The Last Will and Testament

Brotherhood publications made much of the 200th anniversary of the writing of the "Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." Many historians within the Restoration Movement have long held this document in great reverence and seen it as one of the seminal documents of the Restoration Movement. In most cases, the authorship is attributed to Barton W. Stone but there may be evidence to suggest otherwise.

After the conclusion of the great Cane Ridge Revival, the Presbyterian Church brought Richard McNemar up on charges before the Washington Presbytery. A Mr. Kemper from Cincinnati, Ohio, initiated the charges because he heard from friends in McNemar's church that the preacher proclaimed Arminian doctrine rather that uphold the tenets of the Westminster Confession of Faith. When the Presbytery referred the charges to the Synod of Kentucky, five preachers withdrew to form the Springfield Presbytery. Barton W. Stone, John Thompson, Robert Marshall, John Dunlavy, and Richard McNemar had no desire to leave the Presbyterian Church but they rejected the Synod's authority to judge their preaching. To explain their reasons for withdrawal, three authors collaborated on a document entitled, "An Apology for Renouncing the Jurisdiction of the Synod of Kentucky."

"The Apology," as it has come to be known, recounted the proceedings pointing out that the Presbytery and Synod acted "unlawfully" and with prejudice in their case. The document's opening section is a tale of political maneuvering and prejudicial treatment that was patently unfair. In the document's second section, Barton Stone outlined the doctrinal differences between those who withdrew and the Presbyterian Church. Their ideas grew out of their experiences at the Cane Ridge Revival. Presbyterians, like most Calvinist denominations, taught that "means" were useless in securing converts. God elected some to salvation and others to damnation. God not only "elected" the saved but "predestined" them to glory. God's election, said the Westminster Confession of Faith, was totally without condition. God arbitrarily elected some to salvation and the rest to eternal condemnation. Those whom God elected, he would call through an experience. To become a Presbyterian, one had to relate their experience before the elders or the congregation whereupon these individuals would judge whether or not the experience was valid. Stone, McNemar, Dunlavy, and the others saw hundreds come to conviction through the preaching of a simple Gospel during the revival. They came to the conclusion that faith was not something God implanted, but came by hearing the Gospel. They concluded that an individual could hear the Gospel and choose to believe. They believed preaching was a "means" God could use to bring a person to conviction. For these convictions, the Synod was ready to remove their licensure and thus their right to preach. Threatened with censure, the five preachers essentially left the Presbyterians although they hoped for later restoration.

The revivals of the period left their mark on the religious culture of the early 1800s. So many revivals took place in the early years of the nineteenth century, that people began to expect religious excitement. During the Cane Ridge Revival there were numerous physical manifestations of religious excitement. Richard McNemar recounts those "religious exercises" in his book, The Kentucky Revival which is part of the College Press Reprint Series. Other observers also reported these manifestations. Opinions were divided over the validity of these exercises. Stolid old line Presbyterians rejected them out of hand as enthusiasm, an epithet that pointed to a non-intellectual understanding of the Gospel replacing it with one that was tied to emotion and religious excitement. Barton W. Stone viewed the exercises of the Cane Ridge Meeting as interesting and perhaps valid in context, but certainly not something to be considered normative. Richard McNemar, however, believed these exciting physical manifestations were something to be reproduced. In the congregations he served, he attempted to duplicate the religious excitement and the physical manifestations of the Cane Ridge Meeting.

Approximately nine months after forming the Springfield Presbytery, these men met and dissolved their association. To explain their decision, they issued the document we now know as "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." In a few paragraphs, written much like a standard will, these men indicated they wanted to seek the unity of all believers, return to the biblical standard, and continue their ministries as "independent" preachers answerable only to those who would call them as minsiter to a local congregation. In reality, they were submitting themselves to the authority of Jesus Christ as revealed in his Word. There are some sarcastic references to the Presbyterians as they call upon the Synod to reject anyone who disagrees with them so they can find genuine freedom.

Those are the facts we in the Restoration Movement like to present. We like to see a group of sincere and well-intentioned men who want only to "sink into union with the church at large." Underneath the surface, however, there are some tensions seen only upon closer examination.

I have always found it interesting that just a few short years after this document was published in "The Herald of Gospel Liberty," four of these men no longer associated themselves with its statements. Richard McNemar and John Dunlavy joined the Shakers, an esoteric movement built on religious excitement. John Thompson and Robert Marshall returned to Presbyterianism and submitted to the authority of the Presbyterian hierarchy. I find this interesting because Robert Marshall wrote a strong endorsement for immersion as baptism yet he was willing to return to the paidobaptist Presbyterians.

After returning to the Presbyterians, Marshall and Thompson wrote a document entitled, "The Newlight Church." In this document, the two recounted how they had withdrawn from the Presbyterians and saw great hope for the future. Those who withdrew, however, failed to live up to the promise and they returned to Presbyterianism.

What was it that caused these men to return to the Presbyterian fold. When reading "The Newlight Church," the careful historian must recognize who these men are and the prejudices they hold. Their document must be analyzed with some skepticism particularly since it is possible they are guilty of "sour grapes." Many of our historians have dismissed the document out of hand as the blathering of two individuals disenchanted with the whole "great idea" that led them out of the Presbyterian Church. Quite honestly, some of the document may well be just that. I do not think, however, that one can dismiss all the testimony these men present. Parts of the document have a "ring of truth."

According to Thompson and Marshall, they returned to the Presbyterian Church precisely because the whole issue of religious excitement was getting out of hand. McNemar and Dunlavy were promoting it in their congregations to the consternation of the rest of the group. I am almost certain that Stone, Marshall, and Thompson found McNemar's excesses unsettling to say the least. Furthermore, as long as they were associated together in the Springfield Presbytery, the actions of one or two reflected on all. If others saw or heard the emphasis on emotion and religious excitment from McNemar or Dunlavy, many would see all the members of the Springfield Presbytery as enthusiasts. What is not reported is how these men -- men who liked decency and order -- did or said to the others behind closed doors. You can be sure they reacted negatively and brought pressure to bear to stop the excesses.

Marshall and Thompson also report that it was Richard McNemar who wrote "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." In fact, they say McNemar "foisted it upon the rest." The plain and simple truth is that all five signed the document and dissolved the Presbytery. If Thompson and Marshall are correct in who wrote the document, then it must have become obvious that McNemar's insistence on religious excitement had broken their original unity or was placing it under tremendous strain. The five probably chose dissolution to argument and open fracture. Once the Presbytery dissolved, McNemar and Dunlavy were free to preach and practice what they wanted. The remainder would not be "tainted" by McNemar's enthusiasm, and each individual could go their own way. Thompson and Marshall chose to return to Presbyterianism precisely because the Presbyteries and the Synods held the promise of the means to hold preachers accountable for their message. McNemar and Dunlavy followed their feelings and search for religious excitement into the arms of Mother Ann Lee and the Shakers. Only Barton Stone remained faithful to the reasons for their original withdrawal as expressed in "The Apology."

Having said all of this, I would like to say that a document "foisted upon" the Springfield Presbytery does express the sentiments of the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. We do value unity, biblical authority, and local autonomy. At the same time, I hardly see "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery" as a seminal document. "The Apology" ought to receive far more attention and if our ministers today understood the doctrinal reasons for withdrawing from the Presbyterians there would be far fewer contemporary Christian Churches flirting with evangelicalism and "faith only" doctrines.

Part of "doing history" is to read and study original documents and analyze them for what they say, why they say it, and what results came from them. Documents should not be accepted merely because "they saw what we want them to say!"

Crisis

As early as 1835, Alexander Campbell saw dangers threatening the reform he continued to speak for. He proved not only to be a Bible scholar but something of a prophet as well. I find the article entitled, "Crisis", informative and somewhat helpful for us today. I will do my best to update the writing style and provide a "Readers' Digest" version, but interested readers should check out the 1835 edition of The Millennial Harbinger, pages 595-600 of the College Press edition.

