Get Ready for "The DaVinci Code"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I hope this all helps.

LET'S TALK IMMIGRATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let’s bring this up to the present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIBLICAL WORSHIP

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

Let’s think about that for a while!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT FEELS LIKE CORPORORATE AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

OUR 2006 ASIA TRIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Do You Say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My First Week

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

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

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

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

Complain or Do Something!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Holy-days!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Leaving a Ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEADERSHIP IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

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

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

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

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

Elders Deacons
Spiritual Finances

But it is like this:

Elders

(All Aspects)

Deacons

(Responsibilities delegated by Elders)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THOUGHTS ON SMALLER CHURCHES

THOUGHTS ON SMALLER CHURCHES


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

WHAT SMALL CHURCHES HAVE GOING FOR THEM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRAWBACKS TO THE SMALLER CONGREGATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an answer for that. Maybe!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring the Ancient Practices -- Creeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mega-churches and Me

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

Positives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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