and others want to take us back to the monastic contemplation of the Desert Fathers and other early monastic movements.

Come on guys! What Willard calls for is the fulfilling of all of the Great Commission. Churches, especially our mega-churches, have done a great job winning the lost rather than just shuffling members from one church to another. The problem, as Willard sees it, is that the contemporary (I’m not using the term modern on purpose) church hasn’t followed up in an effort to “teach them to observe all things.” We have made church members but not disciples. I used to think there wasn’t a difference, now I know better. Let’s face it, most church members come to church rather than being the church. They are as much or more citizens of this world than they are the Kingdom of God. All too many, I think, are Christians in name only who go through the motions, observe the rituals, but whose life can’t be changed to the likeness of Christ because they are too concerned with “what’s in it for me” than in following Jesus. I sat with Willard for 16 hours over two years and know he stresses teaching the content of Scripture, passing down what was taught (2 Timothy 2:2), and setting aside time for letting it sink in so you can live it out. He doesn’t call for “navel gazing.” He calls for the practice of spiritual disciplines that help the Christian realize God wants him to construct a whole new worldview – a biblical worldview.

5. The emphasis on experience bugs me. In Canton we talked about how people wanting to worship God wanted to “feel” the presence of God. It was decided, not by an active decision but by practice, that the way to do that was to turn the bass up on the soundboard so that everyone’s innards vibrated during worship. This whole thing about a “worship experience” bothers me! I don’t mind contemporary music, but I don’t see it as worship. I like some of the old favorites and the mellow gospel choruses of the 80s and 90s, but I don’t see them as worship either. Worship is a response to the heart and doesn’t depend on externals. It is how I respond to God and His Word every day, not just on Saturday evening of Sunday morning.

One young man taking my Romans Class said that now that he was a Christian he was waiting for God to “tap him on the shoulder and tell him what to do.” As I sat talking with him, I said I can tell you that right now and I don’t have to tap your shoulder to do it. He asked me to clue him in so I said, “God wants you to live out your faith right now where you are.” All of those folks out there seeking some sort of religious or mystical experience just need to open their eyes and do what God commands in Scripture – be a Christ-follower, do what He says, and live your life to His glory. You don’t need a deep bass voice speaking from heaven to tell you that.

6. The church today is just as rigid as it ever was. We have fought the music wars and music lost. In most, but not all, Boomer churches attempts at changing to reach younger generations is met with just as much disdain and antagonism as they met in the 1960s and 1970s. Craig Bird said, “Many of today’s church leaders who as youth battled to get guitars and drums into the sanctuary now disdain Millennial innovations as irreligious.” Peter York said, “The church is as rigid today as it was in the 1960s. What do some of the younger generations want? Believe it or not, they want to sing some of the old songs of the faith. They might dress them up or change the arrangements, but they don’t disparage the songs their grandparents love.

Gen-Xers and Millennials also like the “feel” of candles and a sense of authenticity rather than show. It is said they don’t like mega-churches, but 10,000 gather every weekend to hear Rob Bell in his converted shopping mall in Michigan. Somehow that doesn’t compute. If my own daughter and son-in-law are any indication, they do like services that feel more personal, intimate, and close. Friends and connections mean a lot more to them than they do to me. That’s personality based. I have a few good friends, they have a lot of friends and they are close to them.

What am I saying? I’m saying that what goes around comes around. Boomers who prefer the professionalism of the contemporary mega-church fight their own children who want to introduce some of the “old things” back into worship. I’ve seen all this coming. I’ve wondered for years what will happen when the Boomers reach retirement age. Now I know! Churches need to change some of their methodology to reach a different generation – just as we do on the mission field – but they must never change the eternal message.

7. We’ve been fighting for a strong view of Scripture for years. Questioning the nature of Scripture isn’t something new to the Emergent Church. Whether it is the Liberals of the 19th Century or the Neo-Orthodox of the last Century, there are always those who misuse Scripture. Back in the 1970s, when I was in graduate school, we fought those who said, “The Bible contains the Word of God rather than the Bible is the Word of God.” There were those who said Genesis 1-11 was just story or myth. It’s only a short jump from such things to Genesis 1-11 is a metaphor. I don’t believe that and most Christians don’t either. Just as most believers weren’t fooled by Liberals or Neo-Orthodox, they won’t be fooled by those who today attempt to make the Bible a human product or simply a metaphor for life. Skeptics, rebels, and the foolishly misguided may succumb to such things but we’ll never be able to protect everyone. We have to preach the truth, hold Scripture as the inerrant Word of God, and reach those we can. Listen. I’m not saying we shouldn’t defend the Scripture, but those who want to wander off after foolish teaching are going to do it. We’re told not to throw pearls before the swine. There are too many lost people to get tied up arguing with a few who don’t want to see God’s Word as absolute objective truth.

Those of us in the Restoration Movement have something to offer today’s search for truth. We need to keep our heads on straight and refuse to allow ourselves to get distracted. What can we offer? Here’s a couple of thoughts.

1. We have always emphasized biblical theology (story) over systematic theology. Hey, I like systematic theology. I’m working on a book that is a popularized combination of systematic theology and evidences. Until 1960 most Bible Colleges in the Restoration Movement offered no courses in systematic theology at all. Instead, we studied The Scheme of Redemption by Robert Milligan or something similar. We generally taught Bible doctrine in Bible classes.

Now I know this isn’t the same as “the Bible as narrative,” but it could be. I think it is important to help people get a picture of God’s plan for redeeming man or, you could say, the scarlet thread that runs through the whole Bible.

2. We have always emphasized the ancient-future church. For more than 200 years we’ve been crying out that the way to unity is to return to a recognition of biblical authority. We just need to call out that it isn’t enough to return to the Second Century, we have to go back to the First Century. Our non-denominational, Christ-honoring plea shouldn’t get bogged down on needless details (except those that bring us into relationship with Christ or are clearly taught) and focus on returning to New Testament norms. Let me give you an example. It is clear in the New Testament that Elders were to guide the church. Paul outlined their character qualities (qualifications) in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Examples of their function permeate the Epistles and can be seen in Acts. Other than that, however, we aren’t given explicit directions on how to select these leaders or their relation to a church staff or a lot of other things for that matter. The trans-generational principle is that God wants Elders to oversee the church. The specifics on how that’s done he leaves to us. He wants us to “sing and make melody in our hearts,” but he doesn’t tell us if we should use an organ, piano, jews harp, or something else. (Contrary, of course, to what some of our brothers say.)

Mission Mistakes

2006-08-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

It came to my attention just this morning that Bruce Wilkinson is no longer with “Walk Thru the Bible.” Since there was nothing on the “Walk Thru” web site about Bruce, I was fearful he had died. Actually, he left “Walk Thru” hoping to fulfill a dream.

During a visit to Africa, the enormity of the AIDS crisis hit him hard and left him with an intense desire to get involved. He left “Walk Thru” and went to Swaziland, one of the areas hardest hit with the AIDS pandemic. Confident God would continue blessing him because of his ardent praying of the “Prayer of Jabez,” Wilkinson soon discovered his plan did not generate acceptance in this poor African country.

Although Wilkinson operated out of good motives, he made mistake after mistake simply because he failed to understand the African culture. Rejecting the advice of the U.S. Ambassador to Swaziland as well as Christian brethren, he forged ahead determined God would bless him and he would do a great work for God. The “Wall Street Journal” and numerous web sites chronicle what happened. Wilkinson’s dream shattered around him.

What were his mistakes?

1.     He invested almost magical qualities to the “Prayer of Jabez.” This little prayer, nestled among a listing of the descendants of Helah (1 Chronicles 4:9) calls on God to bless the prayer (Jabez) by enlarging his territory and keeping him from pain. Wilkinson attributed his fortuned earned from massive book sales to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling that prayer. In my opinion, he permitted that prayer to become a mantra and it became devalued by vain repetition.

2.     He failed to consider the African culture. Wilkinson asked for large parcels of land on which to build his “dream villages.” He did not take into consideration the fact that the nationals saw land as something of tremendous value. As a result, national leaders believed he was carving out a territory for himself rather than seeking bases of operation.

     Further, he wanted to take children orphaned by the AIDS virus away from their villages where they would be cared for. The African people saw that as a violation of their culture. If there is anywhere where “it takes a village” to nurture children, it is in Swaziland.

3.     He emphasized the secular rather than the spiritual. The emphasis was on dealing with AIDS first with little attention given to biblical evangelism. In some ways that was not a totally bad strategy, but when dealing with AIDS becomes the only emphasis, something is wrong with the agenda.

Now I am not a missiologist by any stretch of the imagination, but my own travels have taken me to Southeast Asia five times over the last seven years. As a result of those trips, I thought I understood the culture fairly well. This past trip proved me wrong. The Asian culture in which I work is so self-giving and others-oriented that it is easy to slight them with no intention. Let me give you just one example.

We spent three weeks in the Far East this spring. As we moved into the second and third week our stamina dramatically flagged. We were running out of steam. If my memory served me correctly, our tickets sent us back to the USA a day before most of the others. Several other team members decided to change their tickets and leave a day early. They had no responsibilities during that last day, so they decided to spend a day in Bangkok seeing the sights. Only later did we learn our hosts felt badly that so many decided to leave. It was merely sloppy thinking on our part. There was no desire to insult or offend, but because we failed to consider the cultural issues involved that was the result.

Bruce Wilkinson, like most Americans including those I travel with, thought every problem could be solved with an American solution. Although I think cultural understanding has to be a two-way street, I know that we Americans sometimes come across as believing our culture and our ways are superior. Perhaps in many cases they are, but in other cases they definitely are not. Many around the world desire the things and freedoms Americans enjoy, but they must come to realize that America’s plenty resulted from earlier spiritual commitments. (I know a lot of secular Americans would disagree with that last sentence, but I care not!) We must realize we can’t impose those commitments. They must be shared one individual to another. Then we must recognize that Christ’s redemption of an entire culture may shape that culture differently. Just as churches differ – even those in the same fellowship or denomination – cultures will differ in their expressions of the Gospel.

Leadership

2006-08-11T11:38:00.000-07:00

I’m writing this while sitting in the Worship Center of Christ’s Church of the Valley. It is break time during the 2006 Willowcreek Leadership Summit. There are something like 550 preachers and leaders present from Arizona and the surrounding area. I understand that Central Christian Church in Mesa is also hosting a simulcast.

This is the first such “summit” I’ve attended. I did so because I always want to learn and, possibly more importantly, because the church here paid my registration.

What are my impressions? Each speaker has provided valuable insights to leadership. What strikes me so far is that most of what they are sharing is common sense focusing on dealing with people. That’s not to say there aren’t some valuable insights I’ve gleaned from the presentations to this point. Let me comment on just two of them.

James Meeks, a Black preacher from Chicago, spoke about factors that keep churches from growing. Surprisingly, he did not focus on facilities as limiting factors. The limiting factors came mostly from personal perspectives. The one that hit me was the limitation created by unsure or uncertain leaders. This has been a particularly difficult point for me to swallow. I grew up in church cultures that said the elders were the church leaders and the preacher was in submission to them. In fact, since most ministers were transitory, the elders were the permanent leaders in a particular congregation. Meeks stressed that the preacher needed to be a leader and set the pace and cast the vision. Uncertainty about direction or vision in a preacher stifles growth primarily because the local leaders may not understand the change dynamics necessary to produce growth. I always hesitated to take that sort of stance because I didn’t want people to follow me but to follow Jesus. I failed to recognize what Paul said when he wrote, “Be followers of me as I am of Christ Jesus.” My friend Leland Griffin in Grand Junction always used to say, “People will follow someone so they might as well follow me.” I wish I had understood this years ago.

