Tag Archives: the church

Setting Things In Order

Literature, , , ,
An Examination of the Biblical Format for Church Administration

by David E. Moss

Introduction

At the moment the church began, its governmental structure consisted of twelve apostles within a group of one hundred and twenty faithful people (Acts 2). Before the first day was over, 3000 converts were added. Soon there were 5000 men besides women and children and more and more were added to Christ daily so that by Acts chapter six, (perhaps only a matter of weeks or months) there was quite a sizeable multitude all in one local church. There were so many, in fact, that the apostles could not possibly do all the necessary work to care for them. Others were chosen to assume some of that responsibility in lesser roles, and this marked the beginning of the organizing of Christ’s body.

Later, God would provide some regulations to the format for church administration. He would ordain offices, designate their qualifications and throughout the New Testament provide information for the church to understand how those officers were to function.

Today, church government comes in many varieties. To some degree this may not be bad. God has always enjoyed creativity and variety. Just look at creation to see that this is so. On the other hand, God has made some very specific statements about order in the church and if the Word is followed, one would think a strong element of uniformity could be observed among local churches. Unfortunately, this is not so.

In Protestant and Independent churches, officers generally fall under the titles of bishop, pastor, elder, deacon, or trustee and are arranged in every possible combination. One church may have pastors and deacons, another may have pastors, elders, and deacons, or pastors, deacons and trustees, or pastors, elders, and trustees, or pastors and elders, etc. Bishop is usually a title found only in denominations and conferred upon regional officers.

The use of the same titles among churches does not mean they represent the same offices, however. Sometimes deacons function like elders, or sometimes they function like trustees. Sometimes trustees function like elders, or elders function like deacons or trustees. There seems to be a great deal of difference of opinion concerning what God intended for the organization of the church

Added to the mix is the more modern innovation of Congregationalism. This is a form of church government which puts all ultimate authority in the hands of the entire church membership by means of a democratic process. Even this concept is not uniform among churches. Some use a pure form of Congregationalism while others mix it with some form of officer groupings which have partial authority in varying degrees.

Finally, there are churches which create their own titles or governmental concepts. They may have a church council, or a group of committees, or an official board, or any number of other innovations. In some cases it may be one of a kind.

This essay is a humble attempt to define some Biblical concepts concerning the offices and duties which God intended within the organization of the church. Perhaps it will help clarify some of the issues involved, and not add to the confusion of ideas on the subject.

The church today is still responsible for operating according to Biblical guidelines. In order to be Biblical, it may be necessary for some to change their modern-day traditional biases. After all, what is more important? Doing what everyone else is doing, following the traditions of men, or obeying God’s instruction?

As you consider the following information, weigh it carefully. Allow God’s Word to speak in its literal sense. Examine each point objectively. And, may your conclusions encourage you in your participation in the body of Christ.

Modern Forms of Church Administration

In spite of the variety of combinations of church offices found among churches, there are primarily three forms of administration or government being used today. The three are Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational.

The Episcopal form of church administration focuses authority upon one man as an executive. The word Episcopal comes from the Greek word episkopos. It is generally translated as “bishop,” though it appears in the Bible as both a noun and a verb. It primarily means “an overseer” or “the act of overseeing.” While the denomination that calls itself the Episcopal Church does use this form of church administration, it can also be observed in other denominations and local churches. Episcopal administration is manifested either by regional bishops or by local pastors. Regional bishops have the authority to assign pastors to local churches without the vote of the people and to intervene in the affairs of the local churches under his jurisdiction. Local pastors sometimes exercise the authority to make enforceable decisions concerning the business matters of the local church under his charge. This authority may in some cases be assigned to the pastor by the congregation, but in other cases only be assumed by him.

