Restoring the Ancient Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on the War on Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

War on Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Being Disingenuous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion at USAFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements of Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North American Christian Convention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Culture of Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remission of Sins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthy Churches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Hawkeye Gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mega-churches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easter Bunny

On Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflections

My wife and I just returned from our teaching trip to Thailand and Myanmar Saturday, March 5. We spent a week in northern Thailand outside the city of Chiang Mai and a week in Yangon, Myanmar. We always come back tired but encouraged with what God is doing around the world. This year, we also came back fighting terrible viral colds.

We spent our first week at a youth hostel located in the hills north of Chiang Mai. Ahtapa Sinle, a Lisu educated at Hope International University, operates the hostel on family property in the village of Pam ah Dang. The hostel currently provides housing, meals, and an education to 65 young people ranging in age from 9 to 18. Many of the children come from village pastors' families where education is nonexistant. Other children are orphaned or abandoned children taken in and loved by Ahtapa and his family. The hostel's goal is to grow to 100 children over the next few years.

Our living conditions at the hostel were primitive, to say the least. We had a comfortable bed and were fed quite well. Our room was in an area of a stilt house that was walled in. Our bathroom consisted to 2 commodes flushed with water dipped from a reservoir (a cistern) in the restroom. Showers or baths were accomplished by heating water and mixing it with water from the cistern to cool it so we could bathe. (I remember similar conditions on my grandfather's farm in the late 1940s.)

Each day during the week, I was driven into Chiang Mai where I spoke for chapel services at Lanna Christian College. Bob Kuest, our team leader, went to LCC in the evening an conducted a Leadership Seminar for area ministers and students. Chiang Mai Bible Institute merged with LCC a year or so ago and the college is doing an excellent job training national workers.

As we left northern Thailand, I began coming down with my cold. Sunday I was so sick I simply stayed in our room at Ruby Inn in Yangon and slept. The rest was sufficient to help me fight off the congestion enough so I could teach 9 graduate students at the Eastern Summer Graduate School meeting at Tamwe Center in Yangon. (By the way, every other person on the team in Thailand were either getting over sickness or contracted it after we arrived.) Delores began getting sick Sunday evening and fought the cold all week although she was so weak at times she taught sitting down and only her translator could hear her speak.

As usual, we were impressed with the commitment, loving acceptance, and generosity of those who came to the seminars conducted simultaneously with my class. Delores taught "Mentoring Women" and was well received. Several in her class were elders from the city of Putao. This city is located in the Kachin State in northern Myanmar. Those who came from Putao walked nearly 200 miles over mountain passes to a city where they could get transportation to Yangon.

The Putao elders come from an area where Christians comprise nearly 95% of the population. Last year, Phil and Gwen Hudson, president of New Mission Systems, trekked the mountains in Kachin State. Many of the villages they visited were 100% Christian. Over the last few years, the churches of Christ in northern Myanmar have experienced division. Some of our efforts have focused on mitigating the effects of the disunity but the Myanmar military government appointed a 4-man commission to study the history of the churches of Christ to determine which of the divided bodies best reflected the heritage of the Restoration Movement. That decision has been made, and the government is mandating reconciliation. It is sad to think that it takes a Buddhist military dictatorship to bring about reconciliation between brethren in Christ.

Our trip ended on Friday, March 4. As we flew from Yangon to Bangkok where we would spend the night, we could not help but be amazed at what God is doing in Myanmar. Churches are being planted, new villages reached for Christ, and challenges are in place to develop strategies to reach the cities of this country.

We needed God's patience as we flew home. Cancelled flights, missed connections, and reassignment from one airline to another were frustrating and tiring. Now that we are home, we are trying to get rid of the cough and congestion so we can get back to our full ministry.

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.