Restoring the Ancient Practices -- Creeds

Alexander Campbell's "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things" appeared at a time when denominations emphasized their distinctives with written creeds. To join the typical denominational church of the early 1800s, one had to demonstrate a call from God (an experience) and agree to the creed. Some of the credal statements required were:

• The Westminster Confession of Faith -- Presbyterians
• The Common Book of Prayer -- Anglicans
• The Book of Discipline -- Methodists
• The Augsburg Confession of Faith -- Lutherans
• The Philadelphia Confession of Faith -- Baptists

When Barton Stone tested for his ministerial license he agreed to the tenets of The Westminster Confession of Faith "so far as it is faithful to the Word of God." Granted a license to preach, Stone ended up as one of the contenders for freedom of belief when six Presbyterian ministers withdrew from the Synod of Kentucky. As the important "Apology for Renouncing the Jurisdiction of the Synod of Kentucky" reveals, these men objected to the confession's definition of faith and its Calvinist insistence that a direct operation of the Holy Spirit precede faith.

Thomas Campbell had his own arguments with the Presbyterians leading to his withdrawal after coming to the United States in 1807. Alexander, his son, protested the restrictions of The Westminister Confession of Faith while in Scotland and by the time he joined his father in the new world, he too objected to creeds.

Both Stone and Campbell were not opposed to creeds as such. In fact, Campbell said that creeds were useful and the more complete the better. Campbell, in particular, however objected to creeds as a test of fellowship. He recognized that any creed that said more than what the Bible taught was beyond the pale and any creed that said less than the Bible said was incomplete. Therefore, Campbell argued, the Bible is all we really need.

In his series calling for restoration, Campbell pointed out that in the first century there were no creeds except Peter's simple statement of belief: "I believe you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Other statements began appearing in the second century and they multiplied when dissension arose over the nature of Christ. Campbell's point was that any attempt to restore the ancient practices must go to the first century. Stopping short of the first century is stopping too soon!

Robert Webber in his book, Ancient Future Evangelism, describes the interest in the current postmodern generation with the ancient faith. When he spoke at the 2005 North American Christian Convention, Webber emphasized a need to go back to the ancient practices. In spite of a rousing exposition of Acts 2, the practices he describes are second and third century practices and beliefs. Campbell asserts, and I agree, that all that is needed is the same standard of belief held by the first century church -- the teachings of Christ and the pedagogy of the apostles.

Today few denominations, save some of the most radical Calvinist groups, emphasize their creeds. The Methodists still have their Book of Discipline, the Presbyterians their Westminster Confession of Faith but rarely do they use them to determine whether or not an individual should be considered for membership in a local congregation. Once used as tests of orthodoxy for the ministry of these denominations, the creeds are hardly used at all indicating a wide variety of belief even among the clergy. Some denominations and congregations still emphasize the historic creeds: Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed and so on. The Apostles' Creed, in particular, often makes its way into the liturgy.

Only two things are required for entrance into the Kingdom of God. (1) An individual must recognize that their sinful behavior has separated them from the Father. (2) That Christ is the only way to reconciliation with a just God.

When a person comes to those realizations, they turn to Christ and ask, "What must I do to be saved?" The answer given must be the same as that given to the hearers on Pentecost: "Repent and be baptized (immersed) every one of you ... for the forgiveness of sins ... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). The efficacy of this repentance and baptism is rooted in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, those who come to Christ need not respond to any query but, "What do you believe about Jesus? Whose Son is he?" There is no need to relate an experience, give a testimony, or require the approval of a congregation.

In our contemporary litigious society, many congregations ask members to commit to a membership covenant. Such a covenant is not required for becoming a Christian, but it may be for being a member of a local congregation. A covenant will usually stipulate that the individual recognizes that becoming a member of a given congregation means they accept the oversight, authority, and discipline of the church's leaders. Should church discipline be required, church leaders and the congregation may be spared the threat of lawsuit.

Years ago in Oklahoma, an acapella church of Christ disciplined a church member for immorality. A female member of the congregation was involved in an illicit affair with the mayor of a nearby town. The affair was rather public and brought disrepute to the cause of Christ. Following the example of Matthew 18:15 f., the church's leaders pleaded with her to repent and break off the relationship. When she refused, the church followed the last step in Christ's instructions and brought her immoral behavior before the congregation formally withdrawing fellowship. The woman then brought suit for invasion of privacy and won. The church was saddled with a debt of over $100 thousand. Had the congregation a membership commitment, they could have been spared the public disgrace of a trial and the monetary punishment.

When a person becomes a Christian, Christ adds them to his body, the church. Participation in a local congregation, however, is reserved for those whose character and confession warrant it. Even Thomas Campbell in his "Declaration and Address" stated that:

"All that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members but such as having that due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper and conduct." (Proposition 12)

Mega-churches and Me

In light of a few things I've written on our mega-churches, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I have a love/concern attitude toward mega-churches. Over my nearly 43 years in ministry, I've served in churches of all sizes. My first ministry was in Laurens, IA, a congregation of about 30-35 at the time. I was also on staff at First Christian Church in Canton, OH. Canton was one of our first mega-churches with Bible School attendances exceeding 4,000 at times during the early part of the last century. When I left in 2004, it had once again attained the status of a mega-church. I am not opposed to growing churches, therefore I am not opposed to Church Growth or even the Church Growth Movement. In fact, there are some positives I love about large dynamic churches. At the same time, there are accompanying concerns that trouble me at times.

Positives

1. Large churches are biblical. You can't escape the fact that large growing churches are Scriptural. The first church started as a mega-church with over 3,000 baptized in one day (see Acts 2). From that exciting beginning, the church grew to 4,000 then 5,000 and then it exploded with growth. Man, you would have pruny hands just keeping up with the baptisms!

2. Large churches are exciting. I found it exhilarating to watch as 1,800 to 2,000 people came for worship during my last years in Canton. The singing was wonderful (when the song was singable). The response was terrific. The people walking down the aisle each week made my heart beat just a little faster and, on occasion, tears welled up in my eyes. Yes, we got excited about the numbers but it was because each number represented a person -- a person who needed Jesus!

3. Large churches are influential. I could preach about the sins of the flesh until the cows came home in Laurens or Anita or even in Great Bend and I'd be "preaching to the choir." When a preacher in a mega-church preaches about a sin, social or otherwise, he has influence. It doesn't even have to be a sermon. Joe Wright used a prayer comprised of statements Bob Russell made at the Kansas legislature a few years ago. That prayer raised eyebrows and created controversy throughout Kansas. It probably had negative influence on some but positive influence on many more. I preached in Kansas for eight years but was never invited to pray at the opening of the legislature. Because Joe Wright preached for a mega-church, he received the invitation and made a mark. In addition, when 2,000 or more individuals, influenced by their church, go to the polls or make a stand in their community they have clout.

4. Large churches have resources others don't have. Our budget in Canton in 2004 was, if memory serves, about $1.2 million dollars. In addition, the people committed themselves to raising $5.1 million over a three year period to pay off land for relocation. As Minister of Adult Education, I had an annual budget of more than $25,000 to administer. More than $100,000 went to missions each year. Our budget here in Sun City is a healthy $270,000 and we give 20% to missions all of which is commendable. The talent pool is greater in large churches, too. By percentage, a large church may have no more gifted people than a small church but you can only have so much special music, or youth coaches, or teachers and while you may exhaust your talent pool in a small church, you won't in a large one. (Getting folks to use their talent is equally difficult in large and small churches, however.)

5. Large churches can provide superior programming. While in Canton, my Adult Education Ministry spent more than $12,000 on one program. We invited Dr. Tom Sharp from the Creation Truth Foundation to bring his exhibit to the church and we had a week-long program marketed well in the community through radio spots, billboards, fliers, and so on. More than 1,000 children from Christian schools and home-schoolers showed up for one presentation and evening services ran as high as 700. Most smaller churches would consider the cost of bringing CTF to their church daunting at $5,000. Large churches can provide counseling ministries, special needs ministries, addiction recovery groups, and more.

6. Large churches can be strategic. All too often smaller churches avoid change because of the fear of "rocking the boat." If a large church chooses to make strategic changes and those changes create "upset," some can leave without creating much of a stir. In other words, a large church can afford to "leave the back door open." Smaller congregations often avoid making strategic changes because of the fear that highly influential members or significant contributors will become dissatisfied and leave. No one wants people to leave a church, but in some cases a few healthy subtractions can be as healthy as many additions.

7. Large churches are generally friendly. While there are exceptions, when you attend a large church you are welcomed like a long lost brother. Oh, by the way, the exceptions won't be large very long! When I visited Saddleback I received a warm welcome by the parking attendant who directed me to a parking place, another as I climbed the stairs toward the worship center, another along the way as I was offered a cup of coffee, another at the door of the worship center. Believe it or not, there were other undesignated people who made me feel welcome too. I found the same to be true at North Coast Church, Southeast Christian Church, The Vineyard in Cincinnati, and other assorted churches along the way.