The other insight came from Jim Collins who said, “It is not what you achieve; it is what you contribute.” This is not a new insight for me, but it comes from a different perspective. The problem is, however, that you may never know what you contribute. Jim Dorman, a minister in Flagstaff, greeted me yesterday. I’ve known Jim since about 1980 and he’s done a great work for God. He reminded me that I gave him a book on discipleship by Juan Carlos Ortiz while at United Christian Youth Camp in Prescott, Arizona. That book impacted him. Sometimes contributing to the life and growth of a believer is as simple as giving away a book or expressing an encouraging word to someone. Jesus pointed out that anyone who gives a cup of water to someone thirsty has done it to Him. We so often think that tremendous achievement means significant contribution. That’s not always true. Sometimes it is the quiet caring and a demonstration of Christ’s love that is all that is required.

It is important, I think, to keep in mind that genuine biblical leadership is a function not a position. Leadership is marshalling others who together can do something great when they could not do so separately. It has nothing to do with the right structures, right names, or right this or that. It has everything to do with influence. That’s what John Maxwell says. I must confess that even though Maxwell doesn’t impress me much (I’m still determined to refute one of his irrefutable laws), I do agree with him in that.

A Few Personal Thoughts

2006-07-26T12:55:00.000-07:00

This summer has been a really busy time with tasks ranging from speaking at Family Camp West at Bison Ranch in the White Mountains to teaching two segments of "Training U" here at Christ's Church of the Valley. In addition to that, we've had several house guests. George Keenan, a new friend who resides in Turkey, stayed with us nearly a week and I got acquainted with him. Earlier, our good friends Bob and Peggy Kuest stayed with us while their adopted son, Scott, had heart surgery. Then we hosted Mark Moore, a professor from Ozark Christian College who participated in our summer "Training U" sequence. Among all that a cousin in Albuquerque came to Phoenix to visit Mayo Clinic and her brother and his family came from Portugal to visit us and do some camping in the "wild wild west."

George Keenan's visit multiplied my interest in taking a group to Turkey to visit the sites of the "Seven Churches of Asia" and a variety of Pauline sites as well. George operates Rainbow Tours -- Turkey and offers several economical tours. I'm looking forward to attempting to arrange such a tour in late 2007 or the spring of 2008. As a reader of this blog, if you think you might be interested in such a trip, simply add a comment to this page including your e-mail address.

My current projects include preparing a teaching workbook on Romans for this fall here at CCV. I am also writing the text of the outline I use for teaching "First Things First," my basic doctrines class. Oh, by the way, that outline has been translated into Burmese and as soon as funds are available it will be published for distribution overseas. I also have Part II of a small church history to write. It may be simplistic, but my thesis in this book is that the changes occurring to the church over time are the result of "unintended consequences." By that, I mean that most changes were not made to subvert the church but in response to the need of the moment. There is a lesson to learn from this. It is simply that many responses to need in our present cultural situation also inevitably produce unintended consequences. Those consequences result when the response to a need ends up being calcified and hardened into "the way we've always done it." Then, too, seeing the responses to need in the past some times produces a "sheesh" response in the present. I think primarily of the current trend toward establishing satellite churches. That's exactly what the second and third century church did and it led toward the ecclesiastical structure of the Roman and Greek churches.

Enough is enough for today.

Something to Think About

2006-07-09T23:05:00.000-07:00

Something I’ve been wrestling with for the past couple of weeks intrigues me. According to Romans 4, Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness. Does this mean Abraham’s faith resulted in his justification?

If so, then there are ramifications that need to be considered. Since justification is being declared innocent, can we say that Abraham was saved? If so, then God imputed righteousness to Abraham because of his faith and his faith saved him. This seems to match Paul’s argument in all of Romans as he says we are justified by faith.

Here’s something else to consider. Works did not save Abraham. Abraham’s faith led him to work. The same can be said of all the heroes of the faith considered in Hebrews 11. By faith, Abraham responded to God and left Ur of the Chaldees. By faith, Noah built an ark. Would I be correct to say that throughout all time, it was faith that justified men? In the Old Testament, then, those who had faith kept the Law. The Law didn’t save, but because of an explicit trust in God they obeyed him. Further, those who trusted God for their salvation observed the sacrificial system because it took blood to remit sin and each sacrifice pointed toward Jesus whose blood washes away all sin for those who trust God. At the same time, going through the motions without confidence in God was empty ceremonialism. Over and over, God warned the people not to trust in the ceremonies, the Law, or the sacrifices. According to the Word, obedience is better than sacrifice because obedience is borne of faith.

In other words, God had no Plan B for a person’s salvation. Regardless of what the Roman church or the Orthodox church taught, no work could ever possess any merit. As Jack Cottrell says so often, works are only what we ought to be doing anyway. Good deeds can’t save simply because as a creation of God, every human being belongs to him and owes him obedience. Only explicit faith (belief plus trust) can do that. The only text of this sort of faith is obedience borne of faith. Therefore, it is never faith plus works that save. It is, however, faith that leads to justification and is demonstrated in one’s obedience and upright acts (Ephesians 2:8-10).

If, and I’m just presenting a chain of thought here, faith results in justification and has done so throughout time, what is the relationship of justification and the presence of the Holy Spirit. You see, here is the rub! If the Old Testament saints were indeed justified, or saved, by their faith they were saved without the presence of the Holy Spirit. Why do I say that? It is because the Holy Spirit never indwelt anyone in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit “came upon” certain individuals to empower them for a task, but he never took up residence. Am I correct here? If so, then there is something remarkable to consider here.

Is it possible that God could justify a person prior to baptism without the immediate bestowal of the Holy Spirit? Alexander Campbell seemed to argue that a baptism was the formal indication of the remission of sins. Is it possible that the Holy Spirit takes up residence at the time God formally remits sin (see Acts 2:38 and Acts 5:32)? But is it also possible that a person is counted righteous by his or her faith?

If a person really, and I really mean really, had explicit trust in God, wouldn’t he or she do what God asked? Why would anyone who trusted Christ question the baptismal command? Why, if they truly trusted Jesus and his Word, wouldn’t they want to be baptized as soon as possible? Why would there be any argument? After all, the faith that justifies always leads to appropriate action!!

I’d really like feedback on this.

Jettison the Lord's Supper?

2006-06-28T14:21:00.000-07:00

I’d heard it in the rumor mill, but now it’s been confirmed. At least one Christian Church scrapped the weekly Lord’s Supper.

In the first of a two-part article entitled, “How Do They Grow?,” Paul Williams noted that Christian churches are increasingly identifying with the evangelical community at large. Then, commenting on this, he added, “Some large churches and several new churches are jettisoning the Lord’s Supper from the main worship gathering of their weekend services. (The first large church of influence to do so was Central Christian Church in Las Vegas, Nevada.)

Frankly, I found this disturbing.

Watch what is said above, though. Paul said these churches are jettisoning the Lord’s Supper from the main worship gathering….” I can picture the thought process leading to that decision:

The Lord’s Supper is designed for Christians to remember the Lord’s sacrifice for us.

The weekend services, especially Sunday morning, are the prime time for guests to attend.

Many of those visiting the services will not be Christian; others will come from fellowships unfamiliar with a weekly communion service.

Since 1) and 2) are true, the weekend services are primarily designed for “seekers.”

Services designed for “seekers” should not involve elements that unbelievers and the unchurched will find confusing.

Therefore, the Lord’s Supper should be jettisoned.

The communion should be offered outside the main service or at another time. Perhaps it would be offered in another part of the building or at a service specifically designed for believers.

It might be argued there is precedent for this in the early church. In the second and third centuries, the church dismissed the catechumens (those preparing to become Christians) prior to observing the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper). In those days, church leaders probably applied similar reasoning. Furthermore, as testified by Justin Martyr, portions of the Lord’s Supper were taken to those believers absent from the assembly.

For all of that “high minded” reasoning, there is still a hollow ring to it. Here’s why. If weekend services are the prime time for guests, they are also the prime time for Christians. Many, perhaps most, Christians will attend a gathering on the weekend and not return during the week for a second or third assembly time. Will the churches observing the Lord’s Supper at another time make sure those unable to attend will have the opportunity to receive the elements of the Lord’s Supper? I doubt it.

I recognize the Bible gives no express command for frequency or time of observance. Nonetheless, the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ have long observed a weekly communion for a good reason: it was apparently the precedent of the early church. Acts 2:42-44 and Acts 20:7 express ample precedent for a regular, even weekly, observance of the Lord’s Supper. Testimonies from sources outside Scripture, as noted above, help us understand the early church’s practice. Whatever happened to the principle that “apostolic precedence equals divine command?”

A few years ago, the church I was serving in Ohio withdrew their support – substantial support I might add – from a missionary. They did so for two reasons. First, the elders called upon him to implement a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper as done in Christian Churches. They saw this as an activity that identified the mission with the Restoration Movement and the Christian Churches. Second, when the missionary refused, they judged him guilty of insubordination and withdrew support. On the same basis, I wonder if they would withdraw recognition from Central Christian Church as a “real” Christian Church because of their decision to jettison the communion. I also wonder if it would make a difference if Central continued to offer communion to believers in the communion preparation room after each service.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to observe the Eucharist daily. Those groups continue to grow. It is required that a church hide what it holds to be the central truth of its confession in order to win the lost and unchurched? I don’t think so!

Hebrew or Hellenist?

2006-06-22T15:14:00.000-07:00

For years now we’ve been hearing about the dichotomy between Hebrew and Greek (Hellenistic) thought patterns. Yes, by all means, the Hebrew and Greek cultures were different. To some extent, culture does shape thought but it seems to me that when applied to understanding the Bible we must see the New Testament as a “cross-cultural” document written in Greek and thus shaped to some degree by the Hellenistic mindset.

In Josh McDowell’s and David Bellis’ recent book, The Last Christian Generation, you see this contrast brought up again. In the book, McDowell identifies many of the issues created by postmodern thinking and rightly recognizes that today’s younger generation has redefined concepts like toleration, truth, respect, acceptance, moral judgments, personal preference, personal rights, and freedom (see pp. 22-23). I wouldn’t begin to suggest that McDowell is off his rocker. In fact, he is “right on!” In my view, his critique of the postmodern generation is accurate to the letter.

When he begins the section entitled “A Blueprint to Rebuild the True Foundation of the Christian Faith,” he drops into the old saw about the difference between the Hebraic educational style and that of the Hellenists. In his assessment, he says, “Practically all of modern education, including that of most churches and Christian schools, employs a form of teaching based on a Hellenistic model of education” (p. 93). He then draws out the contrast between the two as follows:

Hellenistic
Greeks shaped much of how we think today about education and disseminating information and truth. Essentially, this Hellenistic approach is to present a student with rational and logical constructs of information that he or she is required to “learn.” To determine if the subject matter has in fact been learned, students are asked to regurgitate the information back to the teacher (p. 93).

Hebraic
The goal of the Hebrew model is not mere memorization of repeatable facts; the goal (as Moses made clear) is to live-out the truth. In this approach, truth is designed to lead to transformation. Truth in this educational approach is to be learned by practicing it in real life. … The question becomes not whether the student has the information correctly stuffed into his or her head, but rather “how has the truth transformed the student attitudinally and behaviorally” (pp. 93, 94, emphasis belongs to McDowell).