Many dangers threaten the progress of the cause for which we plead. As we bring this volume to a close, it is important for us to give an overview of where things are and where they will be in the future.

Our best estimates place the members of the Restoration Movement at 150,000. This is a far greater number than anyone could have expected. If it were not for Scriptural evidence, the movement could not have sustained itself. There has been little cooperation as well as occasional mismanagement from the ranks of its warmest friends. In addition, there are many who stand against what we're trying to do. The movement's success is due to God's doings not our own.

It concerns me that we have more to fear from our friends than our enemies. Our enemies may misuse the truth but that enables truth to win out. The real dangers come from those within. I am arranging my concerns, not in order of importance or danger, but as they come to me.

1. All too many think the efforts at reform constitute little more than an argument among Baptists. Our efforts and the opposition to them are seen as a family quarrel much like the tensions seen in the Presbyterians concerning New School and Old School, or among Quakers, Methodists, and others as they fight over doctrine, discipline or government.

The reason so many see it as a "war among the Baptists" is that so many of our brethren direct their attention to that party more than any other. They defend themselves from the Baptists and speak long and loud about the weaknesses of Baptist doctrine and administration. In this way some of our brethren appear to fight only the Baptists and thus encourage the belief that it is some family feud or sectarian bickering rather than laying a new foundation, or rather, the laying again of the old foundation originally laid by the Apostles.

When you look into the New Testament, the Christian cause was hurt in much the same way at first. Too many considered Christianity nothing more than a new schism among the Jews -- just another of the isms seen in Judaiam. In that day, opponents of the Gospel pointed to the frequent encounters and controversies between Paul and the Jews as proof. Just as such views hindered the spread of the Gospel in the first century, so the controversies with the Baptists hinders its spread now.

The Restoration Plea did not begin among the Baptists. It began among the Presbyterians. I can show that the reformation of no one party in Christendom was the origin of the first advocates of the original Gospel and order of things. When we joined the Redstone Baptist Association of Western Pennsylvania, it was with the clear declaration that we aimed at making the New Testament without creed or catechism the only rule of faith and manners. We also clearly stated our opposition to human traditions. We formed a connection with the Regular Baptists, but we never approved all of their opinions and views although we agreed on all essentials.

Our views have not changed since that time. We have keep our opinions to ourselves and to contend only for the faith delivered to the saints. We are willing to cooperate with all lovers of the truth in the restoration of pure speech and the effort to return the Christian institution to its original purity and simplicity. It is not, however, a reformation of the Baptists, nor of any party, but the gathering together into one community, under the Apostles' teaching, all those from every denomination who resolve to obey Jesus in all things. Everyone, therefore, should be careful to avoid the appearance that our intentions are to reform the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, or anyone else. Don't talk about "Old Baptists" and "Reformed Baptists" -- just plead Christ's cause. Contend only for that sect of disciples called "Christians first at Antioch!"

2. The reform for which we plead is not specifically anticalvinist either. Some writers and speakers think that the destruction of Calvinism is our focus. The cause for which we plead, however, is no more anticalvinist as antiarminian. We plead for a more ancient and venerable faith and it ought not be compared or contrasted to any other system invented over the last millennium. Calvinism is a system of religious philosophy. It is probably as good a system as arminianism. If I could dissect my own speculations, they would probably be more John Calvin that Jacob Arminius. It just isn't helpful to condemn any or all who have been taught in the Calvinist system. We should not fight the Calvinist/Arminian battles again. We should not have anything to do with human systems!

3. Another danger I see that hinders our cause is the accusation that we are seen as antitrinitarian. A unitarian in th east represented our brethren as a "large class of Reformers in the West" who have "decidedly antitrinitarian views." The truth is, we are as much antiunitarian as antitrinitarian. When a brother attacks Calvinism, an arminian rejoices. When you attack a unitarian a trinitarian rejoices. Without knowing where we really stand, they think they have an ally.

John Wesley once said, "Are we not leaning too much to Calvinism?" Had I been there, I would have said, "Friend John, are you not leaning too much to arminianism?"

It seems to me that in respect to all systems, creeds, and parties, we must inflexibly remain neutral.

4. I think that if we are not careful difficulties will arise on questions of expediency. Those issues could hinder the spread of the principles for which we contend. We don't have a lot of difficulty with "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit, one body,one hope, and the one God and Father." Questions of expediency, however, can create problems. Issues like Paul's circumcision of Timothy or the shaving of his head in purification brings questions about propriety. The only defense the New Testament presents against these potential problems is that the younger submit to the elder -- the minority to the majority -- and that all submit to each other. The wisdom of age can provide a defense against the excesses of action. Preferring one another, as Paul taught, can mitigate differences over expediences. Love can indeed conquer all.

When any question of expediency arise or when any difference of opinion arises, let everyone remember that unity, love, and cooperation are worth more than all our views of expediency and all our opinions on speculations.

5. Something else that will hinder the plea is the tendency on the part of some to attack others and speak of errors rather than the Gospel. It is very easy to become dogmatic and seek only to denounce error rather than preach Christ. This kind of attack arises out of evil genius rather than a love for the Gospel. Negative and attacking preachers gather large audiences but they have little concern for the lost. This blighting and blasting spirit disturbs us. Too many have had that sort of approach and the rest of the world shames us with it.

6. In the same way, the Gospel of peace should not be caught up with preaching against Temperance Societies, Bible and Missionary cooperations or get involved in party politics or the cause of political aspirants.

It would seem to me that we still have too many within our movement who know what we're "agin" rather than what we're "fer." Perhaps someone with more skill and understanding might read Campbell's article and see something else. I think if Campbell could come to the future with Mr. Peabody's "Way Back Machine," he would weep with the way our speculations, contentions, and vicious speech hurt each other and the cause. I know Jesus does!

Experiential Religion

Religionists of the nineteenth century held experience in high esteem. To receive membership in a local congregation, nearly every denomination required of the applicant the relation of an experience. Such experiences could take several forms. A believer might report they felt something as simple as a surge of warmth overwhelming them as they prayed for acceptance. The experience might be a dramatic testimony or a physical manifestation. In every case, such experiences depended on feeling.

Although much of this originated in the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, a renewed emphasis came in the 1700s from Theodore Freylinghuysen. Freylinghuysen, a Reformed preacher in New Jersey’s Raritan Valley, taught that true religion grew from a feeling – a feeling of dependence. God, who Freylinghuysen said was unknowable, could be experienced through an inner feeling of dependence.

Revivalism also gave a “shot in the arm” to religious feeling and experience. George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and Samuel Davies were all powerful preachers who could stir the emotions. Preachers and hearers alike often mistakenly attributed these emotional feelings to the working of the Holy Spirit whose regenerating power brought conviction and release. The “Second Great Awakening” of the early nineteenth century also saw its share of emotional phenomena. Hearing of remarkable events in Logan County, Kentucky, Barton Stone went to hear James McGready preach and to see for himself the revival’s effects. Returning to Bourbon County, Stone arranged for what became known as the Cane Ridge Revival. Richard McNemar, in The Cane Ridge Revival, reported the outbreak of strange physical phenomena that occurred there. Stone later reported that although such experiences were not normative, he did believe God was working during the revivals. After the revival, the desire to continually seek such experiences fractured the Springfield Presbytery. McNemar and John Dunlavy continually sought experiences. Their search eventually led them into Shakerism. Revivalists such as Finney, D.L. Moody, and Billy Graham used emotional appeals to bring their hearers to conviction and response.

Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott rejected the necessity of experience in salvation. Campbell attributed emotionalism and the call for experience to enthusiasm. Writing of the “camp meetings” of his day, Campbell wrote, “Camp meetings is [sic] the order of the day among (a host of groups). … I object not to a camp or field meeting, a one day, two day, or seven day meeting, as such; but you understand that “camp meeting” means not merely hill or dale, field or forest meeting; but a meeting for a revival – for deducing fire from heaven – for altars, anxious seats, mourning benches, and all the machinery of ‘getting religion’ by animal excitement” (“Letter to Elder William Jones,” Millennial Harbinger, 1835, p. 355). Campbell observed that thousands “got religion” but knew little of the Book or its teachings.

The reformers of the nineteenth century rejected any idea of such overt operations of the Spirit along with any need for experience, emotional or otherwise, for proving faith. As Campbell put it, “I teach that the Spirit of God only now operates through the written word, either in convincing sinners or in consoling saints” (ibid).

For Campbell, and others, faith originated in a quiet confidence in the testimony of the Scripture. Because the eye-witnesses faithfully reported their experiences, one could come to believe without reservation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Paul’s letters, and the writings of others in the New Testament, continued Christ’s teachings as “he led them into all truth” (John 14:26). Leaders in the Restoration Movement realized it was not their experience but the experience of the Apostolic writers that meant something. Campbell taught that faithful proclamation of the ancient gospel produced faith in the hearers. Faith led to repentance, confession, and obedient submission to Christ in baptism for the remission of sins.

I find it interesting that religionists are today returning to a “religion of feeling and experience.” Commentators on the contemporary religious scene tell us that those around us are “seeking an experience with God” – indeed, they want to “experience God.” But what do they mean? They mean they want their emotions excited, their feelings moved, and their heartbeat stimulated. Today’s hearers must come away from a religious gathering with their “ears tickled” and “feeling moved.” Add to this, the sad fact that “booming bass” is often becomes a substitute for religious feeling. If one can feel the music, then there is an experience with God.

I am not making a case here for traditional worship, which is by common interpretation often boring worship. Uninteresting or boring worship is an offense against God. It is my conviction that one can present the ancient gospel in an interesting and winsome way, a way that appeals to thoughtful consideration without making it dreary or dull. At the same time, one does not have to dismiss the content component while emphasizing the emotional component to make disciples. Our churches are rapidly becoming large and shallow. Our preachers continue to spoon-feed pablum when long-time believers should be into the meat of the Word.

Campbell described our day well when he wrote, “The half has not been told you of what I have seen and heard. Tens of thousands in America have got a religion by ‘the baptism in fire of the Holy Ghost,’ who, if eternal salvation depended on it, could not tell where Jesus Christ was born, where the gospel was first preached, or what the gospel means. Myriads, too, have held this religion for a year, who, at the end of it, could not tell who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, or the design of that book. I should not be believed were I to tell half of what I know of the ignorance of the Book in this religious, enthusiastic, and fanatical population. ‘The preaching of the Holy Ghost,’ instead of preaching Christ crucified, buried, risen, glorified, is the chief cause of this.”

Time spent with God and with each other should be enjoyable and even entertaining. Enjoyment and entertainment, however, can never be the chief end. Worship must never degenerate to the level of “the show”. It is a gathering of the saints to celebrate what God, through Christ Jesus, has done for us. We express our thanks for his experiences rather than seeking one of our own. As in most things called Christian, it is a matter of balance as opposed to extreme.

Reformation # 3

Alexander Campbell's Millennial Harbinger is often interesting but difficult reading. For the past year I've been wading through the College Press edition of the Harbinger. I would like to read all volumes of Campbell's publications as well as those of Walter Scott and Barton Stone.

I've written often about my concern for discipleship within the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. With all our boasting of mega-churches, we annually lose a good number of those won each year. I suppose that will always be true, but the message is sent that "joining a church" or "becoming a Christian" and "getting involved in some service ministry" is all God requires. There is little emphasis on spiritual growth and our members are evidencing the Platte River Syndrome more and more -- our churches are a "mile wide and an inch deep." Spirituality and spiritual commitment is lacking. As long as worship services are "exciting" and "uplifting" they do well, but real Bible study and Christian education goes begging. In their place come small groups which are great at building relationships but ineffective in teaching content.

Below are some thoughts from the pen of the Millennial Harbinger editor. I'm modernizing and simplifying the language some, but you can read the original in the 1835 volume beginning on page 83.

Salvation is personal rather than corporate. Reform -- or discipleship -- is also personal. To reform is "to cease to do evil and learn to do well" according to the Bible. Popular theories suggest changing a creed, denomination, or church structure. To repent, however, means changing our views or to be sorry for the past. Reformation is to cease to do evil and learn to do well. A true disciple first stops then begins.

When a person becomes a Christian he has only turned himself toward God and his back toward Satan. Merely turning toward God means little. One can turn his or her face toward London, but that does not take you one step closer to the city. The one who is truly converted begins to walk toward God or heaven.

Turning is important because unless a traveler turns toward London he will never approach it. In the same way, ceasing to do evil must precede doing the right things. If a person has only ceased to do wrong he or she has not yet begun to do right. If a person only stopped doing every evil thing his or her virtue would be wholly negative. All too many think that because they stopped one thing they have done the other. Therefore, if someone robbed A and stopped before he reached B's property he has done good to B by only robbing A.

Some think that when they are immersed they have done something worthy of praise. Not so! They have only received something worthy of thanks. He that is immersed does nothing any more than one who is buried. In immersion, as in birth and being buried, the subject is always passive. He that immerses does something, but he that is immersed receives something. When we talk of the act of immersion, we have the immerser in view rather than the immersed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

He who has because of his faith and repentance been immersed is only converted -- he has only received remission of sins. He has only been born into the kingdom, entered the race, enlisted in the Army of the Faithful. He has yet to form a Christian character. If he ever wears a crown, he must win it. Grace has proposed it, and Grace will put it on his head but it is by the obedience of faith that he lays hold of the prize. [Campbell is not speaking of "earning one's salvation. He is speaking of the rewards that come from the development of Christian character -- rewards that accrue both in this life and the next.]

Remember now, in order to do well, a person must cease to do evil. A true disciple begins by putting off the old man with his deeds and then puts on the new. He or she does not put a new man upon the old one but divests the old one then puts on the new.

What does this mean? A true reformer -- or disciple -- enjoys a daily quiet time, speaks evil of no one, does not backbite, does not listen to what people say about others, minds his own business, bestows benevolence and mercy, lives within his income, is honest to a fault. He enjoys and loves his mate, provides for the family, demonstrates humility and is fair to all people. He or she is loyal to Christ and makes every effort not only to understand the Word but to live it out.

I do not know a church leader who does not want to see a Christian grow. Few there are, however, who understand that growth in Christ involves both a knowledge of biblical content and the means encourage personal application.

Paul told Timothy to "hold to sound doctrine" indicating there is definite content believers need to comprehend. Once comprehended "sound doctrine" must be lived out. Because of the culture surrounding us, we fear enunciating high expectations and exacting accountability in Christian growth. If we did so, the world would think us a cult imposing itself on others.

It is my conviction that believers must know that discipleship is not optional but required. Congregations must develop systems to teach both content (yes, you could even call this indoctrination) and application within relationships. To emphasize one over the other is to make a false choice.

A Tale of Two Churches

I couldn't believe the difference!

While my wife and I were in Nashville, we attended church with our children. For some reason, unknown to me, we were invited to attend a Baptist Church Sunday morning and an emerging church Sunday evening. The experiences were quite different!

The Baptist Church was like no Baptist Church I've ever attended. Now I've been to a lot of Baptist Churches over the years, but this one was beyond the pale. It met in a small building nestled against a hillside. We went for an early morning breakfast. The folks were friendly, but it was apparent something was different. When I got the bulletin, I noticed two women were listed as ministers. Then we stood while a fully robed choir took their place -- all 9 of them. The worship service was, without a doubt, the dullest most uninteresting service I've ever attended with one exception. This church works with a church in Cuba so there was a Spanish special number in "solidarity" with those in Cuba. That tune was a bit catchy, but that was it. The sermon consisted of one of the "ministers" reading from the lectionary. It was apparent that a liberal social agenda permeated the church. I could only wonder what anyone saw in the pablum (well, it wasn't even that nourishing) dished out there (although the granola at breakfast wasn't too bad).