I could probably think of many other reasons for admiring large churches, but seven seemed like a good number.

Concerns

1. Large churches are tempted to make "the show" the thing. Can it always be said that a worship service must be a major production of Hollywood quality? I attended workshops at the Ginghamsburg Church, a Methodist mega-church near Dayton, where they gave us insight into worship planning. It came across as a production meeting for a live TV show, which, for all intents and purposes, it was. As a result, what should be a participatory experience of worship becomes a show. I keep thinking about all those passages in the prophets where God lets Israel know he despises their shows (sacrifices and feast days) because their heart really isn't right.

2. Large churches are tempted to "compromise" for the sake of numbers. Whether or not some of our mega-churches have abandoned the Restoration Movement's strong stand on biblical authority, there is a tendency to "soften" the rhetoric. Now that's not all bad, but when the motive for softening the rhetoric is to avoid offense doesn't it become an effort to merely "tickle ears"? Then there is the motive that undergirds the effort. All too often "we want to sound like everyone else" so others will think "we're like everyone else." Israel got in trouble with that when they wanted a king like everyone else. You see, if we sound like evangelicals or good Baptists, the evangelicals and the Baptists will stop accusing us of being a cult or being something really wierd like "water regenerationists." Then everyone will "like us" and more will come to our services.

3. Large churches confuse relationship with discipleship. Sunday School or Bible School is passe at least for adults. The important thing is establishing relationships. The theory is that those who make friends (relationships) stay. Its more than a theory, it is a truth and every church needs to develop means by which its members can develop relationships. But let's be honest about it. The main concern here is "shutting the back door" and retaining members so the numbers look good. Christian formation is a secondary concern. So the mega-churches downplay Sunday School -- after all, building facilities for adult classes is expensive -- and emphasize Small Groups. I am uncategorically for small groups, but small groups are for relationship building and accountability. They do not and cannot teach biblical content nor do they effectively stimulate genuine discipleship. Discipleship has to do with "forming Christ in me." Somehow the early church passed on content as well as developed biblical relationships. How did they do it? The model is found in 2 Timothy 2:2. Somebody qualified taught others. Church leaders and teachers responsibly passed on correct doctrine. Part of that doctrinal teaching had to do with "loving one another as I [Christ] have loved you."

4. Large churches are vision oriented rather than people-oriented. In many, but not all, cases the vision boils down to the ABCs of church life -- Attendance, Buildings, and Cash. The church becomes a corporate structure with directors (elders) and officers (the staff) and a CEO (the senior minister). The vision shapes the programs and the success of the program is measured in Attendance, Buildings, and Cash. The few whose lives really do change become "poster boys or girls" for what the program can do, but the real success is measured by "the many" rather than "the few." What ever happened to the New Testament picture of an elder as a shepherd? The word poimene, or pastor, is a word applied to the elder rather than the preacher (unless, of course he is also an elder). It is time for the church to get back to the biblical picture of an elder as shepherd and care-giver rather than executive. The same goes for the preacher and his staff!

5. Large churches often assimilate their culture rather than affect the culture. Although the early church always faced cultural challenges from without, the wide-spread acceptance of Christianity exacerbated the problems. When thousands poured into the church after Constantine, they brought with them many of their heathen practices and ideas. In many cases, the church merely "baptized" those practices and made them somewhat Christian. Since those days, the church has continued to assimilate the culture. According to Wolfe's The Transformation of the American Church, today's church has become so encrusted with the culture it is hardly different. Barna reports that moral conditions within and without the church are roughly equivalent. Somehow the church has forgotten its calling to be "a peculiar people." We use the culture's music, the culture's methods, and the culture's values to market our product but the product is often confused with that offered by today's cultural gurus.

6. Large churches equate "feeling" with commitment. One of the staff members from Southeast Christian Church told me that when they got into their most recent structure, there was an attendance jump of about 3,000 a Sunday. Those making decisions streamed down the aisle in record numbers leaving those responsible for assimilation feel overwhelmed. When asked why they had responded to the invitation, many of those who came said "they wanted to be part of an exciting church." "Just once," I was told, "I would lie to hear someone say they came forward because they wanted to make Jesus Lord." In my view, that's quite an indictment. You see, the feeling of excitement and the dynamics of a service motivated decision rather than commitment to Christ. We are often told that today's people want to feel God or experience God in their worship. These statements represent an emphasis on feeling rather than commitment. You see, one can go home feeling good, feeling excited, and feeling motivated but when the feelings die then .... You see, there is little genuine contentment in a feeling. In my view, real commitment means accepting a truth and when that truth is accepted and lived out then things feel right!

7. Large churches can become sources of pride. While I rejoice over every individual brought to Christ in our larger churches (or smaller ones for that matter), our tendency to list and display "our mega-churches" is rapidly becoming a source of pride. We are pointing to the fact that Restoration mega-churches, by percentage, out pace the mega-churches of every other religious group in this country. In other words, by percentage of congregations there are more Christian Church mega-churches than Baptist mega-churches, or Nazarene mega-churches, or Methodist mega-churches. We are close to saying, "See what we have done!" Others may think, "God must be blessing us more than others because we have more mega-churches by percentage than any other group." Didn't our chests expand a bit when we heard some of the major media noted that the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ were the second fastest growing religious group in the USA, right behind the Mormons!!

Well, there you have it. Seven positives and seven concerns. Sounds almost biblical!

Restoration Not Reformation

Individuals and movements become great because they existed at the right place and the right time in history. For example, events and circumstances (and Divine Providence) thrust the great men of American history into prominence. George Washington preferred the relative anonymity of Mount Vernon to the snows of Valley Forge, but it was the latter that made him "the Father of our country." Abraham Lincoln was a country lawyer until the South's secession forced him into the limelight. The Vietnam Antiwar movement was discounted until Walter Cronkite built up (and sometimes invented) military failures in Southeast Asia.

The Restoration Movement burst on the scene at just the right time in American history. Here are several factors that contributed to its success:

(1) America was a new nation. With its newness came a questioning of all things European and monarchical. Churches either severed or attempted to separate themselves from their European counterparts. The Anglican Church, for example, became the Episcopalian Church. James O'Kelly led the Republical Methodists, who later identified themselves as the Christian Church, out of the Methodist Episcopal Church because Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke insisted on establishing themselves as "bishops," a title that smacked of Old World elitism.

(2) The American governmental experiment gave rise to an interest in "primitive" democracies and republics. There was a widespread cry for going back "to the old paths". Many looked to the ancient city states of Greece for examples of pure democratic constructs. Others looked to the ancient Roman Republic as an example of a Republic. The Campbells evidenced the same kind of interest in going back to "primitive Christianity" because the church of the first century was not sullied by the divisions of the intervening years.

(3) The frontier was a place for experimentation. The American frontier saw all manner of wacky social and religous experimentation. Communitarian experiments occurred at Oneida, NY, New Harmony, IN, as well as many other places. One individual tried carving out his personal kingdom in the region that became Kentucky. Religious groups such as the Shakers, the Quakers, and eventually the Mormons established themselves on the frontier. Why not attempt to simply return to Christianity's roots through restoring the ancient faith and practice as revealed in the Bible?

(4) The guarantee of religious freedom unhampered by state supported churches. The First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the right to free expression of religious faith. The amendment guaranteed that no religious denomination would receive state recognition by the Federal Government. (Several states, however, had state churches. Massachusetts was the last to disestablish its state church about 1830.) Since individuals could worship as they pleased, it was possible to instigate major changes and replace longstanding traditions.

More than any of the other leaders in the Restoration Movement, Alexander Campbell pled for restoration. In his series of articles, published in The Christian Baptist, entitled "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," Campbell pointed out that institutions can be reformed but not religion. You can reform a religious organization but you really can't do so with religion itself. Why? Because, as he said, the religion is what it is. It can be subverted, changed, or misused but when it does it becomes something different. You can add traditions, rituals, and dogmas to Christianity but it does not remain Christianity. The only thing you can do with religion is to restore its original practices.

Campbell rightly pointed out that you could reform the Catholic organization and make it a Presbyterian organization, but the attitude of the pope would remain in the hearts and minds of the leaders. The only answer was to return to the pure Word of God and simply do what it says.

That is still good advice. The problem is that the heirs of the Restoration Movement have accumulated their own traditions and adopted their own forms for "papal manipulation." Some have called for a reformation of the Restoration Movement; others for a restoration of the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement, hear me, does not need to be restored! It is the faith and practice of the early church that needs to be restored!