Now as far as I am concerned, this is all educational gobble-de-gook. It seems to me that the early church began using what McDowell calls the “Hellenistic” model in the second and third centuries. This was especially true in Alexandria, not known as the hotbed of Hebrew educational models. As the early church developed, it utilized catechisms (potential converts were called “catechumens”) and they “poured information into their skulls” so they would know the truth of the Gospel. As the church spread west, the educational methodology didn’t change much. Even today, the European model of education is based on independent research and “regurgitation” of certain facts to their professors. Students in primary and secondary schools must “regurgitate” what they’ve learned in tests. It’s been that way for centuries!

Why now, does McDowell, and others, make such a fuss about the difference between Hellenistic and Hebraic styles of education? After all, if you make those distinctions the church has utilized that style of education for nearly 2,000 years. Although I recognize that our kids haven’t “gone to Hell in a hand basket” of recent construction, things have indeed worsened in recent years.

The solution to the problem isn’t the erecting of an artificial wall between the Jews and the Greeks or arguing about which style of education is prevalent. The issue is whether or not, in any educational system, there is a strong distinction drawn between truth and falsehood (rightly defined). I know what McDowell is saying, and I agree with him. He says that because parents have the greatest influence upon the lives of their children, biblical truth must be caught from those Christian parents who live out their faith consistently and biblically.”

Instead, McDowell falls into the relational emphasis of the current generation. Yes, the Gen-X crowd is far more relational, but so was Europe for generations and that didn’t protect them from falling away. Let’s face it; in Europe – especially in the Eastern Bloc – the individual was less important than the community. What the relational crowd is saying is that the individual is less important than the community and it doesn’t matter whether that is the “Christian community” or any other community. It reflects a loss of individualism and stresses the submersion of the person into the community.

In my humble opinion, I don’t think you can lay the blame at the foot of some “style” of education. It is the result of numerous factors that have come together in today’s world that create difficulty for the nominal Christian. Let’s face it; we’ve lived with the lie of evolution for well over 200 years now. That lie is constantly drummed into our heads through the arts, the media, the secular classroom, and as many other places as there are places. You can’t even go to Epcot without having it drummed into your brain. Even though scientists know it is a lie, they perpetuate the myth of evolution for their own purposes.

Second, we have been living with a culture that says “self-actualization” is the epitome of success. Another term that could be used for “self-actualization” is “personal autonomy.” Again through almost every means, our culture transmits the idea that life’s goal is to be self-ruled. In is best expressed by the statement, “No one tells me what to do!” For most of our contemporary culture, that includes God!

Third, most of the problems have come about since our educational system left what McDowell called the “Hellenistic” system for that of John Dewey. Our schools, colleges, and universities no longer emphasize classical learning which places value on literature, history, languages, and the sciences, including theology, the Queen of the Sciences. Now education is measured by “outcome” and is intensely pragmatic. McDowell is right when he says we are a highly pragmatic culture and there has been a shift from “it works because it is true” to “it is true because it works.” I don’t think the blame for that rests before some Hellenistic pedagogue.

Way back in the Stone Age, when I was going to Bible College no one made the distinction between Hellenistic and Hebraic styles of learning. I was taught, however, that all truth had a “so what” component to it. Findley Edge (now that dates me) said with every teaching of biblical truth (or any other truth, for that matter), there needed to be an application! The application was how it impacted life. Does McDowell actually believe that all we’ve done is “impart to them cold theological facts about God that they can learn with their heads? (p. 94)” Well maybe some did! I’ll grant that, but to make such a generalization is inappropriate and unfair.

I teach Church History and Restoration History (history of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ). Teaching history can be dull and boring, I admit. That’s especially true when all the instructor wants is for the student to memorize names, dates, and places and regurgitate them on call. But I don’t teach history that way! I teach those things, but I also emphasize the “so what” factor. What can we learn from the past? How will those lessons impact our lives now and in the future?

In the past, classical liberalism taught that “if you know to do right, you will do right.” Hitlerian Germany revealed the lie in that. It’s all about the “so what.” Is there knowledge to impart? Are there facts to be recognized, retained, and considered? Should those facts make a difference in our lives? The answer to all these questions is, “Absolutely!” After all, Scripture does say, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he!”

Let’s quit all the stuff (I want to say “crap”) about the Hellenistic and Hebraic educational styles and stand up and say, “There is truth. It is real. There is only one way to God. Let’s point to Jesus as the way, the truth and the life.” Let’s commit to overcoming Political Correctness with truth! Let’s commit to standing up for what we believe without compromise. Let’s get away from all this multiculturalism and focus on the one personality we are to all emulate.

When we do that, we will find ourselves under an awful lot of pressure. You see, the early church said Jesus was the only way. They challenged the Political Correctness of the Roman Empire which kept the peace by universal toleration of everyone except those they judged intolerant. When Christians really believe the truth, it will bring pressure. I just hope somebody can face it!

I'm Still Here!

2006-06-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

Last weekend concluded my first half of the doctrinal study I’ve been working on for over 10 years. All things considered, the study went very well. Several of those enrolled have already signed up for the next sequence in July. I’ve been teaching the same thing in my SAM’s Class (Senior Adults) and I raised a few eyebrows in my lessons on the Holy Spirit. I told them up front I had a few “Hines heresies” and would probably say a few things differently from anything they’d heard regardless of their background, including those from Restoration Movement churches. (I am, after all, an equal opportunity annoyer.)

I was a bit disappointed in the enrollments for the first sequence of the classes I offered. I tried an experiment by having classes Friday evening and Saturday morning for two weekends. It didn’t seem to work too well. It may be that too many want to head for the cooler hills on Friday and Saturday. It may also be unfamiliarity with several of the teachers. It may be that it was a break in what they were used to. All in all, I was disappointed but not discouraged. This fall, I’ll offer sessions for six weeks on a week night and I’ll still offer at least one “weekend intensive.”

For some of my readers who thought I’d have to compromise my convictions when I came here, I want you to know I have not done so. I do recognize, however, that those attending Christ's Church of the Valley come from all kinds of backgrounds. I teach with the same spirit I used in Canton, Ohio, and elsewhere. I always present doctrinal teaching derived from reason or inference, whether coming from deduction or induction, with love. I do the best I can to evidence a humble spirit while presenting firmly what I believe is biblical truth. I guess I’m just too much of a Restorationist, for I continue to hold on to Thomas Campbell’s Proposition 7 from his famous “Declaration and Address.” (If you don’t know what that says, look it up. If you have trouble understanding it, search for Knofel Staton’s paraphrase.)

It is good practice to remember “we are not the only Christians, we are Christians only.” I think A. Campbell was right when he said there were only two things required to become a Christian: 1) The belief of one essential fact and 2) the submission to one essential act. (You know what those are!) It is wise to understand there are all sorts of stupid ideas out there about a lot of things in Scripture. I’m sure you and I even possess a few of them! Item number two always seems to be a “bug bear.” Yet Carl Ketcherside used to say, “Even if others don’t know what baptism is all about, God does!” Carl is right, and our relationship with God doesn’t depend on our full understanding but our compliance to Christ’s commands. We all have different perspectives, but if we are teachable we can listen. I don’t worry too much about those who have different ideas, but I hope they are teachable and will test what I say against Scripture. After all no one answers to me; everyone answers to God. He alone is the only qualified judge.

Do I agree with everything I hear? No! But I didn’t agree with everything at Canton either. Furthermore, I didn’t agree with everything at what was then First Church of Christ in Boise (a far more conservative congregation than most) either. I do agree that Jesus is the Christ. I do agree that he put us here to make disciples, to baptize them into Christ, and to teach them to observe all things.

Nothing in my belief system has changed! There is one thing that has changed, however. I’m working harder than I have for a long time.

My experience at the movie

2006-06-01T16:36:00.000-07:00

I came away from The DaVinci Code, the movie, thinking to myself: This movie is more deceptive than the book.

Some of you who braved it, saw the movie and probably came away thinking it was much to-do about nothing. Perhaps you got caught up in the story and didn’t keep your “filters” on to evaluate what you saw and heard. I suppose some of you found the whole 2 hours and 29 minutes as somewhat boring.

I didn’t!

Just like the book, for me the story line was captivating. For conspiracy theorists, the movie (and the book) was the epitome of conspiracy theories. A corrupt and power hungry Catholic Church determined to keep a world-changing secret to the extent that murder and mayhem was common place. A beautiful “descendant” of Jesus and a researcher (Tom Hank’s character) who did his best to keep his head while assenting to the reality of the historian’s dilemma.

That’s where the rub came in for me! The movie toned down some of the blatant anti-Christian and anti-Catholic rhetoric, but the sentiments were there nonetheless. Robert Langdon’s responses to Teabing’s assertions were weak and half-hearted attempts to tone down the language, but at best he sounded like a member of the Jesus Seminar. His weak protests as Teabing unraveled his story hardly satisfied the viewer with questions. In fact, they were so weak they made Teabing’s arguments sound all the more reasonable. That’s deceptive. Langdon, a symbologist and ersatz historian, would have had knowledge that raised stronger objections than presented. Why even liberal scholar Bart Ehrman did better than that!

I don’t want to overplay this, but I did hear people talking about the movie as I came out of the theater. Their questions and the discussions I overheard indicated they had some real questions about the history of the church. Without someone to help them, it will be easy for them to come to the wrong conclusions. After all, Brown, who was involved in the movie’s production, still maintains that much of what he wrote is based on fact. In fact, there are lines in the movie that acknowledges and anticipates the attacks on the movie and book by biblical and historical scholars. That makes it even more deceptive as well.

Let’s consider that for a moment. It is a fact there were finds at Nag Hammadi, but they weren’t exactly what Brown said they were. Opus Dei does exist, but it isn’t what he said it was. The Templars were a monastic order formed during the Crusades, but they didn’t do what he said they did. The Gnostic gospels do exist, but they don’t portray the Jesus he says they do. There really was a Priory of Sion, but it wasn’t formed when he said it was and there is no evidence to the contrary. The French police do exist, but given their track record, I doubt they are as aggressive as those portrayed in the book and the movie. There really is a glass pyramid at the Louvre, but the number of glass panes is off in Brown’s book. The paintings he describes exist, too, but there are some important size differences as well as other qualities that he twists for his own purposes. Fact! Well, yes, if a half-truth (no, an eighth-truth) is fact then I suppose you could say that. But a half-truth told with the intent to deceive is still a lie!

One More Thought on The DaVinci Code

2006-05-23T10:54:00.000-07:00

Now that the movie is out and seemingly doing well at the box office, permit me one more observation about the book and the movie. It is interesting, though; that the critics are panning it and my friends who have seen the movie say it is tiresome.

Dr. Jim Garlow visited us (Christ's Church of the Valley) for a presentation on Dan Brown’s controversial work. Garlow holds a Ph.D. in Church History and he knows his stuff. The problem I saw during his presentation is that those hearing him without a Church History background received a lot of information in a short time. It was like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant.

Garlow pointed out that the book left many believers confused and some abandoned the faith because of it. He contended the movie could do greater damage. While I haven’t yet seen the movie, I think he’s right. In spite of the fact that some of the overtly anti-Christian rhetoric is toned down, enough subtle information comes across that can do a lot of damage.