Sunday evening we attended a church denominated simply as "Village Chapel." The congregation met for worship at 6:00 p.m. This service was their only worship service. They were meeting in a facility that once housed nuns. The group moved there recently after meeting prior to that in a hotel. Since it was still winter, it was dark when we arrived just before 6:00. The congregation gathered in the convent's chapel. Candles graced every window and there was a centerpiece at the front with candles and a banner with a cross. A worship band accompanied the singing of traditional Christian hymns (I'm talking about the old stuff everyone used to sing) and the words were projected on the wall by computer and projector. Young people in their early 20s comprised the greatest majority of the congregation. My wife and I joined about 3 other people with gray hair. Although the preacher was probably in his 30s or 40s, everyone else seemed extremely young. I was surprised by the presentation of the message. I expected the preacher to preach by story, but the message was a conventional evangelical message (exposition followed by points to remember). Although it was not a weekly occurrence, the congregation observed the Lord's Supper at the end of the service. A basket of broken bread (leavened) and a chalice of grape juice was placed in the front and we took a piece of the bread and dipped it into the grape juice as we communed.

The Village Chapel is a congregation trying hard to be a Gen-X Church -- one of the emerging churches. They fit the stereotype pictured in the "emerging church" literature, but I wondered if some of it wasn't a bit overdone. It was fun, though, singing the old hymns with a young group. It was interesting hearing references made to "the ancient Scriptures" and it was good to hear the Scripture explained and applications made.

In my view, I think the emerging church may offer a fertile field for Restoration principles if we are unafraid to make contact whenever possible. Writers describing the emerging church talk of "restoring the ancient practices," "looking for the ancient traditions," and "yearning for the simplicity of the early church." We might be able to teach them something ... and we might learn something in return!

As you might guess, I was far more comfortable in the evening service than the morning service. I even got something to take home with me from the evening message.

It disappoints me that the kids aren't attending Restoration Movement churches but they are grown and make their own decisions these days. I taught them to do that so I can't complain too much when they don't do things the way I'd like them to.

My studies in church history have enabled me to view and analyze different churches and movements within the larger context of Christianity. I guess it is true that the study of history makes one more tolerant. After all, we all have failed to get it right in one way or another. I guess we just have to depend on God's grace!

Baptism Again!

My recent reading has included Erwin Raphael McManus's book An Unstoppable Force, a pretty good book about the church. McManus is one of those Southern Baptists that seems to have a pretty good grip on biblical teachings regarding the church. It is a shame that these guys have so much to say about many things but when it comes to baptism for the remission of sins, they get all foggy and discombobulated.

For example, those of us who heard McManus at the 2004 North American Christian Convention were amused that he made a "faith only" appeal and used typically Baptist language. Someone hadn't told him that Christian churchers are a bunch of baptismal regenerationists. (I know we aren't, but other groups tend to think we are.) Or, maybe he did know!! In his book, McManus continually references individuals who "opened their heart to Jesus," "received Jesus right there," and so on. Then he writes the following:

"One experience that binds us all together is passing through the water grave of baptism. Others hold varying thoughts and traditions related to baptism, but from where I stand, the metaphor of immersion is both dramatic and significant. Through baptism we are drenched in God, enveloped in God's presence, and brought through death to life. The water grave is a perfect expression of this reality. It is both personal and communal."

Earlier he said, "Yet we are baptized into Christ and joined with his body." He also wrote, "Baptism is not simply about being baptized into Christ, but being baptized into the body of Christ."

In my view, there are three observations to make about these statements. First, McManus describes baptism as a metaphor. By describing the language of baptism as figurative, it can be dismissed as necessary. Rather than taking the biblical statements as literal language, Baptists can defend their view that salvation comes at the moment of belief. They assume that the language of baptism in or by the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of belief. Further, they tend to see such language as literal language. My question is, Why take the language in one place as literal and another as figurative? The only reason they do so is they have accepted the Zwinglian formula that baptism and salvation are unrelated and that understanding colors their interpretation of biblical texts.

Second, there is a faulty understanding of the nature of the body of Christ. Baptists assume that the only expression of the body of Christ is the local church. I would agree than the local congregation is a visible expression of the body of Christ, but I would argue that the body of Christ in toto includes all believers everywhere who demonstrate their love for Christ through trusting obedience.

Third, it is obvious that some of our younger preachers are confused by the language Baptists use. It really sounds good! As a result, statements regarding baptism and its purpose have become cloudy. There are attempts to faithfully express the traditional Restoration view but it gets diluted with Baptist terminology and assumptions until it does nothing but walk a middle line that is indefinite and unclear. Of course, all this emphasis on language as metaphor etc. reflects our Postmodern mindset. Our younger men and women are influenced by Postmodernism and its foggy language so they are more than willing to let each individual "make up their own mind" about the meaning and purpose of baptism (and other things, too).

Since most of our preachers come out of our Bible Colleges (or Christian Universities or whatever), I am forced to conclude that there is not much emphasis on how to understand biblical language. In most schools, biblical instruction is reduced to a minimum in order to meet the criteria of any number of accrediting bodies. While I am in favor of accreditation, I also believe that our schools must remain faithful to their purpose of "preparing a qualified and consecrated ministry." Furthermore, I think they must also remain faithful to the Campbellian tradition of making the Scripture central to all education. In doing so, it is not Scripture that must now to science, literature, and tradition; it is the world that must bow to to Scripture.

Thank God! The Election is over.

I don't know about you, but I was ready for the election to be over a month ago. Never have I seen so much anger and hatred displayed for the candidates. Now, if the pundits are right, there are those who are so upset they want to leave the USA or secede. Others are saying that democracy doesn't work!

Shoot! I knew that. In fact, that's why our founding fathers gave us a democratic Republic. Democracies usually in up with a tyranny of the majority. Those who agonized over the Constitution didn't want that to happen. Every they designed in that amazing document, from the Electoral College to the Checks and Balances, are there to mitigate the rule of the 51%.

Think about it for a moment. A look at the typical election map -- you know, the red and blue one -- does not tell you the whole story. Goof Ball Michael Moore would have you believe that the "blue states" would be better off in Canada. (I sometimes think he's right!) Yet when you examine the election map by county, you get a different picture altogether. With only a few exceptions, what made the blue states blue were the votes in the urban areas. Look at the map and you'll see that most of California is "red" with heavy blue sections in the bay area and Los Angeles. A look at New York reveals that most of the heavily blue counties were in and around New York City. The same is true in Illinois, Oregon, and other blue states. You will also see blue areas in "red states". New Mexico was blue around Santa Fe and Taos and perhaps Albuquerque. There are blue areas down the Mississippi and around many of our major cities. What the pundits, particularly the Democratic ones, don't get is the fact that the major differences are basically seen in those of traditional values. Americans living in small towns, as well as those in the South and Midwest, cling to traditional rural values of God and country.

Rural and urban values are often substantially different. Even if you cast aside the impact of religious faith, those values are different. They are not as different, in my view, as they once were but they are still different. Part of the reason for that difference rests in the fact that those living in smaller communities often sense greater accountability than those in the city. As it is often put in the church, "The best thing about living in a small town is that you know everybody. The worst thing about living in a small town is that you ... know everybody." People often do things in anonymity they would never think of doing where they are known.