The Presbyterian form of church administration focuses authority upon a group of men as a legislative body. The word presbytery comes from the Greek word presbuteros. It appears much more often in Scripture than does episkopos and is almost always translated “elders”. Fifty eight out of sixty seven times it is plural. Presbuteros means “old” or “older.” It was originally a respectful term used for those who had attained a greater age. Then it became a title for those who attained a station of leadership either within a family or within a society. In the context of the church, it was designated as a title for an office of leadership. Its scriptural use being so often in the plural implies elders are to function as a group as opposed to the executive authority exercised by an individual. The Presbyterian Church as a denomination uses this group legislative form of government for their local churches as does any local church which has a group of elders vested with the authority to make and enforce policy.

The Congregational form of church administration focuses authority in the whole assembly by virtue of a democratic process. The word congregation appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament – Acts 13:43. There are several Hebrew synonyms translated congregation. They refer to a large assembly of people gathered for a special purpose in a special place. The one appearance of congregation in the New Testament is a translation of the word synagogue. In addition, the Greek word ekklesia (church) may be considered a New Testament equivalent. Congregationalism as a form of church government emerged after the reformation as a reaction against the abuses of Episcopal authority. There is no Sripture which directly suggests Congregationalism. However, Scriptural support for the concept may be taken from the passages that describe the body of Christ as consisting of many members, all of whom have equal standing with Christ. Again, there is a denomination which bears “Congregational” as its title and which uses this form of church administration. It is also popular among many Baptist churches, some of which mix the Episcopal and Congregational forms, having strong authoritative Pastors, yet bringing much of the business of the church to a vote before the congregation. Congregationalism is probably the most prevalent form of church administration among Independent churches, though often not used in a pure form.

The question that arises and which each local church must settle for itself is, “which form of church government will we use?” Many Independent local churches are convinced that Congregationalism is the only legitimate form to follow. Several things outside of the study of Scripture have led to this. The concepts of Episcopal and Presbyterian administrative authority have become frightening because of the abuses of power that have occurred within them. (Their success depends almost entirely on the caliber of men who serve. Unfortunately, many unqualified men have found their way into these offices.) Also, an endearment to the democratic process has grown very strong within the American culture. Many have come to believe that the inalienable rights of the people to speak their mind freely and to decide things by a majority vote are transferable to the life of the church.

The issue is often settled by an extra-biblical rationale, but when human wisdom prevails it usually leads to trouble. The issue must be settled by a serious examination of the teaching of Scripture concerning church administration. As Titus was instructed to set things in order within the Church at Crete, so it is essential that every local church set things in order according to God’s instruction, and not according to an emotional reaction against the irresponsible actions of certain individual men.

Biblical Teaching Concerning Church Administration

What does the Bible teach on this subject? The following is an examination of the various titles used in church government and what the Bible has to say about each one.

  1. Bishops and Elders

    Are bishops and elders interchangeable titles for the same office or do they represent different offices? The Bible answer is that they speak of different aspects of the same office.

    Bishop is a word of action describing the function of overseeing. In its noun form it is found as bishop or overseer where it refers to a person who oversees (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; I Peter 2:25). As a noun, it also appears as bishoprick or oversight, referring to the area of oversight for which the person is responsible (Acts 1:20; I Timothy 3:1; Luke 19:44; I Peter 2:12). In its verb form it is found as exercising oversight, referring to the act of oversight being performed (I Peter 5:2).

    Elder is a title designating a position of authority. It occurs many times in Scripture, but only in three different contexts: 1- The elders of Israel (Matthew 28:12; Mark 14:53, 15:1); 2- The elders of age (Luke 15:25; John 8:9; Acts 2:17); 3- The elders of the church (Acts 14:23, 20:17; Titus 1:5).

    These two words do refer to the same office, one as a title and the other as a description of responsibility. God ordained that men would rule in the church, that is, provide guidance and care in the ministry to Christ’s body. These men were given the authoritative title of elder so that they would be respected as they fulfilled their function of oversight. This is clearly stated in I Peter 5:1-3 where the elders (presbuteros) were exhorted to take the oversight (episkopos) of the church, willingly and of a ready mind.