Why do I think it can do so much damage? It is because most Christians are as historically illiterate as they are biblically illiterate. That’s not true just of the man and woman in the pew! Many church leaders hardly know more than the average Christian. All too many endured Church History in college and seminary thinking it was all about the theology of a bunch of dead guys. The man or woman in the pew endured courses in Western Civilization. They all too often slept through the boring lectures on the uniting of the Roman Empire under Constantine. As a result, they are at the mercy of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who turns Constantine into history’s “bad guy.” Writers like Dan Brown do pseudo-history and blatantly lie about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea and no one is the wiser. Brown can lie about the beginnings of Opus Dei because no one cares when it was actually founded. He can lie about the Templars because only a few know who or what they were. Adolf Hitler said, “If you tell a lie big enough and often enough it will be believed.”

I appreciated the fact that Garlow took the position that the book and the movie present a myriad of opportunities for Christians to “give a reason for the hope that lies within them” (1 Peter 3:15). But … you have to understand the reason for the hope! Somewhere somehow someone has to absorb some biblical and historical content in order to be able to share the truth when confronted with lies.

Oh, by the way! I’m convinced that most of our troubles in this country worsened when we stopped teaching history in the public schools. Contemporary “Social Studies” programs instill a mediocre – if that – understanding of who settled his continent, why it was settled, and how our country came to be. At North Canton (OH) Hoover High School which is one of the top schools in northeast Ohio, only advanced placement students took more than a rudimentary introduction to history. According to the school superintendent, “It just doesn’t seem to fit a program designed to help a young person make a living.”

Philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” We – the church and the nation – are reaping what we’ve sown!

Boycotts and Hunger Strikes Confront Movie

2006-05-16T16:35:00.000-07:00

It’s here! But not without trouble blowing in the wind.

According to Fox News, protests regarding “The DaVinci Code” are springing up around the world. Catholics and Protestants alike are promising boycotts, hunger strikes, and public protests. I’ve not heard much about such goings on here in the good ol’ USA, but they will probably happen.

I have mixed feelings about such protests. The truth is: “Bad news is better than no news at all!” I’m afraid these actions may serve only to promote the movie and the book inspiring it. I plan to go see it as soon as some of the furor dies down, not because I like the idea portrayed in the movie but because I want to know how it compares with the book. The book was a real “page-turner,” and the movie is sure to be a blockbuster.

There is something bugging me, however. Every time I go to Barnes & Noble I see more books on subjects like “The DaVinci Code.” Authors taking their cues from Dan Brown are writing all sorts of trash about Jesus, the Gnostic writings, a supposed Gospel of Judas, and more. By the way, I guess if Judas wrote a gospel that means he didn’t commit suicide as described in Scripture. If that’s the case, then the Bible is wrong and we can’t know what to believe. As I stopped by the bookstore just today, I saw books about the myth of Christ, secrets of the Templars, Mary Magdalene, and a lot more. As I looked over all those books, I thought, It seems like Satan is waging an all out attack on the credibility of Scripture right now!

I think there is one positive about this entire if we “play our cards right.” Over the last several decades, American Christians drifted into a contentless emotional faith based on feelings. Truth is defined as “what is true for me.” That kind of “truth” is usually based on feelings as opposed to what can be verified by objective evidence.

Dan Brown’s book and the movie are driving us back to the objective evidence for Jesus and the church. It is high time, too! Brown’s work is raising all kinds of questions that can’t be answered by “how you feel” at any given moment. Just because following Jesus gives you a “spiritual high” doesn’t tell you whether or not he was human or divine or both. It can’t tell you if the resurrection occurred or whether Jesus was a real person who lived in space and time. Only evidence can do that. Maybe Jesus can give you a “spiritual high,” but so can mushrooms! There is a huge difference between a drug-induced high, a meaningless spiritual high, and the reality that Jesus is God demonstrated by his resurrection from the dead.

Maybe … just maybe … the potential confusion this book and movie could create will cause the church to realize the importance of “sound doctrine” once again. While we don’t want to minimize the importance of relating Scripture to every day life, there really are core truths that Christians must understand, accept, and pass on to others.

Let’s wait and see the outcome of all of this. The movie may flop (not likely, but it’s possible). Perhaps the initial stir it all creates will quickly disappear as believers share the truth with the many questioners coming out of the theaters.

Just something to think about!

Get Ready for "The DaVinci Code"!

2006-05-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Nineteen days from now Ron Howard’s movie, The DaVinci Code, hits the theaters. With Tom Hanks in the lead role, the movie is bound to be a blockbuster. Frankly, I’m looking forward to it! The book was “a real page turner.” At the same time, I know it is going to raise a storm of criticism on one hand and a lot of questions on the other.

God providentially let me prepare for the release of the movie. Knowing it was coming, I began looking for resources a long time ago. One of the best books was Dr. Jim Garlow’s, Cracking the DaVinci Code. I bought and read that book with interest. Garlow is a historian and was able to shed a lot of light on Dan Brown’s mistaken understanding of the Nag Hammadi Library and Gnostic writings in general. Garlow, a Wesleyan Methodist, presents a defense for traditional Christianity from the perspective of a conservative Christian.

Written from the perspective of one who accepts much of the liberal critical scholarship, Dr. Bart Ehrman’s work, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, scathingly repudiates Brown’s book. I purchased Ehrman’s book at one of the local Barnes & Noble stores along with his Lost Christianities. When I picked up Ehrman’s book on the DaVinci Code, I fully expected him to support Brown. Imagine my surprise when I found him rejecting Brown and his book. Ehrman is a historian who understands early Christian history. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised.

It seems, then, that both those who accept some of the current critical theories and those who reject them out of hand reject Brown’s assertions.

Now let’s admit one thing. In spite of Brown’s comment on the “fly leaf” that a list of things is fact, what he says about them is fiction. There is in the Catholic Church an organization known as Opus Dei. It is not, however, what Brown says it is. There was an ancient militaristic monastic order known as the Templars, but they did not do what Brown says they did. There were amazing discoveries of Gnostic writings at Nag Hammadi in the late 1940s, but they do not say what Brown says they tell us about Jesus. There were documents discovered in caves above the Dead Sea in 1947 (not the 1950s as Brown says), but they tell us absolutely nothing about Jesus. So, while many of the places, organizations, and so on are real places; Brown treats them fictionally. His book is a book of murder, mystery, intrigue, and conspiracy; it is not historical fiction!

Dr. Garlow encourages people to see the movie. He also encourages you to take unsaved friends with you. Then, after the movie, spend time discussing it. That means you have to be understand where and how Brown twists history to suit his fictional purpose. Here at Christ’s Church of the Valley, we intend to screen a response to the movie on Wednesday, May 24. By then the buzz will be underway and people can view the video presentation then remain for Q&A. I will moderate and answer as many questions as I can.

For those of you wondering about resources, let me direct you to a couple of possibilities. Lee Strobel’s website at http://www.leestrobel.com/ has a lot of good stuff. D. James Kennedy will air a documentary May 13, 14 on “The Coral Ridge Hour.” More information at http://www.coralridge.org/. Check out the Worldnet Daily website at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ for a link to a documentary done on what was once PAX TV. You can also go to www.ionline.tv/specials. Josh McDowell has a book out and a handy downloadable personal study at http://www.truefoundations.com/. McDowell’s stuff has a 3-part sermon series and notes, multi-media presentation, and more for approximately $50. Jeff Bigelow has a downloadable sermon you can get at www.preachingstandard.com/private/resourceprint.asp?id=209.

Well, I hope this all helps.

LET'S TALK IMMIGRATION

2006-04-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

It seems like everyone is talking about immigration these days. A couple of weeks ago, there was a 100,000 person march here in Phoenix in support of assimilating illegal immigrants into our culture and citizenship. I have just a few thoughts about the topic.

First, Immigrants built the United States. Most of those who made the greatest contribution to our nation and our culture came into the United States legally. I suppose the Native Americans (who really aren’t native either) living on this continent in the 14th and 15th Centuries could claim those first Europeans were “illegal aliens.” Other than that, it was Europeans who settled the United States both before and after it became a nation. It was those early settlers, particularly in the southern colonies, who purchased Africans to work the indigo and do unpleasant work as “permanently indentured servants.” By 1800 importing slaves was illegal but smugglers got some into the country nonetheless. Throughout the rest of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century, waves of immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, Italy, and southeastern Europe. Many of those immigrants came into the United States with the idea they would make their fortune and return to their homeland. It took at least two generations before their children began abandoning their European languages and culture for that of their new homeland.

My point in this is two-fold. First, those who came into the country legally then and now make tremendous contributions to our culture, economy, and way of life. Second, we need to give immigrants time to assimilate.

Second, illegal immigration can eventually destroy an empire. In it’s hey day, the Roman Empire ruled from North Africa to the Danube River and from the Atlantic to the borders of the Persian Empire. Roman legions protected the borders, roads, sea lanes, and made travel and trade possible. By the third century AD, however, the Empire was unable to recruit sufficient citizen soldiers to maintain a level of force needed to sustain its mission. As a result, barbarians from the north began crossing into the Empire from the north. Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals began making their homes on land given up by Romans who could no longer make it productive and profitable. Many of these “invaders” had better morals, better work habits, and a better worldview. By the way, most of them were Christians albeit a variety of Christendom not looked upon with favor. They were Arian Christians identified with a man named Arius who was judged as a heretic.

In time, some of these “illegal aliens” made their way into the Roman army. Adding to their numbers were other barbarian mercenaries hired to complement Roman citizen-soldiers so they could fulfill their mission.

Invasion of barbarian armies began in the late fourth century. Visigoths invaded in the east and were eventually put down by the Roman army under the leadership of a barbarian mercenary general named Stillicho. At the same time, however, Burgundians invaded the western portion of the empire. Stilicho’s forces were spread too thin to be able to handle both invasions. Honorius, the Roman emperor, accused Stillicho of duplicity and treason. Stilicho was eventually assassinated in a plot that served only to turn barbarian mercenaries against the empire. In AD 410, Alaric invaded the empire and sacked Rome. Many historians date the fall of Rome to the date of its sack in AD 410.

Here’s the thing! Most of those who slipped across the border into Rome and took up farming or other honest occupations weren’t the problem. They wanted a “slice of the Roman pie.” Life was better in the Roman Empire than it was in the cold northern climates from which they came. At the same time, in spite of their desire to partake of the empire’s benefits, they were a potentially volatile population. Their volatility reared itself in the face of “perceived Roman rejection and persecution” resulting in the empire’s destruction.

Now let’s bring this up to the present.

The founding fathers of this nation believed the new nation would be “a city on a hill.” Within a few years of the founding of this nation, many believed it was the “manifest destiny” of the United States, not to rule the world, but to spread its ideal of a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people” worldwide or a least on this continent. They believed millions would be drawn to this land because of its freedoms and its opportunities. Yet they believed there needed to be an orderly way for others to become part of the American Dream. The government adopted its immigration laws and policies to bring that to reality.

That doesn’t mean there weren’t problems. Unless first generation immigrants had sufficient money to move inland and take up farming, they ended up in the cities where they were looked down upon as poor, ignorant, and even more damning, Catholic. Workers looked down upon these poor people because they willingly worked for lower wages. Protestants looked upon them with suspicion because they were Catholic. Occasional outbreaks of violence accompanied the distrust and suspicion creating problems. In time and with a good measure of determination and hard work, these immigrants settled in, became successful, and were considered good Americans. In some cases, the adversity of war (The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and so on) earned them a place. They learned English, became productive, and contributed much.

In recent years, we’ve gained much from immigrants from India, Vietnam, other Asian countries, and from Cuba and Hispanics who came here legally.