Most of us from small town America are sick and tired of being treated like someone's idiot stepchild. Rural Americans are no longer the "hicks" they once were. Contemporary farming is a highly technological business these days and it takes a good education to make the necessary decisions to be successful in agribusiness. Improved communication, technology, and tavel make it possible for those in small town America to learn about and experience every aspect of American life -- rural and urban. Not only do those in the South and the Midwest understand life, they form their own opinions and draw not only from educations received at outstanding educational institutions (some with really great football programs -- :-) ) but also from a vast reservoir of good old fashioned common sense.

The wacky left is once again demonstrating the truth of the stereotypes attributed to them. (1) They think they are more intelligent than anyone else. (2) The truly intelligent would always agree with them. (3) Everyone else should be tolerant of their ideas, but they don't have to tolerate everyone else's "stupidity."

Well, for my money, Canada and France -- or wherever they choose to go -- can have them! Bon voyage ... and good riddance!

A 40 Days of Purpose Report

When I was with the First Christian Church in Canton, OH,we ran a successful "40 Days of Purpose" Campaign. During that campaign, we launched more than 20 new small groups. Existing Adult Bible Fellowships (Sunday School Classes) increased in attendance. There were numerous additions.

Here is Sun City where I work with seniors, I undertook a "40 Days" campaign for several reasons.

1. The congregation needed a better understanding of the biblical teaching about the church. Most congregations serving Sun City residents have a "hospice" mentality. I believed God planted this church here for a reason. While I don't agree with every detail of Warren's Purpose Driven Model, he does have a pretty good grip on the five purposes every church should live out.
2. Members here come from everywhere in the USA. This church has folks from Maine, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, and even Florida. Even then, I've probably missed a couple of states. The point is, these folks need to get to know one another and the "40 Days" discussion groups provided the perfect opportunity to do that. We have a monthly Fellowship Dinner, but even then the group is too large to promote real fellowship. We have six discussion groups ranging from 6 to 20 in attendance using edited discussion guides from Saddleback.
3. The sermon series provided us with a perfect opportunity to teach casual attenders about the importance of trusting Christ and connecting with a local congregation. So far since starting the campaign, we've added 12 new members. One of those was by baptism.
4. We're not seeing tremendous increases in attendance, but thanks to the fact that our "Snowbirds" are returning the attendance is climbing.
5. The "40 Days" Campaign also gave us the opportunity to do some quality advertising in the area. Most of our ads were pretty blah, but the campaign gave us an opportunity and a reason to "dress them up" and make them something noteworthy.

We didn't do everything recommended in the campaign materials primarily because this is not a typical church. Our Ministry System is not yet functional, so a Ministry Fair didn't fit us. We support missions, but we didn't feel a Ministry Fair was do-able at this time. We are, however, having a special gathering with one of our mission families home on furlough.

In spite of the fact that we haven't used every aspect of the program, good things are coming from it.

It's amazing what you find and where!

We get The Costco Connection, a monthly marketing magazine because of our membership in Costco. In addition to promoting its wares, it publishes articles of general interest. An article printed a couple of months ago gave me information about "blogs" and www.blogger.com that led to my first blog. The most recent issue featured an article entitled "Conventional Wisdom" that I found interesting and applicable to leadership in ministry. (I'm not opposed to improving leadership, I just don't think we should spend all our time there to the neglect of sound doctrine.)

Peter J. Malcolm cited management consultant Wolf Rinke's new book, Don't Oil the Squeaky Wheel ... and 19 Other Contrarian Ways to Improve Your Leadership Effectiveness (McGraw Hill, 2004). Some of Rinke's suggestions make a lot of sense. Here are a few of his ideas.

Don't oil the squeaky wheel. In too many situations, preachers spend a majority of their time with negative individuals who roil the water in churches. As a result, the eye is taken off the goal in attempt to please the few who create most of the trouble. Rinke says, "If you spend more than 5 percent of your time with troublemakers, you're messing up." The way to develop an atmosphere of trust and cooperation is "to spend the majority of your time with the people who behave that way." In my own experience, when the squeaky wheel gets oiled it just squeaks all the more. The issue is usually one of attention and self-importance than a focus on the church's purpose and goals.

Don't be tough. Too many ministers operate out of a sense of insecurity thinking that to be effective they have to be the boss. It took me some time to discover that I can trust other people to do a job delegated to them without hovering over them or telling them how to do it. Sometimes I could do it better, but I found out that when I gave people the freedom to serve they often exceeded my wildest expectations. Rinke says, "If you're tough and you push people and shove decisions down their throats, you're not going to get people to think for themselves."

Don't satisfy customers. While I absolutely hate it, we live in an era of "consumer mentality." I would like to think that people find a church because it is faithful to Scripture and teaches the truth. Only a few, I've found, think like that. Most look for a church that is friendly and offers a variety of choices all of which are done well. Excellence isn't an attempt to meet customer satisfaction, it is a desire to exceed their expectations. When you think about it, shouldn't we all seek excellence to God's glory?

Don't make decisions. We have the mistaken idea that the minister must make all the decisions. Rinke suggests that genuine leadership gets others to make decisions for you. Ministers who act like dictators will surround themselves with others who are dependent and do only what they are told. Believers need to take ownership. Instead of autocratic leadership, spend time asking questions, planting seeds, and working quietly to help other people to make your ideas their own. Rinke says the two best questions are, "What are you going to do about that?" and "What do you think?"

Don't be proud. Give credit away.

Don't have goals and objectives. Rinke says you should have an H.O.G. -- one humongous overarching goal. That's what Jesus gave the church, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature...." An H.O.G. is one really critical goal you implement and drive home so that every team member internalizes it.

Don't have people work for you. Treat everyone as volunteers. When you deal with volunteers, you say, "Please do me a favor." It is an issue of respect and treating people with honor. Too many times, we treat Christians with disrespect because they aren't doing their duty. We moan and groan because we can't get enough people to serve but it is largely true because we haven't learned to treat people well.

Isn't it amazing what you can find?

Purpose Driven Thinking

I'm amazed at the number of guys who get uptight about Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven Church concepts. Okay, so he's a Southern Baptist. Its as if Baptists are always wrong and we're always right. You know something! I suspect there might be a few Christians among the Baptists. Even Alexander Campbell was considered by some to be a Baptist for awhile albeit a "reformed" Baptist.

I don't agree with everything Rick Warren writes or says, but then I don't agree with everything anybody writes. Well ... yeah ... I accept everything the Holy Spirit guides but I don't know anyone outside of the biblical writers who can claim that! Rick, after all, is a Baptist so I'm not going to agree with his understanding that "baptism is only for membership." He sees it as the identifying mark for fellowship but he doesn't get it when Peter says "it is for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). I have to confess, though, that some of what Warren says is about as ambivalent as what a lot of "our guys" -- even the "orthodox ones" -- say about baptism. I've heard sermons in Christian Churches that left hard line "Christian Churchers" and hard line "Baptists" both happy. I suspect the same thing is true in Baptist Churches. I tuned in to a baptismal service in John MacArthur's church one day and heard candidate after candidate say, "I want to have my sins washed away," when asked why they were beng baptised. Now that doesn't fit my Baptist stereotype.

Here's the deal. When Warren started Saddleback he nearly worked himself into an early grave. His efforts stressed his marriage and almost broke his health. As a student at Fuller Theological Seminary he stumbled across a book entitled, The Church on Purpose. Dr. Joe Ellis wrote that book and Standard Publishing published it. As I understand it, Ellis' book gave Warren the seed thought that resulted in The Purpose Driven Church. Oh, by the way, Dr. Ellis was Dean of the Graduate School at The Cincinnati Bible Seminary and I don't consider him a flaming liberal or a hyper evangelical.

