Unity, Our Polar Star?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After Three Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substance vs Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

Demotion of Doctrine?

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

IS DOCTRINE DEAD OR JUST DEMOTED?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feelings!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisions, Decisions!

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

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

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

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

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

Consortium Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One for the Underdog

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

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

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

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

Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about these things.

Q & A

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

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

Enjoying the Rest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next chapter has yet to be written.

Defining Moment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick is oh, so naive!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Ministry in the Larger Church

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought!

On Barna's "Revolution"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there you have it. Another tome!

Preliminary Thoughts on the Emergent Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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