Today, however, we live in different times. We live in an era of cultural and moral relativism. One culture or way of life is seen as no better or worse than any other. To some extent, I suppose there is some validity to that. When I go to Asia, I don’t present myself as coming from a superior culture. I’ve learned to see some genuine values in the Christian culture of Myanmar (that culture practiced by Christians). But I can tell you this: Most of those who live in Myanmar yearn for the freedoms we enjoy, the rights we take for granted, and the standard of living that increases their life span, their well-being, and their opportunities for sharing the Gospel. If I were to go there permanently, I would expect to learn the Burmese language and that of the people I plan to serve. In this country, however, we have taken this idea to idiotic extremes. We no longer expect those coming into the country to learn English, adapt to American customs, and assimilate into the culture.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear. I do not care if you speak Vietnamese, Spanish, German, or Latvian at home. I do care that you are unwilling to learn the language of your new country so you can become a part of its multi-ethnic population. I do not care if you want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Mardigras, Bastille Day, or May Day with your friends. I do care if you expect everyone else to do so. I don’t even care if you want to eat Lute Fisk, Blood Pudding, or Curried Mutton. I do care if you think everyone should do it. I don’t care if you are black, red, white, or brown as long as you are an American (I’d really like to say Christian here, but I believe in freedom of religion no matter how stupid other religions are).

As long as this nation permits illegal immigration to occur on our porous borders and we continue this silly multiculturalism, we are following in the same footsteps of the Roman Empire. Instead of those who would take over our farms, trash hauling, and landscaping businesses, though, we may wake up one morning to the news there is a mushroom cloud over one of our major cities. For you see, in our day there is a possibility that someone with a suitcase nuke could infiltrate our borders along with that Mexican worker who only wants a better way of life for his family. Not only that, but citizens will continue to experienced increased taxation as a nation of illegals continues to drain welfare and public assistance budgets.

Well, that’s my take on it. Immigrants enriched this nation, but let’s continue to “do it right.” Let’s protect our borders and, at the same time, welcome those who choose to make their home with us. Let’s learn from them and welcome the good things they bring us. Like the engineers and doctors from India, the mathematics whizzes from Asia, or even the baseball players from the Dominican Republic, let’s help them realize what it means to be an American.

Oh, by the way! Christians, let’s do all we can to help them discover the lordship of Christ while we’re at it. Do you realize that one of the greatest foreign mission fields in the world is right here at home?

BIBLICAL WORSHIP

2006-04-13T11:48:00.000-07:00

Patternists, those who seek a New Testament pattern for the church, have for years attempted to see a biblical pattern for worship. Alexander Campbell dealt with this in the Millennial Harbinger, disavowing Acts 2:42 as the blueprint the early church followed for worship. Last summer, Lee Mason, the current editor of The Restoration Herald hinted at the same idea. I know I might be wrong, but after considerable thought I’ve decided there is no biblical model for corporate worship in the New Testament.

Let’s think about that for a while!

In the Old Testament worship occurred at a place. Worship always involved an altar and sacrifice. In fact, I think I can safely say there was no worship without sacrifice. Once Moses led Israel from Egypt, God revealed to Moses an entire system of worship focused on the altar at the Tabernacle. The “Tent of Worship,” as it was sometimes called, was a moveable temporary structure. All Israel looked forward to the time when the focus of worship would be in a permanent location. Once David established Jerusalem as his capital, he yearned to erect a permanent Temple. Because he was a “man of war,” God permitted him to assemble the building materials but he was not allowed to build the Temple. That remained for Solomon to do. Once Solomon completed and dedicated the Temple, all worship took place there. In fact, no worship took place outside the Temple confines.

At this juncture, I have to say that there was no single “day of worship” set aside in Israel. Since worship involved sacrifice, Israelites could worship at the Temple every day. The priests sacrificed animals for a variety of reasons every day. They slaughtered so many animals that there were specially constructed drains to permit most of the blood to flow away from the Temple area. You see, worship involved sacrifice!

The Sabbath day was not set aside as a day of worship. It was, instead, a day of rest. The fourth commandment, as recorded in Exodus 20, reads as follows: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:10, 11). Deuteronomy 5 repeats this commandment focusing on the Sabbath as a day of rest. The Jews also observed other Sabbaths, or holidays when normal work did not occur. These days might take place during festivals or other special days, but they weren’t days of worship. Neither were the numerous festivals and feasts days of worship. Those were days of commemoration and remembrance designed to keep specific events in their minds and hearts. Worship happened during those special days as the priests offered sacrifices, but the festivals themselves weren’t truly worship. The Day of Atonement was an exception to the rule. On the Day of Atonement, the priests offered a special sacrifice for the people’s sins and the High Priest took blood from that animals and sprinkled it on the mercy seat. That day was a day of worship because the whole purpose was the atoning sacrifice offered to God to expiate the people’s sins.

In 586, Nebuchadnezzar created a crisis for the Jews when his armies destroyed the Temple, stopped the sacrifices, and deported many of the people. Until Ezra and Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem with Cyrus’ blessing, there was no worship. Without sacrifice there is no worship!

It is during those years of the Babylonian Captivity that we see the rise of the Synagogue. Wherever ten Jewish men wished to gather together they could establish a Synagogue. Gatherings at Synagogue were not worship assemblies. The Synagogue was a means of preserving the Jewish heritage and traditions. Because the Sabbath was a day of rest, the stoppage of work for a day served as a natural time for gathering together to hear the reading of the Book, to discuss the meaning of the passage read, and in general to recall their tremendous history as God’s special people. I’m sure they yearned for the day when they could return to the holy city and rebuild the Temple and restore the sacrifices so they could worship.

It was also during the time of the captivity that the “teachers of the law” and the Hasidim, who many think eventually became the Pharisees, began to emphasize obedience to the law. After all, Samuel once said, “To obey is better than to sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22). Since sacrifices could not be offered, these teachers taught that the people’s obedience was preferable to sacrifice. It was a moot point, however, because there was no place to sacrifice!

When Cyrus, king of Persia, permitted the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, they rebuilt the Temple. Sadly, however, it had little of the glory and beauty possessed by Solomon’s Temple. It was, however, the place of sacrifice. Those who returned to the land could once again worship. Jews everywhere desired to travel to Jerusalem at least once in their lifetime so they could worship. The Synagogue continued its role as the place for teaching the Torah and where those scattered Jews could retain their traditions and heritage. Worship did not occur at Synagogue, worship required sacrifice.

Later Herod the Great began a tremendous reconstruction and beautification project on the Temple. If memory serves me correctly, that project had been underway some 40 years when Jesus began his ministry. It continued for even more years until it was completed in AD 66.

When Jesus lived and walked among us, he said something interesting to an adulterous woman at a well in Samaria. During that conversation, the woman, in an attempt to divert attention from herself, asked, “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain. But you Jews say that people must worship in Jerusalem” (John 4:20). Jesus replied, “Believe me. A time is coming when you Samaritans won’t be worshiping the Father on this mountain or in Jerusalem” (John 4:21). It is a good thing the disciples were gone on a quest for dinner because Jesus tells this woman that a time is coming when worship could take place anywhere because true worship is accomplished “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). To suggest that worship could take place somewhere other than in Jerusalem would have “raised their eyebrows” for sure! You see, worship required sacrifice.

For the Jews, the worst possible scenario unfolded in AD 70. The Roman armies under Titus assembled outside Jerusalem’s walls. This took place during the last days of an ill-advised rebellion against the world’s superpower of that day. After a six month siege, Titus breached the walls, slaughtered the inhabitants, and destroyed the Temple. They fulfilled Jesus words to the letter, “You see all these buildings (the temple buildings)? I can guarantee this truth: Not one of these stones will be left on top of another. Each one will be torn down” (Matthew 24:2). From that day to this, only the wailing wall, a portion of the temple court’s west wall, remains. It is a place of prayer; it is not a place of worship.

Why have I gone into all this? It is simple. In my view, what occurs on Sunday is not necessarily worship. There is no New Testament pattern for the gatherings that take place on that day.

You see, worship requires a Temple and sacrifice. Is there such a thing in these New Testament times? Absolutely!

You, individually and collectively, are God’s Temple. Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Living stones comprise God’s contemporary Temple. These stones are laid upon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets with Jesus, the stone the builders rejected, who is the chief cornerstone. God’s Temple is not a place, it is a people. Those people exist in Myanmar, Thailand, Russia, China, the United States, and in almost every other nation in the world.

Since worship requires sacrifice, is there sacrifice. Yes, but it is not the blood of bulls and goats. Paul describes a different kind of sacrifice: “Brothers and sisters, because of God’s compassion toward us, I encourage you to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, dedicated to God and pleasing to him. This kind of worship is appropriate for you” (Romans 12:1).

Your acceptable sacrifice is the giving up of your life to become like Christ. It is a sacrifice you offer at work on Monday, with your family Tuesday evening, in your small group whenever it meets, in the weekend assembly, or giving up something you desire in the flesh for the growth of your spirit. Sacrifice is giving up what you cannot keep to gain what you cannot lose. Sacrifice is putting Christ and His Word first in your life. Sacrifice is taking self off the throne of your life and making Christ Lord! Sacrifice is giving up your preferences so others can come to know Jesus as King. Such sacrifice is rooted in a love for God and an intimate relationship with Jesus. Sacrifice is setting aside your will to obey God, for obedience is an exhibition of sacrifice.

Why do we gather together in assemblies we call church? Is it to worship. Worship can occur in such gatherings, but it isn’t neatly tied up in a package called “praise music.” You see, you can worship anywhere at any time. You don’t need music! You don’t need prayer. You don’t need an offering. The purpose of coming together is “to encourage each other even more as we see the day of the Lord coming” (Hebrews 10:25). In a sense, these assemblies fulfill the same role as the Synagogue -- they help us maintain our heritage, remember our traditions, teach sound doctrine, and provide biblical guidance for facing life situations. In our culture, these assemblies also become tools to reach others with the good news that Jesus changes lives. Whether these assemblies are thousands strong or six individuals gathered in someone’s front room is irrelevant. The real issue is, do they encourage, build up, and inspire personal sacrifice for Christ and the church?

We tend to get wrapped up and bent out of shape over how various congregations do things. Culture guides most of the things done in these gatherings. When I grew up in the Midwest, few considered dancing appropriate in church buildings let alone the assemblies. In Thailand, however, my experiences there lead to the conclusion that dance is an expression of love and praise for God. While we sing some of the old standard hymns in Myanmar, since our mission teams encouraged them to write music for their own culture we’re seeing more and more unfamiliar tunes in the gatherings there. Every assembly, however, memorializes the Lord’s death, teaches biblical truth, and challenges the believers to daily sacrifice for Jesus. Is that worship? I suppose you can call it that, but technically it is the believers’ daily sacrifice that constitutes worship. Does it really matter whether we offer an invitation, sing Gaither praise music, or make sure only men serve the Lord’s Supper? Does it matter if we gather on a night or day other than Sunday? We gather on Sunday because of the example of the early church, but they gathered together far more often than that.

Keep in mind that genuine worship requires sacrifice! How are you worshiping these days?

IT FEELS LIKE CORPORORATE AMERICA

2006-04-04T14:50:00.000-07:00

Christian Standard’s annual “Megachurch” issue reached our workroom today. The editors have now broken down the listing into two segments: Megachurches (2,000-plus weekly) and Emerging Megachurches (1,000-1,999 weekly). I’m sure this is due to the fact that those in the church world who measure this sort of thing see a megachurch as 2,000 or more in weekly attendance.