A lot of "our guys" see themselves as right and everyone else is wrong. In my view, part of growing up is to see that God created a lot of people and they are all different. Warren is right when he says, "If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary." God gave us brains to hear, evaluate, and determine what is right and wrong when measured against the absolutes of Scripture. Just because I don't agree with someone on everything doesn't mean we can't agree on something. I find it ludicrous that the same guys who belly ache about Warren have also read Frances Schaeffer, John R.W. Stott, C.S. Lewis, and Carl F.H. Henry or Kenneth Kantzer. I gotta tell you, there are some in our own movement I respect a lot less than Rick Warren. Who you ask. Well okay, I am always a bit suspicious of the works of Mont Smith, Russell Boatman, and Fred P. Thompson and ... shudder ... they've been published by College Press.

Come on men, learn how to sift out the good and throw away the bad. Of course, that assumes you know the difference!

On Bible Colleges and Education

Christian Churches and Churches of Christ support, by my count, 44 Christian Colleges and graduate schools. Some share campuses. Lincoln Christian College and Lincoln Christian Seminary share campuses, for example. Several of our schools claim university status indicating they exist to do more than train a ministry for the churches. Others proudly claim to be "classic Bible Colleges" carrying on the tradition of preparing preachers for pulpit ministry. These Colleges and Universities vary in enrollment from 0 (zero) to over a thousand. Enrollment in some schools rose dramatically over the past few years.

From time to time there are efforts to work out cooperative agreements or merge various schools. Lincoln Christian College now operates an extension on the campus of what was once Eastern Christian College. At one time Nebraska Christian College, Manhattan Christian College, and Minnesota Bible College (now Crossroads College) discussed merger and an ill-advised purchase of a campus in Dennison, Iowa. Kentucky Christian College and Great Lakes Christian College discussed merging to form Stone-Campbell University. A good friend of mine and I once talked (in jest) about trying to merge Boise Bible College and Intermountain Bible College and move both schools to Salt Lake City. We were uncertain, however, if we could lease facilities in the Mormon Tabernacle for our classrooms and administration. Our discussions in fun were about as successful as efforts to combine the forces of our colleges.

Oh, mergers, if you can call them that, have occurred. Intermountain Bible College closed its doors in June 1985. Boise Bible College merged the IBC library with theirs. Pacific Christian College (now Hope International University or HI-U) agreed to manage the college's records and Platte Valley Bible College tried unsuccessfully to "merge" its alumni base with those of IBC. That same year Midwest Christian College merged with Ozark Christian College. The Midwest merger came largely because the college's income was insufficient to underwrite its programs.

In my view, most mergers or cooperative efforts failed for several reasons. First, alumni and constituent support bases resisted change. They saw themselves being lost in the shuffle and service to their region reduced. Second, some colleges saw themselves as bastions of sound doctrine and they were hesitant to join a sister college they considered less firm on the fundamentals. Third, there was all that money in a given region that would dry up. Supporters of one college would often cease their support rather than shift to the support of another school.

About the only real cooperative effort that I've seen in recent years (admittedly, now, I'm out of the loop so there may be more) is the formation of the Consortium of Christian Colleges for Distance Learning. I am a part of that effort because of the invitation of Dr. James B. North to teach a section of Restoration History online. Jim and I regularly have between 60-100 students each semester in this class from a variety of Christian Colleges. Frankly, I'm uncertain exactly how the consortium started but I do know that Gordon Clymer has pushed it and his vision has guided it for some time. The consortium offers a number of online classes in youth work, world religions, history, and Bible. The consortium sees its largest enrollments in Restoration History, but that may change with the launch of North's Survey of Church History this fall.

Herein is the rub! While the consortium meets a real need for smaller schools who can ill afford to hire instructors to teach specialized courses, the consortium's potential is unrealized. In 1995 I believed online education was the "wave of the future." I no longer believe that. Online education is now! College newsletters reveal that many recognize that the bulk of students entering college are considered "nontraditional." According to a recent issue of Platte Valley Bible College's "Western Challenge," the Department of Education reports that nontraditional students comprise more than 75 percent of those entering college. Platte Valley's answer to the need is to establish extension schools in Denver and other locations. Boise Bible College is also establishing extension locations. With the technology available today it is unnecessary to go to the expense of locating facilities or paying for travel costs when students can study online. Students currently studying online in Restoration History now view Jim North's lectures via Real Media files on CDs. Some thought is being given to using DVD now that this technology is becoming widespread. With broadband, students could also access one web site any time day or night and view the lectures through streaming video. The point is, while some of our schools are developing online classes, particularly larger schools, this is a technology that could be made more widely available. In fact, it is not impossible to establish an Online Christian College utilizing the best instructors in the brotherhood to provide a quality education. It would make education available anywhere in the world at any time day or night at minimal cost. By translating materials into various languages, such classes could be made available even in the Third World as broadband eventually becomes more prevalent worldwide.

The consortium has consistently refused to even consider developing a curriculum that could lead to a degree. Why is that? The representatives of the various colleges involved rightly see online education as a threat to their existence. They often mouth platitudes that the reason they are hesitant to develop degree programs online is because of the necessity of student face-to-face interaction. In my view, the real reason is money. Our schools continue to invest millions in college campuses and other facilities. We spend additional millions on a host of instructors, many of whom have no experience in located ministry and in spite of advanced degrees are unable to communicate effectively to a generation devoted to "screen time."

When I went to Canton in 1995, I did so for several reasons. First, there was a personal need on my part growing out of frustration in my ministry and the death of my associate minister and best friend. Second, I believed the future of Christian Education rested with a megachurch committed to raising up a ministry from within utilizing resources available from Christian Colleges and Universities and providing practical experience on the field. Third, I wanted to accept the challenge of helping turn around a historic church.

Not long after arriving in Canton, Dr. North asked me to teach some graduate courses. At that time, I pushed for consideration of online education. I'd been studying the work of professors in Pennsylvania and Idaho who were developing online classes at the University of Pennsylvania and Boise State University. BSU had even taken a proposal to the State Board of Education for a Masters Degree Program in Historical Geography. It was being considered because of the distances involved for the state's teachers who had to deal with the distances between their small communities and Boise. When I made my pitch, Cincinnati Bible Seminary rebuffed it. (I was thankful they revived it sometime later, but their approach is still quite parochial.)

In my view, our 44 schools are a drain on the brotherhood's financial resources. In an era when the population is expanding exponentially worldwide we can no longer enjoy the luxury (if we ever could) of sopping up resources that could be used to take the Gospel to a lost world.

To reverse this trend, several things need to happen:

1. Our Colleges and Universities need to start thinking outside the box. I don't know where he got it, but Bill Lown once said, "Education occurs when you have a student on one end of a log and Mark Hopkins on the other." For most of the studies necessary for ministry traning, our schools do not need the elaborate facilities with multimillion dollar chapels, administration facilities, and classrooms. They need prepared men and women who are excellent teachers and the technology to get them to the student. A raft of servers connected to T1 lines would be much less expensive than magnificent campuses. For eye-to-eye educaton, brief on-location seminars could be held. These seminars could be held in churches, rented facilities, or in facilities requiring less outlay than an entire campus.
2. Schools need to recognize their job is to education, not build buildings. Furthermore, the schools must realize their task is to prepare a ministry. We need Christians prepared in a Christian worldview, but I learned while teaching at Malone College that just because a school calls itself a Christian College (Malone was a Friends school) does not mean they hold to a Christian worldview. I discovered that Malone faculty refused to support a Creationist Program offered in our church because "they didn't want to get involved." The real reason: The would lose money because some worldly students would not take courses on their campus.
3. Our churches need to take seriously their responsibility to train up a ministry from within. The early church had no Bible Colleges unless you want to call the Alexandrian catechetical schools Bible Colleges. The local church raised up elders and bishops from within. Some of our megachurches are concerned only with making consumers, not making disciples. As a result, just as in Canton, proposals for in-depth training are rebuffed.
4. In addition to working together to provide quality education online (and in other innovative ways), some of our schools could continue to exist as resource centers providing leadership for seminars, visiting lectures, and other special programs not designed as degree curriculum.