Reformation won't cut it! Restoration is a continuing effort and will never find its completion this side of glory. Why? Because we gain clearer understanding of the New Testament milieu, the New Testament text, and the early church each year. New discoveries, better biblical scholarship, and new insight added to the old gives us a better picture of what those early Christians believed and taught. Our commitment to biblical study and origins needs to continue.

With that in mind, I am going to take the time to go back over Campbell's "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things" and rethink much of what he said there. You will see the fruit of that study on this blog. In many cases, I'm sure, I will echo much of what Campbell said. In other instances, you will find (if you will compare) that I disagree with Campbell on some things. But I agree with his basic idea -- that the way to Christian unity is through a restoration of pure speech and practice of New Testament principles.

Restoring the Ancient Practices

A tremendous amount of ink is currently applied to what is called "restoring the ancient practices." Authors from the "emerging church" carefully point out that today's younger generations seek spirituality and wisdom from ancient practices.

Robert Webber's book, Ancient-Future Evangelism, points the reader to ancient church practices dating back to the second century. Leonard Sweet writes that the younger generation is returning to the music, the stained glass, and the worship styles of the ancient church (with all the technological benefits of today thrown in, of course). Sweet says that to connect with the emerging younger generations (younger Gen-Xers and Millennials), worship must be EPIC. By EPIC, he means experiential, participatory, image-driven, and communal. In this summer's Leadership magazine, Eric Reed discusses the current trend of emphasizing the ancient spiritual discipline practices one might find in many monasteries. Dallas Willard also emphasizes deepening one's spiritual walk with the spiritual disciplines found in ancient Christianity. Terry Mattingly, who was, at least in part, educated at Lincoln Christian College writes weekly columns for Scripps Howard, left the Restoration Movement for Greek Orthodoxy and, at last report, worships in an Anglican Church. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and even some forms of Anglicanism are seen as offering "ancient" forms for worship and spiritual development. I recently worshiped with a congregation emphasizing "ancient" practices, or at least one man's idea of ancient practices based on ancient Scriptures. (It is amazing how contemporary this worship was.)

As I look at all this stuff about ancient Christianity, one thought keeps recurring: They're not going back far enough!

In his book, Robert Webber takes the reader back only as far as the second and third centuries. It was amazing that during this summer's North American Christian Convention Conferences, Webber spoke at length on Acts 2. He didn't even neglect Acts 2:38 -- at least not completely! It was, however, his only attempt to journey into the first century.

The gurus of spiritual formation travel back in time only to the desert fathers of the second century. Eric Reed, in his Leadership article entitled "New Journeys on Well-Worn Paths," says many Protestants thought Richard Foster "practically invented the [spiritual] disciplines until his exhortations to solitude, fasting, contemplation, and the like fueled the study of the Desert Fathers, ascetics and monastics."

Reed points out that many Protestants are realizing that the church didn't spring into existence in 1517 or 1535, depending on whether you look to Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin. Hundreds of years of devoted followers preceded the Reformation. We've been schooled to think of pre-Reformation Christianity as superstitious, works-oriented, and corrupt. Historians have, in recent years, taken a new look at what was previously called "the Dark Ages" and come to realize that those years weren't all that dark. While rejecting the works-righteousness orientation of those years, Protestants discovered there is much to admire and emulate among those who would seek spiritual formation. After all, salvation does not depend on works but the individual spiritual formation takes effort.

Herein is the rub! The Restoration Movement began in the nineteenth century as an effort to bring about the unity of Christ's church through a return to the ancient order of things. In his series, "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," publishe in The Christian Baptist, Alexander Campbell said his goal was not reformation but restoration. As he put it, you can reform the church and the papal spirit still fill it. You can reform organizations, structures, and methods but you can't reform Christ's church. You can, however, return to the ancient practices -- the first century practices -- of Christ's church.

I still think this is good thinking. Campbell went on to present a series of articles relating to the nature, leadership, practices, and worship in the first century church. Although they are not easily read, every preacher and church leader needs to read those articles. Are they correct in every detail? I don't think so. In fact, I think the series needs updating. Campbell's goal was to speak biblically, act biblically, worship biblically, and follow Christ's example. Doing so, he believed, would reunite "Christianity's warring factions, bring health to the church, and a healthy church would grow and fill the earth.

I'm certainly not opposed to the spiritual disciplines. We need a renewed emphasis on discpleship because genuine discipleship means believing the right things and doing the right things. More importantly, however, we need a renewed commitment to "redig the wells" removing the clutter of the ages and once again on restoring the faith and practice of the ancient church -- the first century church!

More on the War on Terror

Events in recent days reveal that the Islamist radicals or the Muslim Lunatic Fringe (MLF) seek not only to take down the infidel but all those who can best be described as nominal Muslims as well.

Attacks on Sharm-el-Sheik in Egypt are aimed not only at western tourists but nominal Muslims as well. Attacks in Iraq are aimed as much at Muslims who yearn for freedom and the temporal advantages of a free capitalistic society. Efforts to take down the Saudi kingdom continue and will do so as long as the leaders continue trade relationships with and cooperate with western powers. You may see more efforts to unseat the Pakistani president because of his government's cooperation with the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've already seen a change in leadership in Turkey with accompanying reduced cooperation. Radical Muslims will not be satisfied until the whole world is ruled by a Taliban-like rule that will move civilization back at least 500 years.

Western European leaders are finding themselves caught between a rock and a hard place as well. Lax immigration policies have permitted Arab immigration to reach the point where they must placate growing Muslim minorities. Spain's turnaround after the invasion of Iraq is a sign that a growing Muslim minority can weild sufficient power to change regimes. Great Britain is finding itself at a point where its culture is being challenged by that of Islam. Terrorist attacks in Britain are aimed as much at reminding Britons they can act as an attempt to force the government to cave on its support of the U.S. effort to terminate terrorism.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear. I do not hate Muslims. I do hate what Islam stands for and I despise the methods employed in its jihad. Muslims do, however, hate my country, and that means they hate me. They would kill me and every other Christian who refuses to submit, to pay, or convert.

The one thing they cannot change at this point, is the fact that Christianity is growing world-wide at a rate that surpasses the growth of Islam. Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the globe and it is growing among those nominally identified with Islam. This drives the radical Islamists to even greater atrocities.

The question is not which will win -- Christianity or Islam! That's already been decided. The question is, Will American Christians and the American people have the courage and the tenacity to stave off this determined enemy until the Lord returns or these radicals retreat into their spider holes and never come out?

War on Terror

A mullah speaking in London yesterday or today said, "I would like to see the flag of Islam flying over every nation in the world." (See "The Drudge Report" for the exact quote.)

Therein lies the real issue of the ambitions of Islamists around the world. Do not be misled by those who would have you believe Islam is a religion of peace. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Qu'ran plainly teaches that the infidels (that's you and me, brother) are to be put to death if they will not convert. Perhaps, and it is only perhaps, Jews and Christians might be spared if they were willing to pay dearly for the privilege of living and obeying the mullah's mandate never to evangelize or "proselytize."

Conversion via the sword has always been the modus operandi of Islam. It is called jihad and dates back to Mohammed himself. Poordisillusioned and hallucinoginic Mohammed sat in a cave until receiving messages from the "angel Gabriel." For years only his wife Khadijah and an uncle believed his rantings. Then a wealthy leader "saw the light" and with monied backing, Mohammed found the means to gather a crowd. Hoping to unite the Arabs under one religious banner, Mohammed began a series of conquests that assimilated North Africa, the Holy Land, Turkey, southeastern Europe and Southern Spain. Only Charles Martel stopped the Isalamists at the Battle of Tours.

Those followers of Mohammed who present a peaceful front are cut from the same bolt of cloth as those who claim Christianity but who deny biblical truth, fail to live the Christian life, and reject the idea that Christ really is Lord. Just as Christianity has its nominal believers, so Islam does as well. Those who proclaim Islam is a "religion of peace" reject the true message of Islam and are perfunctory name-only believers who go through the rituals but deny the real message of the religion.

Have you noticed how the media recently classes "fundamentalist Christians" with "radical Islamists?" That's true not only on the liberal national media, but Fox News as well. Those who really believe the Bible, who understand the only way one can be saved is through Christ, and who speak out against our nation's moral decay are personified as intolerant, unloving, and unwitting agents of dissension, division, and destruction. What the mass of "Christianity" and the mass of the adherents to the so-called "religion of peace" don't realize is that there really is a war to the death between these two religions: the true face of Islam and genuine Christianity!

It is a war waged between the forces of darkness (Islam) and the forces of light (Christianity). It is a war that will be waged on many fronts but we dare not slink back into the shadows and refuse to share the genuine Gospel at every opportunity. It must be shared at home where freedom of religion is interpreted as "believing what you want the way you want and never having those beliefs challenged."