Having been on the staff of the second largest megachurch in Christian Standard’s listing, I can say that there is nothing liberal theologically about this megachurch! I’ve been told that Christ's Church of the Valley is the “boil on the butt of the Restoration Movement,” but I just don’t see it. I see men and women who are committed to simple biblical Christianity. I see men and women who care about the lost. I see men and women who live by Restoration Movement slogans and refuse to short-change biblical essentials while allowing great latitude in the non-essentials. Keep in mind, however, that I’ve been told that CCV is effectively “taking me in” and warping me! But you know what? I’m still teaching the same things I taught at First Christian Church in Canton, OH; at First Church of Christ in Boise, ID; at Westwood-Cheviot Church of Christ in Cincinnati. I still believe all the things I learned from Jack Cottrell, Lewis Foster, “Wilkie” Winter, James North, and Harold Ford. My only greater loyalty is to the Lord and his Word!

There is one thing I notice more here than anywhere else I’ve been. Serving in such a large church feels like what it must be like working in corporate America. This place is huge! I sit up in the theater seats and watch 2000 to 3000 assemble for worship and wonder why God would put me in a place like this. I have a whole lot more to keep in mind than I did even in Canton, a congregation averaging 2200 at the time. You have to plan farther in advance. You struggle to promote your program simply because it must compete with hundreds of other programs many of which have a higher priority because they reach out to the lost. You wrestle with scheduling issues because there are only so many good places to meet on campus. Then there are production issues, food service or refreshment issues, technical issues, and so much more. It is actually mind boggling when you stop and think about it.

You feel like you’re in corporate America, too, because change is constant. We’re introduced to new faces almost every week. Men and women who’ve been working in one area transition to another. God calls some away to work with churches in other areas. One staffer left not long ago to work in New Orleans taking Christ to those ravaged by Katrina. Other staff members disappear for a time and then reappear because they’ve gone to Asia, the Dominican Republic, Peru, or any number of other places. In addition to the 28 ministerial staff, there are assistants, accountants, event personnel who set up and take down for activities, custodians, and thousands (yes, thousands) of volunteers! There are even security details assigned to whoever is preaching, watching over our facilities, and assuring the safety of guests. With more than 11,000 attending each weekend you can be assured there are more than a few kooks who make threats or attempt to break up services. Sometimes it is a zoo and you’re not sure who is on the wrong side of the bars.
There are so many things attached to being in a big church like this that you might be tempted to “keep it small and pure.” Things get really messy here because we reach so many people who’ve never been in church a day in their lives. Others come to us from dysfunctional churches and they need help. We get denominational people who think this place is a bit strange because its not tied to some headquarters somewhere.

One major difference between this place and most of corporate America is the accessibility of the leadership. Although I may not see the senior minister for weeks, I know that if I need to I can see him … and I don’t have to be ushered through a series of fancy offices to do it either.

These are just some random thoughts, but I thought I’d share them with some of my brothers and sisters who think I’ve “gone liberal” or “strange.” Just remember, Thomas Campbell taught that we are free to use expedients as long as they are truly expedient. All too many of our churches confuse expedients with essentials. Too many of my brethren think God inspired the methods our forefathers used rather than the Word that reveals God to us.

OUR 2006 ASIA TRIP

2006-03-20T14:37:00.000-07:00

My wife and I left for Southeast Asia February 23. After flying to Los Angeles, we flew China Air first to Taipei, then to Chiang Mai, Thailand. We arrived safely, but our luggage did not. China Air found it safely on the ground in Los Angeles so it took three days for it to arrive in Chiang Mai where we could pick it up. The airline provided us with $100 which permitted us to buy some clothing and personal hygiene products. Our friends in Thailand were more than happy about that as endured the daytime heat.

We were originally scheduled to work in a Leadership Seminar in the village of Phomadang and I was to speak at Lanna Christian College in the city. It is not unusual for schedule changes to occur and so we were prepared (sort of) for the inevitable changes. My wife ended up with little to do, but I left with Bob Kuest, our team leader, and Ahtapa Sinlee, our Thai host, for Nong Khai on the Mekong River in northeastern Thailand. A Christian from the Hmong tribe arranged for a seminar with Laotian Christian leaders. About 36 wonderful Laotian Christians braved the threats of persecution and difficulties of travel to meet with us at a Catholic vocational school outside Nong Khai. More tried to make it to our seminar, but the Laotian and Thai governments turned them away at the border. From these committed Christians, we learned that most came to faith by listening to the radio and had little or no face-to-face instruction from anyone. Bob Kuest taught leadership lessons from the book of Philippians and I did what I could to ground them in theology. I was only able to teach 7 lessons in the time available. The governments permitted these people only two nights stay in Thailand. While we were with them, we heard stories of oppression and persecution. Two men told how they left Vietnam for Laos since there was "more freedom there" but they find it difficult to make a living. In spite of their own poverty, they collected money to buy Hmong language Bibles to take back to their people in Vietnam since the government confiscated all Hmong Bibles a few years ago.

The trip to Nong Khai took us about 12 hours. We traveled over mountains on fairly good roads. The scenery was wonderful in places. Since this is the dry season in Thailand, much of the bush was brown. There were rice paddies in some locations giving a lush green contrast to the brown.

After we returned to Phomadang, we flew out to Bangkok and then to Yangon, Myanmar. In past years, we stayed at Ruby Inn, a family operated inn near the airport. The owners, although Buddhist, were friendly to Christians and they were always hospitable, open, and helpful. They sold the inn to Koreans and they are not as friendly to Christian guests so we had to reside elsewhere this year. Our "home away from home" turned out to be the Yangon YMCA. Located downtown, it was not nearly as welcoming or comfortable as Ruby Inn. The Y had 12 hours of electricity per day so we could count on the electricity going out at about 6 am every day. That meant trekking down six flights of stairs and up three for an egg sandwich, banana, and coffee each morning. The rooms were air conditioned (when there was electricity) so we could sleep at night in the Yangon heat and humidity.

There were several on our team in Myanmar. Duane and Kathy Crumb, workers with New Missions Systems, taught HIV Awareness and Office Procedures. Truman Whittaker, who is also with NMSI, taught a class on Ephesians 6. Ryan Russell, also with NMSI, taught Youth Ministries. Delores taught "Teaching Children According to Age". I taught Theology. Bob Kuest taught his leadership class and his wife Peggy taught a class in "Followership." Louie Marsh and Rick Parker from Parker, AZ, led sessions on Celebrate Recovery. Kim Barrerra, from NMSI, came to help our hosts with their computer problems. We all got along and had a great time.

On Tuesday, Bob, Peggy, and Truman flew to Myitkyina (pronounced Mitch-in-a) in the Kachin State. This is the first time the government permitted us to teach anywhere but in Yangon. This made it possible for more pastors and church leaders to attend our conferences. This year there were 87 in Yangon and about 73 in Myitkyina. The team returned to Yangon on Sunday and Delores, Louie, and I traveled with James Khong to Myitkyina on Sunday. We stayed four days. Louie and I taught at a hotel while Delores was in one of the churches. Government officials came by to see what was going on, but all in all things went well. Instead of teaching theology proper, I taught Romans. I felt that sin, salvation, and so on could be covered in that and I could get through it.

We returned to Yangon in time for closing ceremonies at the Y. Then we got things packed and prepared to leave the next morning. On Friday morning 10 of us flew to Bangkok where we stayed overnight. Then we left Bangkok for Taipei the next morning. Flying time home was 14 hours from Bangkok. We arrived in Los Angeles and made the connection back to Phoenix in good shape ... and our luggage arrived with us.

About next year ... well, we don't know yet and it isn't fair to make a decision now. Both Delores and I are tired and we remember the heat and humidity of Yangon. At the same time, we reflect on the people and the impact they're making in Myanmar and Thailand. So who knows? We'll just wait and see how God leads for 2007.

What Do You Say?

2006-01-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday was one of those busy Sundays you can only have in the church!

The day began with a gathering of Senior Adults for a class and fellowship at 8 a.m. I'm beginning to know people, so the fellowship is getting richer and richer. The class part is pretty "ho hum" but the teacher loves Jesus and does his best. I'll probably begin doing some teaching as soon as my wife and I get back from Burma.

Next there were two well attended worship services. Those are always busy times, especially afterwards as I try to connect with people the best I can.

Then came the afternoon and a unique experience. It is one I won't forget for a long time. CCV draws people with a wide variety of interests and backgrounds. It is amazing to see the life change working in them. One of those attenders, soon to be a member, lost a very good friend in an accident. Both were bikers. I was asked to do a memorial service for him Sunday afternoon. Family and friends gathered at a saloon in Rock Springs, AZ, for the "send off." After an hour of country music, I had time to say "a few words." Now what do you say to a room full of bikers and cowboys? What do you say when you climb to the band's platform and stand before a microphone as people are watching football, enjoying potato salad, and drinking Coors and other brews?

Well, the first thing I did was ask them to turn down the televisions showing the Broncos-Pittsburgh game. I did that mainly because I was getting depressed by the game's direction and didn't want to be distracted. When I started reading Scripture, the crowd got quiet. What did I say? I pointed out that with Christ the death of someone you cared for is hard to take, but to lose someone who wasn't a Christian was worse. I told those present that judgment rested in God's hands and it was best to leave it there. I told them that when Jesus comes into your life you can look forward to an existence with Him beyond the grave. I spoke of the good news that Jesus makes a difference now and in the future.

Would I do it again -- speak in a bar? Given the opportunity to speak the truth in love, I'd go anywhere! I didn't drink or smoke or curse while there. (I did enjoy some country music!) I was treated with respect and appreciated for taking the time to be there. It was an opportunity to plant seed. Will they take root? Only God knows ... so I'll leave it up to him. My former Senior Pastor, John Hampton, said he was trying to get his head around seeing me in a saloon, speaking about Christ while Denver was dying. I found it hard to believe, too!

Later that afternoon, I sped back to CCV to introduce those teaching Class 300. Then I went and took Class 200 even though I'd taught it for years in Canton.

This is just a reminder of the adventures now and in the future. God is giving me a challenge -- and I'm moving out to meet it.

My First Week

2006-01-05T15:32:00.000-07:00

The first week was mercifully and thankfully short here at Christ's Church of the Valley. Because of the New Year's holiday last Monday, my first day was Tuesday. Here are just a few thoughts that run through my head. I say "mercifully and thankfully" because most of the week was spent finding the rest room, learning the computer system, meeting coworkers, and trying to absorb some of CCV's DNA so I understand the culture here. It always take a bit of time to be productive when beginning a new ministry and that's the truth!

For all those reading this blog who fear I'll "go liberal," I think you ought to know that CCV's basic belief statement says church membership requires what the New Testament requires. Keep in mind that becoming a Christian and becoming a church member are synonymous. These requirements are faith, repentance, confession and baptism. The last statement says, "The New Testament teaches that all believers receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins in relation to their faith, repentance, and baptism." Do you see a problem with that? I might say it a bit stronger, but there is nothing wrong with what is said!

I will be working with SAMs Class (Senior Adult Ministry), some of the volunteer ministries, and developing with others a quality "Training U." My dreams in this area are huge, and only God will make them realities. My initial proposal was an update from one I had for Canton, but there was little interest there for such an ambitious approach. It may not be acceptable here either, but it provides a starting place for discussion and planning. It includes doctrinal and historical components as well as biblical survey and specific studies.