I recognize that traditional campus education will probably always be part of our tradition. I do think, however, that 44 schools, many of which are not effective, are way too many. Online education and innovative thinking could increase educational opportunity for countless individuals worldwide who currently could not or would not consider further education because it is too expensive, demands separation from their families, a loss of personal income, and more.

Little of what I've suggested will happen though. Why do I sound so pessimistic? Simply because experience tells me that existing schools protect themselves and their incomes and see themselves, whether they admit it or not, in competition with other schools for support and for students. It won't happen because there are too many presidents, deans, and faculty members whose jobs are on the line. Those beautiful buildings on multimillion dollar campuses are far more important than whether or not a student really gets a quality education.

My views on the upcoming election

Pardon me for taking a one post (I hope) redirection from my stated purposes. The directions of this year's upcoming presidential election are reprehensible. I felt like I needed to comment on some of what I'm hearing.

First, I don't think I've ever heard or seen mudslinging to extent its been done in this year's campaigns. I know there have always been dirty tricks and gobs of spin, but this year it is a bit much. The old saying is, "Mud thrown in ground lost." This year's campaign has impugned the character of both men. In my view, one candidate challenges the rhetoric of the other while his opponent calls him a liar, a deceiver, and disingenuous. I've heard accusations that one candidate used cocaine in his youth, the other was a coward who created injuries and demanded medals (which he disposed of) in order to further a future political career. I'm tired of the name calling!

Second, for more than forty years, the Americn people have made their selection largely based on style rather than substance. Thousands voted for JFK because he was so much more handsome and composed on TV. With a few exceptions, this remainded true throughout the last half of the 20th Century. In this year's first debate, nearly everyone admits the Democrat candidate won on style. One has to wonder, however, if style counts when the bullets fly! It is easy to play armchair quarterback with the presidency always criticizing a play after the fact! It is not easy to "have a plan" to solve real world problems. I'm weary of the critics who question the intelligence, integrity, and motivation of others when the hardest decision they've made is whether or not to put ketchup on their french fries.

Third, voters make their decision based on self-interest rather than on what's good for the country. Farmers vote for the candidate with the best farm policy. Businessmen generally vote for the candidate who will promise tax relief or offers plans that further business. Many citizens vote for the candidate who promises to maintain or increase their entitlements. When the Republic began, the general rule was to vote for what was best for the country as a whole. Those who called for public education did so to assure an educated citizenry who could understand the issues and make their decisions on what they believed was best for the country, not the candidate who promised to "line their pockets." I'm weary of those who depend on others to take care of them when they've made little or no provision for their own future.

Fourth, I seem to remember (not personally, of course) that George Washington warned the young nation to avoid "entangling alliances." I'm no isolationist, but when it becomes more important to appease our supposed allies rather than act on our nation's own interests we've gone a bit far. Frankly, I don't give a pile of cow dung what France or Germany thinks of us. The French have been two-faced since DeGaulle and I wouldn't trust a Frenchman with anyone, let alone a member of the opposite gender.

Fifth, I would support a candidate who called for the removal of the United States from the U.N. and the U.N. from the United States. For the last half century, the U.N. has been shown for the weak kneed, ineffective, pointless body that it is. In my view, the U.N. serves only as a place for pitiful third-world nations to cry and wail about their problems. In most cases, if those nations would recognize their systems and worldviews have failed they might pull themselves up from the muck and mire in which they find themselves. The United States has borne the brunt of the manpower and cost of nearly every U.N. program and military action. We may "owe" the U.N. lots of money, but that's only because we underwrite nearly every program. Like the League of Nations, the U.N. never worked. Let it die!

I know who I'm going to vote for. My selection has nothing to do with party affiliation. Rather, I pick my candidate based on several factors.

1. Which candidate best reflects my values and worldview?
2. Which candidate best understands the biblical role of government?
3. Which candidate best reflects, in my opinion, genuine character and integrity?
4. Which candidate is plain spoken and forthright in their statements?
5. Which candidate, in my view, has the best intrests of the nation at heart?
6. Which candidate make decisions based on what he believes is right, not on what others think?

I guess that pretty much tells you whom I will vote for.

Failing to learn the lessons

Americans don't like history. As far as most people are concerned, history is just stories about a bunch of dead guys. It is no wonder we see history repeat itself! When you don't learn lessons from the past, you repeat all the mistakes.

Two churches, or groups of churches, caught a lot of attention over the past few years. One is Perimeter Church. The other is a Christian Church in Naperville, Illinois. Both churches are establishing multiple campuses or congregations under one leadership team. As I understand it, and I could be wrong here, strategy and direction comes from the central leadership team and that team administers one budget for all assemblies. These are not venues, but places where Christians gather to worship. Venues emphasize different styles, the Perimeter and Naperville gatherings may use different styles, but that's not the issue.

When I heard about these churches and their outreach strategy, I thought back over my studies in Church History. When I took "History of the Early Church" with Dr. James B. North, he went to some length to describe the development of the Monarchical Bishop system. He pointed out that in AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters while traveling to Rome where he faced martyrdom. In several of those letters, Ignatius counseled churches to select one man who would guide the church during difficult times. As congregations grew; it became inconvenient for believers to make their way to a central worship assembly. In addition, few facilities existed that could house such a crowd and building church buildings was out of the question. Therefore, they established satellite congregations around the city which were more convenient. The bishop, from his position in the central church, provided leadership and developed strategy. Each week, he would bless the elements of the Lord's Supper and the an elder (Presbyter) would take it to one of the satellite congregations. If there were an offering taken, the elder would bring the proceeds back to the central church.

The next step occurred when some of the satellite congregations became large enough to establish satellites of their own. By that time, the satellite church recognized one of the elders from the central church as "their presbyter." North maintained that this was the beginning of the Bishop and Priest system in the second century church. The central church recognized the growing satellite church as a semi-separate entity permitting them to select elders. When they established satellites, "their presbyter" became a bishop but remained subservient to the bishop at the central church. When you extrapolate that sort of thing out, you end up with the episcopal system.

I wonder how long it will take Perimeter and Naperville to reinvent the episcopal wheel. Oh, it wouldn't happen in Naperville! It's a Restoration Movement church! Oh, really? How can you be so sure? I thought we in the Restoration Movement believed in locally autonomous congregations. Naperville probably saw their strategy as an excellent expedient, but what happens when that which was adopted as an expedient gets entrenched into tradition? You end up with a new episcopal denomination.

A good example of that is what happened over the years to Calvary Chapel. Chuck Smith was the minister who really launched the Calvary Chapel movement. Over the years, those who attended Calvary Chapel moved away and started their own Calvary Chapel wherever they went. Calvary Chapel in California and Chuck Smith remained their pattern and their mentor. Are today's Calvary Chapels any less a denomination than the Southern Baptists? Southern Baptist congregations are locally autonomous. Many believe the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ are now a denomination. Does Calvary Chapel differ in organizational structure from "us?" Hmmmmmmmmm!

Many of these new innovations really aren't all that new! Furthermore, choices always result in "unintended consequences." I have no doubt that my brethren in Naperville, and others like them, have the best of intentions. I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are focused on winning people to Christ. But choices always carry consequences -- good or bad! We are accepting strategies, modes of operation, and terms of speech that our Restoration forbears would shudder to hear or see us use. What ever happened to "doing Bible things in Bible ways?" What happened to "Bible names for Bible things?" What ever happened to Alexander Campbell's appear to use "pure speech?"

Just asking!

A Question Answered

Q: Does this mean the Christian who is not a disciple is not saved?

A: The answer is found in the question. It is possible to be alive and human but fail to develop. It is possible for a person to believe Jesus is Lord but they remain undeveloped and fail to attain their potential. Paul contrasted those who could only take "the milk of the Word" with those "who take the meat." None of us are saved because of our attainment; it is only by God's grace we are saved. At the same time, I must reflect on all of this a bit.