    The office corresponds with something to which Israel had been accustomed for sometime. Elders had long been responsible for relaying to the people what God expected and guaranteeing that it was accomplished. Unfortunately, by the time Christ came to earth the elders of Israel had so abused their office and authority that they actually became part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

    Because of the grave responsibility overseeing is, special instruction was given regarding the qualifications one must meet for assuming such a position in the church (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9). Just as one does not grow wise and elderly overnight, neither does he qualify for the church eldership easily. To be an elder and provide oversight for Christ’s body must be considered a high calling and great privilege. The office must not be assumed lightly.

  2. Pastors

    The word pastor is never suggested as a title for an office by the Bible. Instead, it is listed as one of the gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). The Greek word is poimen (pronounced poymain) and means shepherd. As a noun it appears seventeen times in the New Testament and is translated as shepherd sixteen of those times. In addition, it occurs eleven times as a verb and refers to the act of shepherding either by feeding the flock, or taking charge of their welfare.

    Today, pastor is generally used as the title for the chief officer of the church. Some insist that the titles “pastor” and “elder” are synonymous and that only ordained pastors qualify to be elders. While all elders are admonished to be involved in shepherding (I Peter 5:2), no Scripture explicitly states that all elders are given the gift of pastoring. All elders are involved in ruling but not all elders are involved in teaching (I Timothy 5:17).

    Biblically, the word pastor describes a function not an office. It is a functional gift of the Holy Spirit given to some of the elders and a functional activity in which others may participate who do not necessarily have the spiritual gift of pastoring.

    In the true Biblical sense, a pastor is an elder to whom God has given the spiritual gift of pastoring and whom the church has decided is worthy of spending all his energy in fulfilling this calling. A church hires a pastor-elder and agrees to provide for his temporal needs so that he can be free from other employment (I Corinthians 9:1-14; I Timothy 5:17-18). A pastor is an elder who does the work of pastoring. If a man tries to do this full time and has not been given the spiritual gift of pastoring by the Holy Spirit, he will find it a very laborious task.

  3. Deacons

    The word deacon is a transliteration of a Greek word that means servant. Long before it was used as a title for a church office, it was a very common word with many applications in relationship to the concept of serving others. It appears in three forms in the New Testament: 1- as a noun referring to a function (service); 2- as a noun referring to the one performing the function (servant); 3- as a verb referring to the performance of the function (serving). It occurs a little more than one hundred times in the New Testament and is translated in a variety of ways such as deacon, servant, minister, administration, etc.

    Service is the occupation or function of serving, the work or action performed by one that serves (Webster). Scripture applies this word to household service, physical activity such as distributing food and money, and to spiritual service such as missionary work, evangelism, the work of reconciliation, etc.

    The Bible portrays many different people serving in a variety of contexts. Christ served the world (Matthew 20:28). Angels served Christ (Matthew 4:11). Paul served the Corinthians (II Corinthians 3:3). Onesiphorus served Paul (II Timothy 1:18). All Christians are supposed to serve one another (I Peter 4:10).

    The apostles tried to serve the people along with all of their other duties(Acts 6:2), but because it was so time consuming, they designated other men to do certain kinds of service for the church. This was apparently the beginning of the office of deacon. It would be referred to as an office in I Timothy 3:10.

    It is difficult to develop an understanding of the Biblical office of deacon. No where in scripture are the specific duties of the office outlined. In a modern context, nearly every church one may observe has applied the office differently. A word study in the Bible, however, can help us understand some things about deaconing in the church. To deacon is not to take, tell, or rule. biblical characters of authority deaconed not as part of their rulership but as part of their servitude to Christ. To fulfill the office of deacon requires hard work, sacrifice, and total selflessness. It involves both temporal and spiritual matters in meeting the needs of people at the expense of oneself.

    Perhaps God intended the duties of this office to be undefinable so that those who deacon would be willing to provide whatever the church needs without the glory of authority and rulership. And perhaps, one would do well to prove himself in the office of deacon before he aspires to the grave responsibility of eldership in the church.