Those I'm working with are all "top notch" people and I pray to God I don't lower the standards! This is a dynamic place and a commitment to excellence permeates every pore.

Complain or Do Something!

2005-12-14T13:26:00.000-07:00

For the past five or six years--maybe longer--I spent a lot of time complaining about what I identified as the "Platte River Syndrome" in our mega-churches. I even wrote an article for The Christian Standard by that name. The gist of the article was that although our mega-churches were successfully reaching thousands, they were doing little to disciple them. Thus, like Nebraska's Platte River they were often "a mile wide and an inch deep."

This past year, I wrote a second article for The Christian Standard but Editor Mark Taylor rejected it. He had some legitimate criticisms about the article as well as some I thought weren't quite so accurate. The second article's thesis was that although it is difficult for mega-churches to successfully disciple the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new converts each year they could assure a continuity of sound doctrine through leadership training. While it was not his only criticism, Mark pointed out that leadership in smaller congregations did not always understand biblical doctrine either. He did not see that my suggestions were the best way to accomplish doctrinal and biblical soundness. I disagree not because my methods were the best, but because they were something congregations could actually do.

In our American churches, we often trust the "democratic process" to select good leaders for the local church. Therefore, we often select men with some of the biblical qualities Paul describes in his pastoral epistles along with good business sense. Because the congregation "votes" on these men leadership selection often becomes a popularity contest. In spite of the potential dangers, Earl Heald, one of my mentors over the years, used to teach that "election" was the appropriate method of leadership selection because he understood the"laying on of hands" to be "a show of hands."

There is probably no "foolproof" way of selecting leaders in the local church. Elections can become popularity contests. Evangelist appointments can "pack the group" with those loyal to the evangelist. Self-perpetuating "boards"can become collections of "good ol' boys who won't rock the boat." Most of us, therefore, have decided to get by the best we can and hope for the best.

I think there is another way. (1) Take the biblical leadership qualities Paul describes seriously. (2) Provide biblical, theological, and practical training for potential leaders. (3) Evaluate leaders carefully on a regular basis holding them accountable to biblical precepts. (4) Create an atmosphere of mutual accountability and discipline among the leadership itself.

Something I'm seeing in at least some of our mega-churches is that they take the biblical qualities for leadership seriously. They avoid votes and appoint those who demonstrate servant spirits, take the function of leadership seriously, and are willing to grow spiritually.

There is more that can be done! While many within our mega-churches will not immediately take advantage of practical and "academic" spiritual growth opportunities, some will! As they study and grow they create a leadership core that can hold a congregation together and do more to assure sound doctrine. Leaders of Bible classes, Bible studies, small groups, and those who "desire to become an elder" are all targets for such training and study. Now I have an opportunity to do more than stand on the outside and complain. God is giving me an opportunity to put my "money where my mouth is."

I'm under no illusion! You don't turn ships of the line as tightly as a speedboat. You don't accomplish discipleship overnight either. I learned in my years in the classroom that many students can take your classes but only a few really make their mark in Kingdom work. I've always been grateful for the ONE student who profits from what I had to teach them and went out into the field and reaped a harvest. Over the years the few I helped train are influencing a whole new generation of young men and women who in turn will influence others. That's the kind of legacy I want to leave. I also know than on this side of heaven I'll never know exactly how many profited from my meager influence ... but God does and that's what's important!

Happy Holy-days!

2005-11-30T15:55:00.000-07:00

According to Sean Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts, conservatives are engaged in the "Battle for Christmas."

Christian Americans fight this battle every year. Most of us get a bit weary of the over-emphasis on acquisition and year-end parties. It seems the battle starts earlier every year. Here in Phoenix, some stores were putting up displays in late September or early October although holiday marketing didn't start in earnest until Hallowe'en candy went on sale.

My Rotary Club in Canton, Ohio, usually volunteered to help ring bells for the Salvation Army during the Christmas season. Although I've never been a fan of some SA theology, I do appreciate their emphasis on community service and meeting needs. So, I would stand outside K-Mart with some of my Rotarian friends--in the cold, I might add--to ring the bells. Then the news came down that Target would no longer permit volunteers to man the kettles outside their store. The next year it was K-Mart so we moved to another location.

As we rang the bells, we were increasingly encouraged to wish those who threw their contribution into the kettle "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." I refused to do it! It wasn't that I was opposed to "HH," it was simply that I felt too many ignored the "reason for the season." You know what? Most of those passing by responded in kind.

Every year Christmas gets replaced with other things. Thank goodness for Dennis Hastert who put a stop to the foolishness of referring to the lighted tree at the capitol as the "Holiday Tree." It's back to being a Christmas tree! I still hear references to the tree at Rockefeller Plaza as a Christmas tree.

I know the battle for Christmas is underway because of our "national" political correctness craze, but that isn't all of it. It is true that the ACLU, our Public Schools, local governments, and others all avoid references to Christianity.

But ... let's put the blame where it belongs. The major cause of all this erosion of biblical values rests at the feet of Christians who succumb to all the PC "crap." (Can I say that in this blog? Well, its my blog so I guess I can say what I want!) Every year we hear about a few who stand up for Christmas and when they do they get results. For example, a Home Owners' Association in the Detroit suburbs were going to fine a family who placed a Nativity Scene in their yard. The home owners refused and there was such a swell of support that the HOA backed off. (See http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/
LIFESTYLE04/511300434) So speak up!

Christians also let themselves get caught up in the whole holiday atmosphere. I think it is great for families to get together during this season. I'm not against giving gifts. Is it necessary, though, to go into debt to the extent that purchases made in 2005 may not be paid off until 2007 or later?

I enjoy the lights, the decorations, the gift giving, and everything that goes with it, but that's not what it is all about. It's about a baby born in an inconvenient place and placed in a manger--a baby who grew up to be God's promised Messiah! You know what? We really don't know when he was born! We don't know the year! We don't know the month! We don't know the day! In fact, all of that really isn't important. The importance fact is that he was born, lived, died, was buried, and was resurrected and now lives to intercede for us.

The important thing is that regardless of how our culture goes, YOU keep Christ in YOUR Christmas! That will go a long way in winning the "battle for Christmas."

2005-11-15T11:27:00.000-07:00

On Leaving a Ministry

2005-11-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

I haven't left a ministry I've held less than two years since I was fired from Central Church of Christ in Anita, Iowa. Anita was my second student ministry and first full-time ministry. The year I spent in full-time ministry in Anita wasn't that great and I was about to resign when the elders, realizing I was looking around, decided I needed to go so they would have time to get someone in town so they could drive school bus (and make a living) when school started in the fall. Parting was "not sweet sorrow".

God led us to Mankato, Kansas, where we fell in love with the people and they loved us in return. We made lifelong friends, some of whom are now with the Lord, during our three years in north central Kansas. After the first year, the Mankato church gladly shared me with the church in Superior, Nebraska, and I preached for both congregations every week. Mankato was, and still is, a very small county seat town but it was home to many wonderful people. The Catholic priest in Mankato became my best friend and we had some great times together bowling in league, buying cars, and sitting at Boogart's grocery drinking coffee and talking theology.

Over the years, I've had some interesting and challenging ministries. A year with Manhattan Christian College prepared me in many ways for teaching. Three and a half years in Great Bend, Kansas, beginning immediately after that church experienced a terrible three-way split. Working with that congregation challenged me beyond measure as I tried to apply God's Word in ways that would heal. God blessed the efforts with nearly 90 additions and the return of many who split off from the church. In time, however, the stress got to me and I had serious allergic reactions which the stress enhanced.

Earl Heal from the Orchard Mesa Christian Church in Grand Junction came to interview us for a ministry with them. We moved to Colorado in 1973 and remained their until 1985. After a few months on Orchard Mesa, Earl, who was Intermountain Bible College's Academic Dean, began moving me into the college. I taught Church History and other classes at IBC through its best years and some of its worst and stuck with it until the college closed in 1985.

With the help of Dr. James North, I was called to Westwood-Cheviot Church of Christ where I worked with Brad Walden and Fred Speckert. The church reached its highest attendance points (about 600) during Brad's ministry. But Delores (my wife) and I missed the west and I missed teaching, so after our son graduated from high school we accepted an invitation from First Church of Christ in Boise to follow Kenneth Beckman's 37 year ministry. I was also asked to teach the history classes at Boise Bible College.

After eight years in the church and the classroom, God fulfilled one of my lifelong ambitions -- to be minister with First Christian Church in Canton, Ohio. When I graduated from college back in the "stone age," Canton was the largest Christian Church in the world with a Bible School of more than 1,000. I always joked about being the minister there, but God let me become a minister there. During my time in Canton, Dr. North also gave me opportunity to teach graduate history classes in the graduate school of Cincinnati Christian University. Once the school called Dr. Cherok, they no longer needed me but kept me in their adjunct professor list for some time.

I arrived in Canton just as that great church was beginning its turnaround. During my nine years in Canton, attendances went from just over 800 to more than 2,200. It was exciting to be part of that church's turnaround, but everyone on staff at that time acknowledges it was God who did it. In fact, none of us had ever served in a congregation of more than 300 (or so) until that time, so it certainly wasn't because of our tremendous expertise.

As I neared my 60s, I began to think I should be "put out to pastor" (pasture). So many churches were calling younger men, I thought others might consider my useful days limited. It was a depressing thought, but one many my age wrestle with. I began to think I should consider other opportunities if they came along and one did from First Christian Church in Sun City. After jumping through all the hoops, I began a ministry with them in February 2003. I immediately discovered that working in a one-generational (senior) church was both draining and fulfilling. It was fulfilling because we fell in love with the people. It was draining because it hurts to watch people you've come to love and appreciate succumb to God's specific punishment for sin--death!

It was also draining because, as one might expect, so many were locked into mid-twentieth century thinking. The church's organizational structure is overly complicated requiring a law degree to understand it and fulfill every jot and tittle. Unfortunate events that transpired over a decade ago left indelible marks on the congregation creating an atmosphere of distruct and suspicion. One individual who had been a leader has an overbearing and bullying personality and is suspicious of anyone who thinks differently than he does. The stress and pressure of dealing with his outbursts, inappropriate congregational involvement in leadership issues, and other stressors were beginning to get to me.

Then, out of the blue, I received a phone call from Christ's Church of the Valley asking if I would be interested in a position with them. You could have knocked me over with a feather! CCV is a true mega-church with attendances of over 10,000 each weekend. They wanted me to work with their Senior Adult Ministry, their Christian Life Institute (or Training U), and lead Class 300, their session promoting service and involvement. After visiting with friends and others, I decided not to take the position. A week later, a "explosion" occurred at First Christian because the individual mentioned in the previous paragraph was not asked to serve in leadership in 2006. Charges were made against the present elders, accusations leveled against them, and my stress increased. I began to wonder if God was trying to tell me something. I e-mailed friends, including some at CCV, asking them to pray for me. CCV then came back and asked me to reconsider their invitation. After attending their Class 100, we determined that we might have something to offer them and we (Delores and I) accepted. I will begin a ministry with CCV January 1.

It was not an easy decision, believe me! We wrestled long and hard with the possibilities. If I felt too old for a congregation of 2,200, would I fit into a congregation of 10,000? Well, I decided that only God knows for sure! You can put out all the fleeces in the world, but you have to make decisions based on those and many other factors. In short, you consider all the options, look for the pros and cons, then step out on faith! Just as God didn't part the water of the Jordan River until the Hebrew priests stepped into the river, God won't bless until a believer puts his trust in God and steps out.