I am uncertain if the bulk of the American people really have the stomach for doing what must be done. What we cannot accomplish with the Book we may have to stave off with the bullet. If so, it will be a long arduous battle. Just as we saw in Vietnam, the American people may find the demands of such battles too much. The cost of waging the war on terror will eventually eat into our comfort levels and many will begin calling for withdrawal. It's already beginning to happen! Those who do not understand this is a battle for freedom and survival are already beginning to whine and carp. Our current president has the moral courage to stand up for what is right (although I'm not sure he understands the nature of the war) but what of those who follow?

The Battle of Britain has just begun. It is only a matter of time until we see the battle renewed in our own cities. When the battle renews here, it won't be airplanes flying into skyscrapers, it may well be a nuclear device detonated in the heart of one of our major cities.

What do we do? Remain altert. Be aware that Jesus could break through the clouds at any moment. Whether he comes or we die, let us be prepared. Fortify your faith and be prepared to stand firm against an evil enemy that would impose its false god upon us or a government that gradually seeks to remove God from our national life and heritage.

On Being Disingenuous

It seems like all I ever write about these days is baptism. Ugh! I hate that, but it is exactly at this point where Satan is doing his work.

I've been doing something interesting over the past few weeks. The Christian Standard article on "Statements of Faith" a few weeks ago picqued my curiosity. I wondered what all of our mega-churches were stating on their web sites so I did a search and visited the web sites of nearly all the churches listed in the Christian Standard as a mega-church. I'm in the process of analyzing what I found and categorizing the results after which I'll post the results.

In the process, I discovered something quite interesting. Since the Standard published an issue featuring an interview with Gene Appel and Mike Breaux, many in the movement think Willow Creek Community Church is virtually a Christian Church or Church of Christ. The Standard article asked, "What's going on at Willow Creek?" Well, I can tell you this! At this point they are not making a transition from a typical evangelical mega-church to a congregation that identifies with the principles of the Restoration Movement!

Appel and Breaux talked about how they had not changed their views on baptism and related, in the article, that there had been 40 immersions. Why Willow had even built a baptismal pool in the building. Well, I can say without reservation that I'm genuinely happy about the 40 immersions they reported. That's wonderful!

But ... that is not the church's "official position." A look at Willow Creek's online Statement of Faith reveals some interesting facts. First, Willow does insist on believer's baptism. They see biblical baptism as resulting from individual choice. Thus, infants are not consider candidates for baptism. Second, those who come to Christ are free to choose the mode of baptism. They may elect to be immersed or sprinkled.

Appel and Breaux mayreport 40 immersions, but how many others opted for sprinkling? They certainly, and for obvious reasons, don't tell us that! As many candidates that Willow receives, wouldn't you expect there may be as many who choose sprinkling as immersion? Even if there is only one that is one too many. The original language leaves nothing to even hint that sprinkling is an acceptable mode for baptism. The very fact that Appel and Breaux encourage immersion is irrelevant. They are both in a position where, if they are to follow the church's stated official position, must sprinkle those who choose to be sprinkled. Even if they do not do so themselves, they are giving tacit approval by continuing to work and teach within the church's stated position.

Furthermore, being in the traditional evangelical mindset, Willow sees baptism as symbolic of an inner change God has already worked. Although some of our best known preachers promote the idea that "we don't know when God saves," such statements run counter to all we've stood for in the effort to restore biblical authority and New Testament Christianity. Alexander Campbell came to the conclusion that baptism was "for the remission of sins." Although he is not our authority, the Bible is, and this is clear biblical teaching! Campbell stated again and again that the reason he and others we so boldly attacked by the Baptists is that they stood for "baptism for the remission of sins." To say we can't say when salvation occurs flies in the face of Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:25-27, and Colossians 2:11, 12. Of course, even these references assume that "faith works" in that it results in salvation at the time of baptism, the point at which God promises to bestow the Holy Spirit, wash us clean, and regenerate us. It is a step away from biblical authority and into the realm of Calvinistic Baptists rather than upholding biblical authority. It is a step toward antinomianism rather than the erection of a creed to deny that the Bible says salvation is assured at Baptism.

Many of our church's look to Willow for methodology. How many will follow Willow and Saddleback into their erroneous theology?

Religion at USAFA

The Pentagon released a study that indicated that growing evangelical Christianity among the Cadets results in a lack of toleration and understanding for Jews and the practitioners of a variety of different sects and belief systems. There was no overt religious discrimination, the report said, but there was a failure to recognize a line between what was permissible and not permissible in the expression of beliefs.

The root of the whole issue at USAFA is personal evangelism on the part of believing Cadets. Some of those who had no faith system or practiced (or didn't practice) other belief systems felt the Cadets intruded into their life.

What officials tend to forget is that those in the military tend to be "gung ho" about almost anything they feel is important. The Bible teaches Christians they are to "go, teach, baptize, and teach" those who are unbelievers. Christianity also teaches that "there is no name given under heaven whereby we must be saved except the name of Jesus." In other words, sincere Christans may tolerate other individuals, but they are not called upon to tolerate or accept their belief systems as legitimate. Those opposed to Christians sharing their faith tend for forget that. Further, they often discount Christianity and consign it to the ash heap of "other systems."

This is not something new! One reason the Roman government persecuted Christians was for their "lack of tolerance." Religions were assimilated into the Roman Pantheon and were considered the "religion of a specific people or region." The Romans considered Christianity acceptable as long as they were seen as a "Jewish sect." Christianity, however, broke out from that identity when they scattered abroad. Everywhere Christians went, they preached an exclusive gospel. The silversmith riot in Ephesus was directly due to the fact that Paul taught Ephesians Christians that Diana was no goddess and the believers quit buying the little silver idols the silversmith's manufactured.

Genuine Christianity can accept individuals, love them, care for them, but they can't ignore them. At the same time, Christianity can not tolerate false doctrine and false teaching even in the name of pluralism. Just as there can't be two contradicting truths, there can't be two contradictory religions. If Christianity is the truth, Wicca, Islam, Judaism, or what have you can't be true. Consistent evangelism doesn't reflect disrespect for individuals. It does indicate genuine concern for if Christianity is true -- and the others are not -- then an individual's eternal destiny is at stake.

My son graduated with the USAFA Class of 1992. I was more than pleased with the quality of the officers assigned to the Academy for teaching and training. Many of these individuals were Christians. I did not agree with all of them in all things, but I was grateful for the consistency of their lives and their commitment to God and country. There were Bible studies and prayer times for the Cadets, but no forced anyone to attend. As far as I could tell, there was respect for others regardless of their belief system. My son never indicated to me that anyone was intrusive or intimidating in their concern for others.

All of this is part and parcel of the atmosphere of the USA in today's world. In our "politically correct" world, it doesn't matter what you believe. Well, I don't buy that. For some indication about how Christians should behave in 21st Century USA, you should make a thorough study of the New Testament and the history of the early church.

Statements of Faith

Like most congregations, First Christian Church of Sun City has a "Statement of Faith" which it makes available in brochures and on its web site. I've never really been satisfied with it or any other statement I've read. Those who pioneered the Restoration Movement were correct when they said that such statements said too much if they included more than what the Bible taught. They were also correct when they said that such statements said too little when they included less than what the Bible said.

Take the assortment of statements recently published in the "Christian Standard." They are all good statements. In fact, they are similar to the one I have on our web site. I'm sure there are many other things that could be said, but each of those statements is vague about the purpose of baptism. Let me give you some examples:

Mooresville, IN
"Those accepting Christ must repent of sin, confess their faith, and be baptized into him" (Romans 10:9; Acts 2:38).

Wichita, KS
"We believe that the repentant believers in Christ should be baptized in water, by immersion (the biblical form of baptism), in obedience to Christ."

Everett, WA
"Immersion in water of a professed believer is the Bible baptism (Acts 8:36-38). Such baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:1-4).

A couple of others don't even include baptism as part of their important beliefs. Others have stated their position in terms quite similar. One congregation even identified itself as an "evangelical church committed to the authority of the Bible." That statement would certainly cause a few Restoration saints to turn over, no spin, in their graves. Many of us have thought of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ as neither Protestant, Catholic, or Evangelical in the commonly used sense of the terms.

Is there anything in the statements above that you can't accept or agree on? Of course not! Immersion is the biblical form of baptism and those who come to Christ must repent and confess Christ prior to their immersion. No problem there!!

But whatever happened to the understanding that baptism is for the remission of sin? Isn't that what Peter said on Pentecost? I won't say no congregation clearly states that baptism is into Christ for the remission of sins. Darned few do, however! It just isn't "politically correct!" To come right out and say it might "offend some Baptist."