    Churches that give deacons the function of ruling have overstepped the parameters of the Biblical concept of deaconing. At the same time, churches that relegate the office of deacon to the management of church property have grossly underestimated the scope of responsibility God intended for those who serve under this title.

  4. Trustees

    The word trustee is not found in scripture. It is not a Biblical title for an office in the church. It is a modern legal title referring to a person who is legally responsible to administer material property on behalf of someone else such as a charitable organization. Some states have laws requiring that all non-profit organizations within the state have a certain number of trustees who are legally responsible for the management of the material property possessed corporately by that organization.

    In Bible times, churches did not own property. The church met in the peoples homes. As the church prospered and gained freedom, it also began to accumulate property and wealth. The legal ramifications of owning property has in modern times caused the church to be grouped with other non-profit organizations as far as lawful regulation is concerned. When states began requiring legal trustees, some local churches began complying by designating their leaders with that title.

    While it may not be a spiritual responsibility, it certainly falls under the heading of good stewardship. In fact, there may be good reason for a local church to delegate this responsibility to men of good standing who can relieve both elders and deacons from the duties of this functional task of taking care of church property, freeing them to do the work of the ministry outlined in Scripture.

  5. The Congregation

    Where does the congregation fit into the framework of government within the local church? Is democracy a body of Christ concept? Is “one member – one vote” God’s order for deciding things or does Congregationalism mean something else? Congregationalism was one of the forms the church assumed as a result of the Reformation. It was based upon the belief that each congregation was free to choose its own pastor, determine its own policies, and manage its own affairs. This view was held by both Puritans (who wished to have this freedom locally while remaining in the state church) and Separatists (who preferred to be independent of any church organization).

    Biblically, Congregationalism may be viewed as the best possible way for a local church to express its being the body of Christ — the composite group of believers — one spiritual body consisting of many members (I Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-5). The question is whether God intended this to be carried over into governing or to be expressed only in spiritual activities. Both the I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 contexts are speaking of spiritual gifts not the process of making decisions in the church.

    The closest the Bible comes to relating the congregation to the act of governing is in Acts six. The apostle instructed the group to look ye out among you the men that we may appoint over this business. There is no other place in Scripture where a congregation was involved in a business like decision. All other governing was done first by the apostles, then by the apostles and elders together (Acts 15), then by their representatives like Timothy and Titus (Titus 1), and finally by the elders alone (Acts 20).

Understanding How These Elements Fit Together In the Church

There was a brief time I believed Congregationalism was the correct form of church government. I had changed my mind to think so because I reacted against abuses of power I witnessed by individuals in authority. I saw first hand the disservice this was to the people and the confusion and pain it caused among them. This view was short lived when I saw the other side and realized that there is as much potential for abuse in pure Congregationalism as there is in the other forms of church government. During congregational meetings, unelected members of the congregation can obtain the floor and control the flow of thought with their persuasive speech and their skills in manipulating the emotions of others. The result can be that some fast talking members of the congregation can actually control what decisions are made without having any elective authority. The group ends up thinking that it has decided things by a democratic process when in fact it has been duped by some very unspiritual people.

I learned that deciding which form of church government is correct cannot be based upon experience. It must be based upon truth. What does the Bible really teach?

From the observations that we have made in this article, the following truths must be considered: elders are given the oversight; deacons serve in both spiritual and practical ways but have no oversight authority; pastors are elders to whom God has given the spiritual gift of shepherding people; trustees are a modern innovation necessitated by the ownership of property; the congregation is the body of Christ which has a corporate spiritual function but no designated governing authority.

The true Biblical form of church government, therefore, probably resembles Presbyterianism more than any other, but naming it such is inadequate. Church administration is not human rulership over people but divine rulership through human agency. The church is a theocracy. Christ is the head, the ruler, the decision maker. He chooses members of His body for responsibility and intends for them to direct their activities toward the collective and individual needs of the rest of the body. He also intends for every member of the body to perform their assigned function, thus supplying all that is needed by the effectual working of every part (Ephesians 4:16).