First, James, the brother of our Lord, clearly states that faith without accompanying works is dead (James 2:17). He also points out that even demons believe, but they have no relationship with Jesus. Jesus asks, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I say" (Matthew 7:21). Although discipleship is not a work of merit that earns one God's favor, failure to grow (be a disciple) is a best an indication of a weak and sickly Christian and at worst an indication of unbelief. If, and I am not the judge, a failure to follow Jesus in a discipleship is an indication of unbelief then they may not be saved. You see, we include individuals in fellowship because the profess faith, profess repentance, and go into the baptistery. For all intents and purpose, we consider such people Christians and they enjoy all the blessings and privileges in God's household, the visible church. We cannot, however, see the heart. In the "Parable of the Tares," Jesus contrasted the genuine grain from the weeds that grew within it. A careful reading of that parable reveals that he is talking about the church, not the world. On that Day when he returns, the tares and wheat are separated. I suspect many Christians in name only to be separated from the genuine article. It is also possible that a few pseudo-disciples may join them. Genuine disciples, both mature and infants, will join those gathered around the Throne of God.

Second, our mistake is that we often do not expect nor do we challenge believers to be disciples. As a result, we get what we expect -- shallow believers at best and consumer Christians at worst. All too many congregations are satisfied with reaching but have no means of "teaching them to observe all things." Because rapid growth presents megachurches with a problem, they have sought to disciple through small groups. Small groups are wonderful for building relationships, providing support, and discussing application. George Barna, Gallup, and Robert Wuthnow all agree that small groups are ineffective at teaching content. Contemporary churches trumpet small groups from the pulpit, in brochures and church publications, and in their strategy sessions because such groups are a way to connect new members to the congregation. That's called assimilation, not Christian growth. What passes for the "maturity base path" in most rapidly growing churches is the old saw, "Read your Bible and pray."

What is the answer to this?

1. Recognize that immature and stagnant Christians are not what they need to be.
2. Present the fullness of the "Great Commission" in outreach recognizing the responsibility to not only "baptize" but "to teach them to observe all things."
3. Utilize small groups for assimilation, relationship building, and biblical application.
4. Develop, implement, and work a strategy for teaching biblical content and give it equal billing to other programming.
5. Reduce the number of commitments members must make so they can focus on family, spiritual growth, and their work (see Randy Frazee's work at www.Pantego.org).
6. Consider the development of a (shudder) Bible School. Yes, a Bible School, Sunday School, or other means where content can be taught.
7. Start with a group of spiritually hungry people and spend 2-3 years teaching them content, application (both are necessary), and how to do what you are doing. Then send them out to begin growth groups of their own. This is biblical -- see 2 Timothy 2:2.
8. Do something! Do something even if it doesn't work. Do something even if it takes time to get the ball rolling. Remember the adage: You will be frustrated by what little you seem to accomplish in one year, but you will be amazed at what you can do in five years. Just do something or admit that you are more interested in dipping than discipleship!

Jesus Teaching

Discipleship more caught than taught

I once believed that the moment a person emerged from baptismal waters they were a disciple. I now understand that immersion on a profession of faith does not automatically make an individual a disciple. While all disciples are Christians, not all Christians are disciples.

Discipleship is a decision. Becoming a disciple means listening to the Teacher, emulating his life, and knowing and doing what is important to him. It is recognizing Jesus not only as Savior but as Lord.

The process of Discipleship -- and it is a process -- is one of growth in Christlikeness. There is no such thing as a stagnant or nongrowing disciple. Growth may be slow. Progress may falter from time to time, but in spite of setbacks and failures it is ever upward. Each day the disciple should be more transformed into the likeness of the Master.

How does an individual become a disciple? By faith one evidences complete confidence in the Master Teacher by reforming his life, acknowledging (confessing) the Sonship of Jesus, and enrolling in the school through baptism into Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). Arising from the baptismal waters, the disciple's schooling begins. In a university, a student may pay the matriculation fee and submit the necessary documents to enroll, but if he never attends class or fulfills the assignments he can hardly be called a student. A supposed believer who initiates a discipleship relationship with Jesus who refuses to learn and apply the Master's teachings can hardly be called a disciple. As Jesus said, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I say?"

Many there are who enrolled in the school of Christ who refuse to study his text, heed his lessons, and fulfill the assignments.

Having said that, let me point out that when a church's leadership focuses more on methodology and technique than the Teacher and the text, something is wrong. Believers look to their leaders for examples of what it means to be a disciple. Where once ministers and church leaders centered ministry on biblical truth and sound doctrine, they today build on leadership styles and scientific church growth methodology. A desire to fulfill the Great Commission requires more than being seeker friendly and practical preaching. It means registering new students in the school of Christ. It means convincing those new students that it is important to study at the feet of Jesus. Jesus was more than conversant with God's Word, so should a disciple. Jesus not only lived the truth, he was the truth. Disciples need to live the truth as well. Just as the student rises no higher than his teacher, so the average church member becomes no more spiritual than those who lead.

I would call upon those who lead in Christ's body to study God's Word more than their books on leadership. I would challenge them to dig into the text more than they study demographics. I call upon them to preach more expository messages than topical tripe. I plead with them to restore sound doctrine drawn from God's Word than evangelical generalities that skirt biblical truth. I would call all of us back to God's Word rather than what works!

Someone better start thinking!

It will happen sooner or later!

I see it often! Some church looking for a preacher puts a notice in the Christian Standard or on ChristianChurchToday.com stating the qualifications for their position. These qualifications include the ability to preach, teach, lead, evangelize, and in some instances work well with a multiple staff. Then the notice says the candidate will be between the ages of 35-50 with at least "x" years of experience.

It is amazing that no one has, to this point, challenged such blatant age discrimination. Churches continue to demonstrate such discrimination when the business world abandoned it long ago. The business world abandoned it because it is against the law to discriminate in hiring practices based on age, gender, or race. Numerous lawsuits settled that issue and guilty business paid the price for their discrimination.

I am not so naive to believe that those in the business world still avoid hiring some individuals based on prejudice. At the same time, however, they cannot blantantly ask the age of an individual. Birth dates no longer appear on application forms or resumes. Businesses have become far more discreet in their practices whether it be for hiring or "retiring" individuals in their firm.

Churches have a right to hire and fire whom they will, but the laws of the land apply to them as well unless there are biblical or spiritual principles involved. I can understand why church leaders choose not to hire women for pulpit ministries since Scripture, at least in many minds, does not permit a woman to teach (publicaly, as in sermonizing). A church is on shaky legal ground, in my view, if race or age are stated factors in hiring and firing.

Age may play a factor in effectiveness in ministry. Such effectiveness may be legitimate, but a church that assumes someone is ineffective because of age is being unfair to themselves and to the individual. Older and experienced ministers have much to offer growing congregations. Their wisdom may save a church from expensive mistakes leading to financial hardships and internal strife. Many older ministers know and understand church growth principles far better than their younger counterparts and could be highly effective in an environment of support and respect.

The tendency to avoid calling older, more experienced, ministers to pulpit ministries grows more out of chronological snobbery than reality. It is assumed that they cannot communicate with the younger generations. The fact is, the prejudice arises from younger generations who believe those who are older have nothing to offer. A growing lack of respect for parents and for authority in general is demonstrated in the church toward their more mature counterparts.

Sooner or later some well-qualified preacher is going to weary of blatant age discrimination and a church or churches will find themselves before the bar defending their hiring practices in a lawsuit. When that happens, I hope the contemporary church's chronological snobbery will be revealed for what it is and result in its demise. Where are those in today's church who understand the biblical instruction to "respect those who are older"? Just asking!

We must not permit peripheral issues to divide us.