It sure did in Canton, OH, a few years ago! When I designed the first web site for Canton's First Christian Church, I prepared its statement of faith. Later, when some of the "young bucks" joined the CyberMinistry, we put clear instruction on "how to become a Christian" on the site. If you want to see what was stated, just surf to www.firstchristian-suncity.info/plan_of_salvation.htm. A controversy arose in a women's Bible study about the place of baptism. The teacher, who attended a Christian Church Bible College, taught that baptism was not part of the salvation process. When I was approached about what to do (I was the Minister of Adult Education), I suggested that the Women's Ministry leader ask her to meet with me or an elder. The teacher refused. In my book, the lack of respect for the church leadership was grounds for dismissal. This teacher was dismissed! Several church members heard about it and reacted negatively. Some started a phone campaign. Others looked at the church web site, then compared our statements with those of other churches. Of course, no other church was as clear as we were! One member knew she was saved in the backseat of an automobile during a night at the movies because she "felt saved." That kind of says it all! As a result, several families left the church. At that point, it was decided the statement on the web site was too specific and it was taken down. I acquiesced (I'm a high S-C for those who know the DISC model of personality traits) but I didn't like it and was deeply offended!

Now let me speak plainly! Let's get over this silliness that we don't know at what point a person is saved. Scripture leaves no doubt that it is at the time of baptism that one's sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), one puts on Christ (Galatians 3:27), and sins are remitted (Acts 2:38). You and I know it isn't the immersion in water that saves -- it is one's faith in Christ that saves, but it is a "done deal" at the time of baptism. All this junk about baptism "being the setting in the wedding ring" or not knowing when a person is married -- at the engagement, the ceremony, the pronouncement, or the consummation -- is a red herring and ought to be scrapped.

What about the person who truly trusts Christ and yet is misled on the issue of baptism or, through some circumstance beyond his control, can't be immersed? I DON'T KNOW! Do you understand those words? God doesn't say! Like Alexander Campbell in the correspondence, I'm left only with my opinion on the question. I'm not God and I don't have any right to speak to that question.

We have watered down biblical teaching so satisfy "itching ears." We must be "like everyone else" or we won't grow. What a load of the stuff we used to spread on our fields in Iowa to ensure a better harvest! Israel wanted to be like everyone else, and they got Saul. What do you think we'll get?

Now, lest someone misunderstand me, YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND FOR THE TRUTH IN A WAY THAT ALIENATES OR OFFENDS! Love, patience, long suffering, and service go a long way toward making the truth attractive. Some of our problems were created by unloving, harsh, judgmental, mean-spirited men and women who confused their likes and dislikes, their culture and background, and their opinions with the truth. Shame on them! But shame on us if we bow before the idols of half-truths or politically correct speech or marketing ploys just to satisfy everyone around us.

North American Christian Convention

The Corona, CA, version of the North American Christian Convention is history. Although this year's version was brief, I felt it was one of the better gatherings I've attended over the past few years. Let me give you several reasons for my statement.

The convention emphasized traditional Restoration Movement positions. Over the past few years a lot of talk surfaced charging that leaders, especially those involved in organizing the North American, were abandoning the movement's doctrinal positions. The charges usually revolve around baptism. While I often think that many churches are somewhat soft on this question, I did not hear this in evidence. Several speakers clearly emphasized that baptism is for the remission of sins.

The convention services were worshipful and mellow. After the hard rock of last year's convention, this year's services were quietly worshipful. Convention music featured the stylings of John G. Elliott at the piano. Accompaniment featured the piano, violin, bass guitar, acoustic guitar, and drums at a volume comfortable to everyone. We sang traditional hymns as well as newer praise songs. Elliott successfully brought us to the foot of the cross in every service.

The convention emphasized the need for our churches to go deep. Several years ago, I wrote Christian Standard article entitled, "The Platte River Syndrome." In the article I expressed the view that many of our mega-churches are, like Nebraska's Platte River, are a mile wide and an inch deep. Over the past few years, our churches have successfully reached thousands of people but are failing to ground them in solid biblical truth. I found it interesting that several of this year's speakers expressed the same observation and agreed that our churches needed to do more to disciple their members. Sadly, however, those same speakers gave us few practical insights on how to do it.

While I enjoyed the convention, there were just a couple of things that gave me pause. First, there was a lot of talk about "encountering God." Sadly, however, "encountering God" equalled "feelings." the impression was left that if the music and the style of worship create emotional responses, one has experienced God. This thinking fits in well with current worship philosophy that worship must create a sense of the infinite. The gurus of contemporary worship insist that today's young dults want to "experience God." The problem is, however, that someone with the right skills can manipulate emotions to create an atmosphere one can call an "encounter with God" whether or not it really is. I am not opposed to creating atmosphere in worship, but let's be honest enough to realize that the result may or may not be an experience of God. A genuine experience with God depends more on the condition of one's heart and the impact of the Holy Spirit working through the Word. Perhaps we could more accurately call conviction an experience with God rather than emotionalism.

Second, Robert Webber surprised me with his exposition of Acts 2 and his emphasis on the importance of Acts 2:38. At the same time, Webber spoke at length about the need for preparatory instruction (catechism) prior to baptism and the use of ritual and symbol in the process. Just as he did in his book, The Ancient Future Church, Webber drew most of his illustrations of ritual and symbolism from the church of the second and third century rather than the New Testament Church. In other words, Webber simply didn't go back far enough in his search for the "Ancient Church." Still, there were some insights worth chewing on in his presentations.

This year's convention is worth attending, but as in every instance one must keep their analytical thinking cap on.

The Culture of Death

Perhaps you’ve been following the Terri Shaivo case. Its been in the news constantly for the past two weeks. Unless the Supreme Court takes immediate action, which is unlikely, Terri may be dead by the time you read this.

Numerous times, I’ve gone with families through some of their most difficult decisions. Some of those involved continuing or discontinuing life support for a loved one. When asked, I have always counseled for life but not necessarily prolonging life by extraordinary means.

What constitutes prolonging life by extraordinary means? In my view, extraordinary measures are those which artificially prolong life. Today’s technology permits doctors to artificially prolong life when, by all measures, the individual’s brain functions are gone and only a respirator maintains life. When faced with a decision about “pulling the plug,” I’ve advised families to make that decision with the counsel and advice of a qualified physician. At the same time, I’ve counseled them to provide for life’s absolute necessities – food, water, and access to air. A feeding tube is not an artificial measure. If one is to err, it should always be in favor of life!

I am shocked to discover that 70% of the American populace says this woman should die. In spite of the fact there is ample testimony that Terri responds to stimuli, seems to recognize others, and attempts to speak, the overwhelming majority accept the decision to “pull the plug.” Qualified professionals disagree on Terri’s viability, but at the root of the issue is the belief that since Terri will never fully recover she should be allowed to pass on. We are told by her husband that she did not wish to have her life prolonged artificially. In most courts of law, such testimony is hearsay since there is no written “living will.” Nonetheless, her husband, who has had a long standing relationship with another woman complete with children, wants her out of the way. For him, Terri is now just a nuisance and a hindrance to the life he wants to live.

Here are a couple of facts for you to consider. First, death is no friend. The Bible describes death as an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:27). Death is the specific punishment for sin (Genesis 2:17, 3:19; Romans 3:23). Although the Christian has no reason to fear death, the unbeliever does and should!

Second, human life is precious because God created humans in his image (Genesis 1:27). Only humans bear God’s image. Only human life is sacred.

Third, God demonstrates the special value of human life when he decrees the punishment for murder (Genesis 9:6). This is a “Creation Ordinance” and applies to all humanity for all time. The only just and appropriate punishment for the willful non-judicial taking of human life (murder) is the forfeiture of the murderer’s life. Why? Because man is made in God’s image!

Fourth, God states the value of human life in the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13). The commandment says, “You shall not murder.”

Fifth, Solomon insists any life is preferable to death. In Ecclesiastes 9:4 he says, “Anyone who is among the living has hope – even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!”

In my opinion, our culture has become “a culture of death.” There is little respect for human life as evidenced in the abortion rate and the growing acceptance of euthanasia for the terminally ill. There is only one reason for this as far as I can see. Our culture has pounded the humanistic and naturalistic theory of evolution in our heads until most of us accept the idea that we are nothing more than animals – more intelligent than some – resulting from chance plus time. If humans are little more than a mass of protoplasm from the cradle to the grave, why not extinguish or eliminate that which is imperfect, inconsequential, or inconvenient? Such thinking is vaguely reminiscent of what the world heard from Hitler and his scientists in the 1930s as they pressed for the development of the “Master Race.”

Remission of Sins

Over the past few years doctrines surrounding the important biblical subject of the remission of sins has been consistently weakened. Today's healthy emphasis on the importance of faith in the salvation process is helpful and refreshing.