Also, the success of church government depends upon the philosophy with which it is implemented. Success is not achieved by lording it over God’s heritage (I Peter 5:3) or through the traditions of men (Mark 7:13). It is accomplished through a willing heart and ready mind (I Peter 5:2; I Chronicles 28:9), through comfort and consolation (II Corinthians 1:6), through gentleness, patience, meek instruction (II Timothy 2:24-25) and a sense of responsibility to the Chief Shepherd (Hebrews 13:17) in maintaining the spiritual integrity of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16; II Corinthians 11:2).

Conclusion

No local church should be guilty by following a faulty system merely because it is the way they have always done things. No pastor or other individual should have unchecked executive authority. No elder should be confined to the duties of deaconing. No deacon should be given elder authority. Trustees should never be equivalent to elders or deacons. And, the congregation should never be viewed as a business corporation. None of these things are Biblical.

One factor that makes it difficult for Christians today to understand how a church ought to function is the matter of business versus ministry. There are so many business items upon which churches feel they must decide. Business items generally involve the expenditure of money or procedural policy on how things will be done. So much energy is being spent on these types of things that the members of a congregation have little energy left to do the real work of the church — ministry.

There may be times when the congregation needs to come together and talk about “things.” But if they would submit to the oversight of the elders as God instructed, choose some spirit-filled godly men to serve the welfare of the people as deacons, appoint others to manage the property as trustees and give their pastor the freedom to stick to pastoring, there just might be enough energy among the people in the pew to minister to one another as a body ought to do.

Furthermore, no congregation should resist conforming to Biblical guidelines because they are afraid a small group of people will seize control and impose irresponsible decisions upon them. God provided guidelines for dealing with the unruly, including unruly elders.

In addition, no local church should deprive itself of the benefits of having all the jobs filled that the Bible describes. Eldering, deaconing, pastoring and stewardship management are all necessary to the health of the body.

Finally, no local church should be guilty of not functioning as a spiritual body. Churches that accomplish something meaningful for the cause of Christ are those who understand they are not businesses, run by the majority opinion of the stock holders. Rather, they understand themselves to be spiritual bodies, governed by Christ, guided by human agencies within the body, and designed to do some mighty, spiritual works called ministry.

Church government, in fact, is less government than it is spiritual function. It is too bad that the language of the church has become entangled with the political philosophy of the secular world. What each local church needs to do is sort through all the political terminology, all the constitutional configurations, and all the ways “we have always done it” and ask itself the simple question, “What does the Bible say we ought to be doing?”

Social Vices

Literature, , , , ,

by David E. Moss

Even light reading of the Bible reveals that God makes a distinction between things that are right and wrong, good and evil, holy and unholy, clean and unclean. God also makes it clear in His Word that His people are supposed to demonstrate this difference in their lives.

To the church God said,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (II Corinthians 6:14-17).

To the Priests of the Old Testament God said,

And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses (Leviticus 10:10-11).

To the Priesthood of believers in the New Testament God said,

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation, Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy (I Peter 1:13-16).

Some suggest, however, that the Bible teaches a moral relativism. They object to the practice by which one Christian makes a list of specific activities for another Christian which he considers to be either right or wrong. A statement in a publication by a prominent evangelical seminary says:

A closer reading and study of God’s Word now indicate that “separation” as proclaimed and practiced by Christians committed to that stance is neither biblical nor Christlike. It distorts the message of holy living by grace and resorts to legalism. Like the Judaizers who overran the First Church of Galatia, such separationists have instituted their own taxonomy of extra biblical standards. As if to compensate for the presumably insufficient work of Jesus Christ in achieving man’s redemption, believers are urged to add works of their own: circumcision in the form of a checklist of disallowed entertainments and cultural taboos… Instead of asceticism and deprivation, instead of isolationism and withdrawal from the world, thinking Christians need to reassert their calling to live in “sanctified worldliness,” that is, to live fully and freely as children of God in appreciation of the world He has given them to care for… For to lead the church of Jesus Christ at the end of the 20th century into fuller understanding of its redemptive mission in the world, people need the example of thinking Christians living in sanctified worldliness — Christians who know and appreciate nature, who know and love the arts, who know and enjoy recreation and entertainment…