LEADERSHIP IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

2005-11-15T09:54:00.000-07:00

In the effort to be biblical churches, the Christian Churches have struggled to adopt a biblical yet effective leadership theology. Nothing hampers the effectiveness and growth of a congregation more than leadership failure. Leadership expert John Maxwell rightly points out that everything rises or falls on leadership.

Alexander Campbell, one of the early leaders in the Restoration Movement, looked through the lenses of early American culture and viewed leadership in much the same vein as national government. In Campbell’s mind, the eldership stood in relationship to a local congregation much as the Senate does to the nation. Campbell related the deacons to the House of Representatives. Like many Baptists of his day, Campbell referred to the evangelist as “the Bishop.” In Campbell’s mind, “the Bishop” could also be called the congregation’s “President” or “Presider.”

Many Christian Churches accepted Campbell’s view without question. When industrial corporations developed, the church again caved in to culture and developed church boards. These boards, acting much like “boards of directors” guided the corporation. Just as the “directors” answered to the stockholders, the church board answered to the congregation. The idea developed that just as the corporation board existed to show a profit for the stockholders, the church board existed to make sure the church provided appropriate services for its members.
Nothing could be farther from biblical truth. According to the New Testament, the church is the only organization in the world that exists for others. The church’s purpose is to reach the lost! Nothing more, nothing less! To accomplish that goal, the church’s leadership must equip its members for service (train), care for those who are hurt and “injure” (shepherd), and guide the church in fulfilling its purpose (oversee).

Another mistake Christian Churches often make is the view that elders are responsible only for a church’s spiritual welfare while the deacons (or trustees) are responsible for financial matters. The fact is, biblical elders are responsible for overseeing all facets of a church’s life and work. If you look at Acts 11:30, you’ll see that famine relief sent to the church in Jerusalem went to the elders for distribution. Therefore, the basic organizational chart for a church is not like this:

Elders Deacons
Spiritual Finances

But it is like this:

Elders

(All Aspects)

Deacons

(Responsibilities delegated by Elders)

The elders, therefore, is to have general oversight of the church (see 1 Timothy 5:17 and Hebrews 13:17), not as lord and dictator, but nevertheless with authority borne of function. An elder is to lead, guide, rule, steer the flock, set the course, discipline, and see the church through difficult situations. Elders are also to refute false teaching. That’s why an elder is to be “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). No one should be selected as elder who is unable to explain and defend biblical teaching.

What about the deacons? A deacon, by definition, is a servant. The word deacon derives from a Greek term meaning “table waiter.” If we take the events of Acts 6 as an example of the work of deacons—and that is debatable—we note that the Apostles asked the congregation to select seven men “who [were] known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). The Apostles turned the responsibility of determining a method and means of meeting the people’s needs to them (that’s delegation). Then they permitted them to see to it. While it is not explicitly stated, the fact that the Apostles delegated the responsibility to the seven implies the seven were accountable to the Apostles for fulfilling the task.

Neither the elder nor the deacon fills an “office.” The word “office” carries with it connotations the Bible does not teach. It is unfortunate that the King James Version of 1 Timothy 3:1 reads, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” The word “office” is not in the text’s original language. Most newer translations have it right. The New International Version puts it, “If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1).

Elders and deacons fulfill leadership functions within a congregation. The elder fulfills a leadership function, the deacon fulfills a service function. Since these are functions (responsibilities) rather than offices, it is important to select by character traits (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) rather than other factors.

It is also important for the congregation to realize that elders are accountable to God for their work (see Hebrews 13:17 – they give an account to Christ). Too many individuals within congregations think these leaders should be accountable to them. While many individual members are well-intentioned, they often do not have the spiritual maturity or biblical understanding to recognize the difference between their preferences and biblical teaching. If their leaders are biblical knowledgeable and men of integrity, they are better suited to make decisions relating to the purpose, direction, and operation of the church.

It all boils down to a matter of trust. If the church selects spiritually qualified leaders—men of integrity, character, and spiritual depth—then trust them to do the right thing. Will they make mistakes? Yes they will. But if they are servants of Christ, they will not “lord it over you” but always do what they believe is in the best interests of the church. If you select men who are biblically ignorant and spiritually shallow, men who are not men of integrity or men with a servant’s heart, then you get what you deserve!

I know that’s a rough statement, but it is true. Churches do not take leadership selection seriously enough. Too many think you can push anyone into leadership. Poor choices in leadership have destroyed the effectiveness of all too many churches. Remember, everything rises or falls on leadership.

THOUGHTS ON SMALLER CHURCHES

2005-10-28T14:02:00.000-07:00

THOUGHTS ON SMALLER CHURCHES

Like any church, smaller churches have much to offer as well as problems to face. A few weeks ago, I published an article on the pluses and minuses of mega-churches. Whenever you write something like that (or this), you stereotype. What may be true in a general sense is certainly not true for all. Furthermore, mega-churches and smaller churches often face similar issues. Having said that, let me share a few insights about smaller churches.

WHAT SMALL CHURCHES HAVE GOING FOR THEM.

First, in a smaller church you get to know everybody. That’s true especially for the really small congregation, but it is also true for the mid-size church. Those who have been there for some time know almost everyone in the church at least by name or by sight. There is a sense of belonging and a community of spirit that permeates the whole structure.

Second, in a smaller church there can be a greater awareness of needs. Since the members know each other, those who face medical, economic, mental, or spiritual needs are known and have the help and sympathy of others. It isn’t always true, of course, but the response to a need can come more quickly from a smaller group that identifies itself as “family.”

Third, in a smaller church the ministers can truly shepherd the sheep. Although I’ve never thought it was the minister’s responsibility alone to call, counsel, or shepherd, there is a sense of closeness that develops between the committed shepherd and the congregation. The minister almost becomes a “father” figure and has far more direct contact with his flock than the senior minister in a mega-church. In a mega-church, one of the members asked the caller who had come to see them in the hospital when the senior minister was going to come see them. The caller responded, “You don’t want to be that sick.” And so it goes!

Fourth, in a smaller church there is a stronger sense of tradition. Tradition can be either good or bad, but when it is good it binds together people better than slick programs or beautiful structures. Traditions create loyalties and identifications that can be positive and helpful.

Fifth, in a smaller church there is a strong sense of identity. Of course, that identity can sometimes degenerate into a prejudice against those “ho aren’t like us.” Nonetheless, there are positive benefits for gathering people together who come from similar backgrounds, interests, and occupations.

Sixth, in a smaller church there is a greater tolerance with those who make an effort. Aunt Mary may not be the most accomplished pianist in the world, but she tries hard and hits most of the notes so she is loved and accepted. Besides, she may be the only one who can even play. Professional quality is not often available in the smaller church, but loving acceptance for those who make the effort is.

DRAWBACKS TO THE SMALLER CONGREGATION

First, in a smaller church you get to know everybody. Yes, I know I put that as a strength, but it is also one of a small church’s greatest liabilities. You can easily identify the trouble-makers, gossip-mongers, and those who are spiteful and bitter. Because they are known, they are often accepted without question. Furthermore, because everyone knows everyone every statement must be examined lest it cause offense or misunderstanding.

Second, in a smaller church a threat to leave or withdraw support creates a crisis. In large congregations, a family may “take their ball and leave the game” without creating as much as a ripple. One unhappy individual choosing to leave a smaller church creates a crisis, especially when their friends know they’re unhappy. Those with money pose an even greater threat. A major contributor who becomes unhappy can create all kinds of problems.

Third, in a smaller church excellent leadership is often in short supply. More often than not, smaller churches are organized in a more traditional fashion with bylaws that require a specified number of leaders. Such specifications lead to ignoring biblical qualifications making availability the primary requirement. The traditional structures in most churches, including some megachurches, creates an adversarial system that leads to trouble. Fortunate are the congregations that have such systems and have successfully avoided conflict.

Fourth, in a smaller church the minister often becomes a chaplain rather than an innovative evangelist. Those smaller congregations surviving a few years with an innovative evangelist don’t stay small. The Ginghamsburg Church near Dayton is a prime example. When the Methodist Conference assigned Mike Slaughter to the Ginghamsburg pulpit, the congregation averaged about 90 in a small building located about 5 miles north of Dayton. The first year, according to Slaughter, the congregation grew to 70. Today, more than 20 years later, this congregation is one of the largest and most dynamic Methodist Churches in the country. Because of their inherent nature, most smaller congregations want a caregiver chaplain and, if the truth were known, do not expect nor do they want to grow.

Fifth, in a smaller church it is harder for new people to find acceptance. Smaller churches often see themselves as intensely friendly … and they are … with each other. A new family or individual often finds it difficult to break in. Only through persistence and effort can they make their way into the circle of acceptance.

Well, there you have it. Just a few observations about smaller churches! Like my observations about megachurches, these are obviously stereotypes and don’t apply to everyone. In my experience, however, I can attest they are generally true.

Bad Weather or God's Wrath ... or Both?

2005-09-26T12:51:00.000-07:00

As I drove to work this morning (9/26), I heard talk show host Barry Young commenting on what people were saying about Hurricane Rita.

Barbra Streisand and a host of “environmental wackos” maintain our weather patterns are worsening because of global warming. Never mind the fact that a passel of category 5 hurricanes hit the American coast during Streisand’s lifetime.

Young pointed to a few TV preachers and “second coming” nuts who maintain the last two hurricanes are God’s judgment on sinful people and Christ’s return is near. Well it is nearer now than it was yesterday. That’s for sure!

Last winter I heard people commenting that the tsunami that devastated Thailand, India, and Indonesia was God’s judgment on these countries for their unbelief and sinful lifestyles.
Does God send disaster as punishment? Does He pour out His wrath on sinful nations? Is any specific disaster God’s punishment for sin?

I have an answer for that. Maybe!

It isn’t that God can’t or won’t send disaster or crisis as punishment for evil deeds. He has done so in the past and He can do so now. I think about the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. They were horribly sinful and God wiped them out. You might also remember that when Israel entered the Promised Land, God told Joshua to wipe out every inhabitant. In that instance God ordered “ethnic cleansing.” He did so because the Canaanites and others had become despicably wicked.

Does God still do that? Sure he does! Did he do it through the disasters of Katrina and Rita? Possibly.

We need to remember something. God clearly revealed to inspired writers that the disasters that befell Sodom and Gomorrah and the slaughter of the Canaanites were due to His direct action or within the scope of His will.

I know those historical events were “God things” because the Bible tells me so.

Today, I see the results of disasters, wars, and rebellions and am often constrained to think such things might be God’s judgment on wickedness. At the same time, I can’t be absolutely positive that such terrible things result from God’s wrath.

You see, there is another force at work here and I’m not talking about Satan either. According to Genesis 3, Adam’s sin affected more than himself. His sin affected the whole planet. Moses recorded that God “cursed … the ground” and condemned the primeval pair to death. Paul tells us in Romans 8 that “the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (verse 22). The earth’s weather patterns changed. The relationship between the beasts changed.

Because of Adam’s sin, “stuff happens!” God can indeed pour out his judgment upon us … and he can use adverse weather, earthquakes, and even human stupidity to do it. But stuff also happens because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen merely because the air currents and moisture act in such a way to create the conditions necessary for a hurricane.

Some day it will all be clear to us, but right now we live in a hazy world and it is difficult to judge from a human vantage point whether Katrina and Rita resulted from God’s judgment. Maybe so! Maybe not! Only God knows why these storms hit and did so much damage. It is wiser to remain faithful to God through “thick and thin” and leave the rest in His hands.