In previous submissions to this blog, I have noted that pendulum swings tend to occur in the churches with regularity. As noted in the previous blog, the pendulum swings between evangelism and edification. The pendulum swings between the Restoration Movement's twin purposes -- unity and truth. Now I fear the pendulum is swinging between faith and baptism.

Not too long ago, many brethren were recapitulating the errors of Dr. John Thomas. You can read about him in the 1836 volume of the Millennial Harbinger. I'm sure there's much said about him in other volumes, but that's as far as I've gotten in my project to read all of this important publication. Thomas was guilty of several errors, but one of them had to do with baptism. He taught that Baptists and others had to be reimmersed because their profession of faith was incomplete. In addition, Thomas seemed to vest some almost magical quality to the water. In a series of articles, Alexander Campbell clearly expressed his disagreement with Thomas's approach. Campbell agreed that Baptists did not correctly understand the purpose of baptism, but they did understand the candidate and mode. Carl Ketcherside used to say, "They may not know the purpose of baptism but God does!"

My point is that when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, baptism becomes the "end-all-be-all" of salvation. The best place to see this portrayed is in the "Lunenberg Letter" which appeared in the 1837 volume of the Millennial Harbinger. The "good"lady of Lunenberg wanted to know why Campbell would dare to suggest that a Presbyterian might be saved. Her letter evidenced that for her immersion in water was everything.

Today the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins is weakened until it reflects the popular evangelical (Baptist) view. That is, that baptism is something you do after God saves you. In fact, the way I read many church web sites, one is unsure if baptism is important. You must be immersed to be a member of the church (a local congregation), but the purpose of baptism is unclear. In most cases, I would like to think that those in leadership understand the importance of baptism for the remission of sins. If it is still believed, it is well camouflaged. I think there is often a conscious decision to camouflage what the Bible clearly teaches because of an unfounded fear that potential attenders and members -- many who come from evangelical backgrounds -- will think the church teaches baptismal regeneration.

The fact is that Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell, as well as most early restorationists, had no qualms about boldly speaking out on baptism for the remission of sins. Relying heavily on Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16, they unequivocally taught that the purpose for baptism was the remission of sins. There was no doubt, there was no camouflaging of the language, no equivocation. They taught that faith (the belief of testimony) led to conviction and repentance and then, based on one's confession of faith, baptism occurred which resulted in the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, that's exactly what the Bible teaches.

A few popular preachers and writers in today's church have said, "Well, we don't really know when God chooses to save a person." On occasion, the salvation process is compared to a wedding. The questions are asked: "Is a person married when they get engaged?" "Is a person married when they take their vows?" "Is a person married when they physically consummate the union?" The answer to all these questions is, "It isn't important! Once the wedding is over, we all celebrate with the couple." So the questions are: "Is faith important?" "Is repentance important?" "Is confession important?" "Is baptism important?" "When are they saved?" And the answer is given, "It isn't important! We just rejoice with the born again individual."

That's just not what God says! God's Word says you are "saved by grace" (Eph. 2:8). No one can be saved by their own effort and no volume of good works will earn God's acceptance. Salvation is solely by grace. God's Word says you are saved "through faith" (Eph. 2:8). The Greek word translated "through" can also mean "because of." You are "saved because of your faith." Nothing is said about any idea that you are saved at the moment of your faith. God's Word says you are saved "at baptism" (Acts 2:38). It is at the moment of water baptism that the believer who confesses his trust in Jesus (Rom. 10:9) receives the remission of sins and the gift of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Other passages support this view: Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27 and a lot more (look'em up).

Our evangelical friends protest: You are baptized in the Holy Spirit and he washes you clean not the water. So! What's the point. Are there two different baptisms? One baptism, according to the evangelical, occurs at the moment of faith when Holy Spirit baptism occurs. (Give me a book, chapter, and verse for that! Any reference to time is "read into" the Scripture.) The other baptism, according to the evangelical, is water baptism that occurs later as a testimony to what has already happened. (Give me a book, chapter, and verse that too. That's a deduction or an inference, not a clear biblical teaching.) According to Ephesians 4:5, there is only one baptism. There is no precedent for identifying that one baptism as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and there is no precedent for suggesting that such baptism occurs at any other time than simultaneous with water baptism! Only when the washing of the Spirit is simultaneous with water baptism can there be any understanding of one baptism. At the time of one's immersion in water that occurs in the material realm, the Holy Spirit is providing the washing of regeneration that occurs in the spiritual realm. It is one act! In that regard, and only that regard, can water baptism be seen as an "outward act that expresses the inner reality."

Is there any biblical teaching that suggests this? Yes. Jesus told Nicodemus that he could be born again when he is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5). Evangelicals protest that this is a reference to physical birth and spiritual birth. Oh! How so? Why, since Nicodemus was standing there, would Jesus say that to be born again he had to undergo physical birth? I agree with Bishop Westcott who said, "It can ... scarcely be questioned that as Nicodemus heard the words, water carried with it a reference to John's baptism, which was a divinely appointed rite, gathering up into itself and investing with a new importance all the lustral baptism of the Jews: the spirit, on the other hand, marked that inward power which John placed in contrast with his own baptism. Thus, the words taken in their immediate meaning as intelligible to Nicodemus, set forth, as required before entrance into the kingdom of God, te acceptance of the preliminary rite divinely sanctioned, which was the seal of repentance and so of forgiveness, and following on this the communciation of a new life, resulting from the direct action of the Holy Spirit through Christ. ... They look forward to the fulness of the Christian dispensation, when after the Resurrection the baptism of water was no longer separated from, but united with, the baptism of the spirit in the 'laver of regeneration' (Titus 3:5, comp. Eph. 5:26), even as the outward and the inward are united generally in a religion wich is sacramental and not only typical. Christian baptism, the outward act of faith welcoming the promise of God, is incorporation into the Body of Christ, and so the birth of the Spirit is potentially united with the birth of water" (Gospel According to John, p. 50).

Someone may also respond, Alexander Campbell didn't seem to think water baptism was all that important. After all, he recognized those sprinkled as Christians. This question arises out of Campbell's responses to the lady from Lunenberg. In a previous article to the series called "The Lunenberg Letter," Campbell had identified Presbyterians and others who sprinkle as Chrsitians. Our brethren in the Disciples of Christ latched on to this and instituted the concept of "Open Membership" sometime back in the early part of the last century.

The fact is, Campbell was merely recognizing an important biblical truth: God judges on the basis of one's ability to know. When speaking at Capernaum, Jesus said, "If the things that were done here were done at Tyre and Sideon, they would have repented. Therefore, it will be easier for them in the judgment (my paraphrase)." This provides us with a biblical precedent. Those with greater knowledge and opportunity to know have greater responsibility. Jesus does not say those in Tyre and Sidon would be "saved," he merely says God will be more tolerant toward them because of their ignorance and lesser opporunities.

Campbell then enunciated an opinion. It was his opinion that someone erroneously taught about such things as water baptism could be saved, provided they put their absolute confidence in Christ. This was one of the strongest of opinions shared by early restorationists. Before coming to an understanding of the importance of baptism, Thomas Campbell had written in the "Declaration and Address" that the only things necessary to becoming a Christian is to confess Christ and obey him in all things according to their understanding. In other words, God may choose to save a person with genuine faith provided they have demonstrated that faith to the extent of their understanding.

I share that opinion. But the honest truth is, I don't know what Go may choose to do. The only way one can have assurance that God will save them is to do all that he commands. That means that when one comes to understand that baptism is immersion in water for the remission of sins, they should respond in humble submission and obedience. It is my opinion that God may choose to save those who were mistaught or who misunderstood through no fault of their own. (One must recognize the influence of teachers and preachers whom one hears and trusts.) If one is taught throughout their whole "Christian" experience that baptism is sprinkling, it is difficult for them to read anything else in Scripture but "sprinkling" when they see the word "baptism" for it is rarely translated as "immerse."

Let me go one step farther, however! You cand I have the responsibility to correctly teach -- to the best of our own limited knowledge and ability -- the truth of God. Therefore, God has not given you or I any right to camouflage or reduce the importance of baptism for the remission of sins. We have no right to soften or change biblical teaching to make biblical truth more palatable or acceptable. Our task is "to preach the Word," to preach it honestly, to preach it accurately, and to let God and our hearers produce the results.

What God may do is up to him. What he has said he would do is to graciously receive those who trust Jesus fully, who turn away from their sins, and are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. Such individuals are promised -- promised, mind you -- the "gift of the Holy Spirit."