According to this statement, we have finally come to understand the Bible after 20 centuries. No one before our generation looked at the Scriptures closely enough to understand that God really wants us fully and freely to indulge in the pleasurable things this world has to offer, and that anyone who suggests that God wants us to deprive ourselves and to isolate ourselves from the entertaining things of this world is a legalist.

Both church history and the Bible refute this new version of Christian libertarianism. Throughout church history, specific applications of biblical guidelines for moral behavior have been preached and enforced by church leaders. Those guidelines are still a part of the inerrant, infallible, indestructible Word of God. The specific applications may vary according to a man’s culture, but the need for those applications will be exactly the same, regardless of time or place.

A History of How the Church Has Dealt With Social Vices

Once the church was established in the first century and specific leadership began to emerge in each local church, those early leaders quickly sensed a need for monitoring the testimony of the church in the community. The world of the Roman Empire was morally depraved. Prostitution was considered a viable career option and young girls could go to school to train to be prostitutes. Abortion and infanticide were common place. Art was dominated by nudity and obscenity and was displayed in the most public of places. The upper classes were saturated with a lifestyle of sensuality, and the Emperors themselves were as guilty of excessive behavior as anyone else. Divorce and remarriage was normal, homosexuality was practiced freely, and public entertainment was full of violent and licentious performances.

In this context, the church Fathers tried desperately to help Christians make specific applications of biblical principles regarding social behavior. They denounced abortion, infanticide, divorce, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, make-up, dyed hair, and drunkenness. They restricted the use of musical instruments in worship to avoid the sensual overtones with which such sounds were associated in the world. They set rules against Christians attending the theater and the public games in the arenas. They preached against participation by Christians in the festivities of pagan holidays. One example of the specificity with which these early church Fathers instructed the believers regards the “holy kiss” suggested by Scripture (II Corinthians 13:12) and practiced in those early local churches. The historian Will Durant describes these instructions as follows:

In some congregations this was given only by men to men, and by women to women; in others this hard restriction was not enforced. Many participants discovered an untheological delight in the pleasant ceremony; and Tertullian and others denounced it as having led to sexual indulgences. The Church recommended that the lips should not be opened in kissing, and that the kiss should not be repeated if it gave pleasure. (Caesar And Christ, page 598)

The excesses of Roman licentiousness were so difficult for the church to counteract, that some came to believe extreme measures were necessary in order to succeed. Blatant displays of the lusts of the flesh throughout society led some to ascetic practices and extreme behaviors in which they sought to remove from themselves any semblance of worldliness. Out of this grew monasticism, a practice in which men removed themselves completely from society and in isolation sought to live holy, pure, and spiritual lives. There are many critical things one might say about monasticism, but it does illustrate an awareness by early Christians of how dangerous it was to expose oneself to the temptations of a depraved society.

The struggle continued throughout church history. There were times in which some church leaders gave in to the passions of the flesh and others had to pull the church back into moral reality. For example, the Popes and priests of the Dark Ages, who were supposed to live celibate lives, kept concubines and celebrated the weddings of their own illegitimate children. Part of the Reformation reaction to the excesses of Catholicism was a moral outrage at how corrupt these church leaders had become. Reformation preaching brought about a renewal of moral codes of conduct, restoring the values of marriage, family and social responsibility to the people who called themselves Christians.