Healthy Churches

I first heard Bob Russell speak during a North American Christian Convention. Since that day, I have followed his ministry with interest and admiration. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts," God has used him to build a great church. Over the years I've stolen sermon ideas from Bob. His tapes and written pieces instruct me and help me in my own ministry. I've had the opportunity to know him personally and I've always found him gracious and insightful.

With that in mind, Bob has an article entitled "A Healthy Church" in the March 27 "Lookout." As usual, he is right on target. He says, "A healthy church puts a proper emphasis on both evangelism and edification. When the pendulum swings too far to one side or the other the church loses its equilibrium and becomes unbalanced and unhealthy." As the article progresses, Bob notes that large churches are accused of being "a mile wide an and inch deep." (I can't for the life of me think of anyone who said such a thing! Sarcasm noted!)

For all of the centuries of its existence, there has been tension over the question, Is the church for the many or the few? One form of the question focuses on the tension between reaching the lost and teaching the saved. It is a natural tension stemming from the Great Commission itself. After all, Jesus told his followers to "go make disciples" and "teach them...." Over the centuries, one can see a cycle of expansion and contraction. During the times of expansion, the church is effectively reaching the lost. Times of contraction are usually times when the church is solidifying its gains through teaching. I will admit, too, that contraction also occurs when the church is under duress, but the careful observer will see the pendulum swinging between outreach and teaching.

What I have called for is a balancing of the pendulum -- stopping the swing. A healthy church will see both outreach and edification. In my view, however, the emphasis for the last score of years has been and remains outreach. Is that bad? Not at all, but if there is little or no effective teaching of both content and application there is the danger of making Christians who are every bit as worldly as those added during the Middle Ages by conquest or people movements. Charlemagne "won" thousands with a sword at their throat who were told, "Convert or die!" At that point those defeated foes replied, "No one ever explained the Gospel to me so clearly!" The difference today is that instead of incorporating people by force, we win too many to a kind of "culture Christianity" that makes few demands, provides little discipline, and certainly downplays discipleship.

I'm not sure how you measure balance in a church. Southeast Christian Church regularly counts 18,000 in weekend worship but fewer than 5,000 are in weekend Bible classes (according to the last statistics I saw). I'm not being critical, I'm just stating a fact. Perhaps another thousand or more are in small groups, but as I've maintained before, you rarely teach biblical content in a small group. SECC is not unusual. Most of our mega-churches have less than 40% in a weekend Bible class. Many have no Bible classes for adults at all! Where is the balance in that?

It is sad to see congregations where "the unbeliever has no entry point and the church goes for months without anyone being born again." Bob is right when he says "the result [of that] is not a body of spiritually mature Christians but a bunch of disgruntled, borning, self-righteous, bickering old coots." (Now that I minister in Sun City, I'm a bit sensitive to any identification of "old coots.")

It is just as sad to see huge congregations of worldly Christians where excitement is king but the message of transformation and discipleship makes little impact. From my experience, that does not happen at Southeast but it does happen elsewhere. When references to the gathering for worship are casually clled "the show" and performance is key you have to ask what is going on. Is this time set aside for genuine worship or is it merely another attraction for seekers?

Bob wrote, "A church without any baby Christians lacks joy and fervor. It's boring! The long-time members aren't deepening -- they're often stagnating and instinctively sense something is wrong. New believers make church work thrilling and refreshing." Right on! I would agree with that. Here, however, there is a "but." If a church focuses on "the show" and makes little provision for "deepening the life" they can become like the Corinthians to whom Paul said, "I could not write unto you as spiritual but as to worldly -- mere infants in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1).

My point is that we have come to a place in our history where we no longer believe biblical content is important. Few of us can preach the "meaty" messages a Bob Russell preaches. Most of the time, mega-church preachers focus on the "practical" and the "self-help" message. As congregations build their new superstructures to house the mega-church, they are investing thousands upon thousands of dollars in theatrical lighting, sound, and high-tech special effects with comparative little on facilities for Christian education and discipleship. How a church spends its money demonstrates its commitment. In years gone by, churches spent most of their money on themselves for their own comfort and upon facilities where effective teaching could take place (not that it always did). Now the pendulum has swing. When Maryland Community Church in Terre Haute built its new facility it made no provision for adult education space and it released the minister responsible for that program. A congregation in Evansville, Indiana, made no provision for adult education in its new facility intending to depend on small groups. First Christian Church in Canton, a church built to greatness through the Sunday School, is reducing the availability of meeting rooms for adult classes and plans to consolidate classes. These examples are just the "tip of the iceberg."

We are at a place in our history where the church may be swallowed by culture if we are not careful. In my view, a healthy church is a growing church but it is also a feeding church. When I look at the growing list of mega-churches, I rejoice! But I also tremble at the tremendous responsibility these churches have to truly "make disciples" of all those reached. It is not an "either, or" but a "both, and" responsibility Christ gave to his followers. Let's never quit focusing on winning new people, but let's never forget that Jesus didn't tell us just to go "baptize heathens" but to "make disciples" and making disciples requires a lot more than spinning turnstiles, splashing water, and people streaming down the aisle! It will require an investment in time, talent, and treasure to get the job done!

Reply to Hawkeye Gold

"Hawkeye Gold," whom I think must be the only reader of this humble blog, wrote:

Many small churches are like the Nishnabotna River: ten yards wide and an inch deep. There are reasons why small churches are small, some of them may have to do with demographics, but, for the most part, small churches are small because they are not healthy.

HG is right, of course. There are potentially many reasons why small churches remain small. Let me pose a few reasons for consideration:

1. A lack of vital health. Healthy churches grow. How much they grow depends on many other factors, but it is unfair to suggest that a rural congregation in Central Nebraska is unhealthy merely because its statistics don't suggest growth. At the same time, a lack of health seen in a "control orientation" among leadership, a lack of balance in the "5 purposes of a church," an "inward focus," and so on does hamper growth.
   
2. Demographics. As suggested above, a church may be healthy and struggle to grow only to see those won to Christ leave the community. Upper midwest states are experiencing a "brain drain" as younger people finish their education and leave for "greener grass" and "greener cash." Many boomers, busters, and millennials are baling out of the "rust belt" or the "ag belt" simply because there aren't good jobs for them. I have known healthy churches to labor diligently to fulfill Christ's mission only to watch those won to Christ move. In such places, "breaking even" may be the mark of success. Here in Sun City, First Christian must reach nearly 30 people a year just to "break even." Additions do not come easy when the community is comprised mostly of senior adults although as FCC becomes more healthy we are seeing renewed interest.
3. A desire for intimacy. As noted in my prevous blog, many busters and millennials are abandoning the mega-church for smaller congregations. According to Mark Taylor, "George Barna found that many younger adults prefer smaller churches. Suspicious of larger organizations in general, many of them feel they can be better known in a smaller congregation." Other researchers are coming to the same conclusions. Does this mean that the drive to build mega-churches has peaked? Not at all! It just means that there are those who prefer smaller healthy churches to larger healthy churches. The problem is, however, that where demographics are not a problem, the healthy smaller church won't stay small. Those who desire intimacy found in smaller churches will "hive off" a nucleus and start a new congregation.
4. A different view of church and its function. Brian Jones's article in the March 20 Christian Standard expresses the view of a growing number of people-oriented leaders. In the last two years several books decrying the CEO mentality necessarily present in the mega-church senior minister. Books like Lynn Anderson's They Smell Like Sheep are calling for a different leadership style. Although it doesn't have to, these concepts almost require a smaller flock. Some mega-churches, especially those with effective small groups (shepherding groups), can and do shepherd their people and minister effectively to individual needs. Others, and I fear this is a majority, don't see the tree for the forest! Mega-church leadership talks about assimilation and shepherding, but there is, in my opinion, a general lack of understanding about what this means.
   
5. A theological aversion to commercialism that often attends a mega-church. In his book on entrepreneurial ministry, Kent Hunter suggests that the growing church must use every avenue at its disposal to attract potential members. While I would agree with this, there are still some things that give me pause. In the 1950s and 1960, Rex Humbard operated a "foundations factory" in conjunction with his Cathedral of Tomorrow in Akron. By "foundations factory," I mean the church owned a factory that made and sold bras, girdles, and other "foundation garments." Nearly every mega-church operates a snack bar or coffee shop (some have full-blown restaurants or buffets), a bookstore, a tape ministry, pre-schools, private schools, or operate a golf course. I remember the day when commercial ventures in a church were considered on a par with the money changers in the temple. Some congregations may purposefully avoid constructing larger and more elaborate buildings because it avoids the temptation to finance such things with commercial ventures. Staying small doesn't mean using other means to attract and win people, it just means the congregation prefers avoiding commrcialization and starting new churches.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, mega-churches have tremendous advantages. In addition to what I wrote there, mega-churches are often highly visible, have a powerful impact on their community, and can offer programs and services smaller churches could never offer.

Smaller churches have some advantages, too. There are oportunities for interaction and involvement in ways mega-churches can't match. The minister, or the ministry staff, knows their sheep far more personally.

It is also true that in many cases, the advantages for both are also the source of their greatest problems.

My concern is that in process of fulfilling the first part of the Great Commission, we don't forget the second part. Neither small churches nor mega-churches have a corner on the market. Neither is necessarily more successful at one than the other. However, it is usually not the smaller congregation that abandons a weekly Bible Class where content can be taught and relationships built. It is not usually the smaller congregation who feels it is necessary to build great halls for worship while failing to invest in facilities and the tools for "making disciples." There is a difference between "making members" and "making disciples."

Mega-churches

The Christian Standard recently published its annual "Mega-church" issue. Christian Church and Church of Christ mega-churches now number 107. Attendances in these congregations range on the average from 1,009 to 18, 757. Wow!

According to statistics accompanying the list, nearly 20% of all who attend Christian Churches and Churches of Christ attend a mega-church. It is fun to look through the list and see congregations served by friends or former students. It thrills me to know God is blessing their work and they are serving Christ so effectively.

At the same time, the "ABCs" we usually use to measure success really don't tell the whole story. You know what I'm talking about. We're talking about A-ttendance, B-uildings, and C-ash. It is quite interesting to see how others evaluate your success by these things. If you are leading a growing congregation, building a new worship facility, and your offerings are on the rise you are successful. We falsely assume that such statistics mean lives are changing.

Such is not always the case. I remember a friend of mine, a staff member at a large expanding mega-church, who said, "It would be nice to have someone come forward to make Christ Lord than just to 'join an exciting church.'" In all too many cases, new people climb on board the train because the train is moving even if they have no knowledge of its destination.

While I once pooh-pooh-ed the whole "church growth" thing, I am now a strong proponent. I do believe it is God's will for the church to grow. Furthermore, I think Rick Warren is right when he says that a healthy church will grow. I was never as excited about the gimmicks of church growth as I was the theology of church growth. Dr. Joe Ellis made me read 8 books on church growth as my "internship" when I was working on my graduate degree. I wasn't too pleased! The books I read didn't stir me much until I read a book on the theology of church growth. That book converted me. Growing healthy churches "turn me on."

At the same time, in ain't all about numbers, buildings, and cash! Most of our mega-churches express their purpose as "building people," "making disciples," or "leading people to become fully devoted followers of Christ." Sadly, however, most mega-churches have little comprehension of what that means.

Jesus told his disciples to "teach them to obey everything I commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). Paul told Timothy, "The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Tim. 2:2). A lot more is contained in those two commandments than building relationships. The early church held a body of teaching (the apostle's doctrine) they conveyed to others with the intent they would convey it to others. I call that biblical content. There are some things so important that they need to be taught and taught effectively. These things are so important than a church must not water them down or relegate them to the uimportant.

I believe in small groups. Small groups, as they are now being used, do not effectively teach biblical content. I have yet to see any small group curricula that effectively teaches biblical content or biblical doctrine effectively. Small groups are designed for interaction and relationship-building. Small groups effectively teach biblical application after establishing the content. Trying to teach biblical content in the typical small group ends up in a "pooling of ignorance" and "I think-ism." Small group proponents pride themselves on the supposed fact that each group does not need a teacher, they only need a facilitator. This highlights a major difference. A teacher must know the content and be able to convey it effectively. A facilitator only needs to know what questions to ask then sit back to permit the discussion to go wherever it goes. A good facilitator can also be a good teacher, but in most cases facilitators aren't prepared to define "sound doctrine."

Our mega-churches are convinced that small groups are the way to go. As a result, those who are part of a mega-church are long on the relational and short on understanding truth and content. Some would object that today's culture avoids truth claims. Others object that today's culture is relational and demands a relational context. Yet Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light...." Paul said Timothy was to teach "sound doctrine."

It doesn't have to be this way! Mega-churches must come to realize that Sunday School Classes or Adult Bible Fellowships are small groups too. It is hard work to prepare qualified teachers who can teach others, but it must happen! Investment needs to be made in facilities in which to teach just as the make investment in theater seating, high-tech lighting and computer generated graphics. There ought to be investment in what is needed to effectively teach truth as is made in providing electronic sound boards, musical instruments, and spotlights. As much attention needs to be made to the teaching as to "the show!"

Until that happens, our mega-churches will remain a "mile wide and an inch deep" spiritually. They will continue to wrestle with the commercialism of the day and advertising will continue to be their bread and butter rather than the changed lives of their members.

It is no accident that many younger people are looking for smaller churches. Part of the reason for that is relational, they want the intimacy and closeness of a small church. But that's not all. They are looking for spiritual mentors (even those with white hair) who can teach them what they need to know and how to apply it!

I'm happy for the growth seen in our mega-churches, but I'd also like to see a depth of conviction and an understanding of biblical truth that I don't often see!

Easter Bunny

On Easter

It now appears that secularists don't like Easter any better than Christmas. Rudolph, Frosty, and the Grinch have stolen Christmas. Now some communities are replacing the Easter Bunny with the "Garden Bunny." I suppose the "Garden Bunny" will promote "Garden Parties" and Easter eggs will get some new moniker as well.

What the secularists don't realize is that the term Easter already denotes heathen observances. The Easter egg and the Easter bunny really have little to do with what Christians celebrate on Resurrection Day. Both have their origin in heathen practices dating back to the days of the early church.

The name "Easter" came from Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre), the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Teutonic people worshiped Ostare, the dawn goddess of fertility. This heathen deity was also known as Ostare, Eostra, Eostre, Eastur,Eastra, Auston and Ausos. Heathen religions of the Mediterranean regions, particularly the Mystery Religions, also celebrated various fertility myths of springtime. Since the earth "came alive" in the spring, heathen religious practices often revolved around the vernal equinox. Secular historians gleefully suggest that Christianity copied from these heathen religions and made springtime a time to celebrate the "myth" of Jesus' resurrection. The major problem with this is that the Mystery Religions came after the beginning of Christianity and the origins of the celebrations in northern Europe are questionable.

Since most public Easter observances have little to do with historic Christianity, why bother with substitutions? What do "Easter Egg Rolls" on the White House lawn have to do with the Christian observances? How is the Easter bunny a Christian symbol? Both are remnants of heathen myths. Perhaps part of the confusion arises out of the fact that many churches today promote their services with "eggstravaganzas," "Easter egg hunts," and giving out "Easter baskets" to the children.

Let me make sure you understand that I, for one, think that coloring Easter eggs is a harmless family activity. Easter baskets filled with candy and chocolate bunnies are okay by me. If parents want to perpetuate the myths while their children are home, I find that little more disturbing than those families that tell their children Santa Claus brings them gifts at Christmas. We gave our children Easter baskets, hunted Easter eggs in our yard, and talked about the Easter bunny. It didn't take my kids too long to figure out that the Easter bunny and Santa Claus were both about 6' 2" tall and weighed around 250 pounds. At the same time, there was greater emphasis on the greatest fact of all human history -- the resurrection of Jesus!

I'm opposed to the secularizing of our culture but I'm also opposed to the paganizing of our churches. It is one thing to decorate a building for Christmas and/or Easter, but it is another to openly promote the commercialism of Christmas or the heathenism of Easter in the church. You see, Christians don't celebrate the vernal equinox. Christians don't celebrate the renewal of springtime. Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead!

After all, the resurrection is the central fact of our faith. Paul wrote that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). For me, my commitment to Christ is not about discovering meaning or purpose. My adherence to the faith is not grounded in an emotional experience or an encounter with Christ, whatever that means. My decision for ministry is not built on a desire to teach Christian ethics, although I do, or because of the biblical moral code. The fact is, I am a Christian because the testimony of Scripture tells me Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion. The testimony of eyewitnesses recorded in Scripture and the testimony of secular writers and the churchmen of the first and second century convinces me that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week after his untimely death at the hands of wicked men. I can't shake it! Every effort to disprove it fails. Every effort to explain away the resurrection falters. It is true -- it is the best attested event in human history. Anthony Flew was right when he said, "You Christians live on the fragrance of an empty vase." The tomb was empty! Prove otherwise and I'll lay aside my convictions and "eat, drink, and be merry" for there is nothing left but earthly pleasure.

You can substitute the Garden bunny for the Easter bunny or sing "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" all you want. I don't care. In fact, I'll join in. But don't confuse these stupid and silly celebrations with the real event -- the birth of Christ and the resurrection of Christ!

Let me close with a word to the wise. People's discipleship will rise no higher than the tools you use to win them to Christ. We already have congregations comprised of shallow Christians who yearn for little more than "baptized heathenism." I don't think that's what Jesus commissioned us to do.