By the 19th century, the church in America had influenced society so thoroughly that the conservative moral and social standards preached in the pulpit became the accepted standard for life outside of the church. The Christian lifestyle was the pattern and secular society adapted its social mores to conform. It is no coincidence then that the proponents of liberalism attacked the church first. The credibility of Scripture was undermined by biblical criticism; man’s accountability to God was brought into question by Darwin’s theories of evolution; and the rules for Christian conduct were contradicted by “thinking” liberal theologians and religious philosophers. As a result, the prestige of the church was diminished in the eyes of the general population who then looked elsewhere for their values. Eventually, the direction of influence was completely reversed and the mores of the church became the product of a hedonistic society.

When I was a teenager in the 1960’s, the world was promoting free love, short skirts on girls, long hair on boys, and rock ‘n’ roll music. In the church, it was very different. Christians did not dance, attend the movie theater, drink alcohol, smoke, or have sex outside of marriage. Girls were not allowed to wear short skirts, boys were not allowed to have long hair and, and rock ‘n’ roll music was taboo. At least, this was what I was taught, but not everyone in the church agreed. When the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show for the first time, many in the church were outraged at the blatant display of rebellion in their music and physical appearance. But many Christian teenagers stayed home from the Sunday evening service to watch the show. A generation later, the Beatles now appear to be mild compared to the kind of music and dress used for “worship” in many churches across America. Need we wonder why? The Christian teens who chose the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show over Sunday evening service are now the leaders of the local church.

A Specific History of How North Hills Bible Church Has Dealt With Social Vices

Back in the 1930’s, the founding Pastor of the North Hills Bible Church faced the same struggle in trying to keep worldliness out of the church. Quoting from a history of this local church,

Rev. Kraybill felt the need to preach the gospel as the Holy Spirit led. But in the process he was tramping on certain persons toes… The local church did not mind the preaching of eternal security, in fact they were in favor of it, but they were not all in favor of the way he preached on a separated Christian life. This seemed to be a continual hardship for many people as they lived in their worldly ways. The issue was finally decided when the daughter of one member of the church wanted to go into show business and the family was in favor of it. Rev. Kraybill protested violently and asked to have this family put out of the church.

This controversy resulted in a protest being registered with the leadership of the denomination to which the church belonged. The denomination withdrew Pastor Kraybill’s ordination credentials and removed him from the pulpit. The good news is that a large part of the congregation appreciated Pastor Kraybill’s stand on doctrine and morality and joined with him in starting The Bible Church.

Some years later, under the guidance of another Pastor (James McClain) North Hills Bible Church continued its stand on social issues by adopting a dress code. In minutes from the church board meeting dated March 18, 1973,

The matter of standards for the young people was brought up. Some of the girls wear their skirts entirely too short. Standards need to be set down for church and churchrelated young peoples’ activities.

One of the board members at that time said

That the same needs to be done for Sunday School teachers. The discussion brought out that this is indeed an area we need to give attention to and be concerned about.

Another board member brought forth a similar problem, saying,

Members of the congregation have complained about the skirts of some choir members… They request that the board take definite and immediate action on this matter before it gets completely out of hand. The Board discussed the standards to be set and the business of enforcing the standards. The Pastor suggested that he and the secretary (of the Board) draw up a set of standards… The board noted that Christian liberty stops where one sets a bad example for others.

Several months later, the Pastor read the code of dress standards to the board. The minutes of September 9, 1973 read,

There was considerable discussion, centering about the matters of whether the code should read “should” or “must” on requiring standards; the issues involved; and how to put it into effect. Christians should know what is right without such a step, and children from Christian homes should be instructed on such things. But they are not. People know what the church stands for, but are influenced in worldly directions… It was decided that the forum for presenting this to the congregation was via a series of messages on separation. The Pastor feels the churches are losing their identification as peculiar people; there is a lack of separation. We should put the burden of responsibility on the girls and women to do what the Bible teaches. In the end it was decided to make the code say “must” rather than “should,” and the skirt length to be defined as “knee length” rather than a number of inches.

The following is the resulting Dress Code for North Hills Bible Church as included in the minutes of the Board, December 9, 1973:

The Word of God is very clear about the dress and conduct of believers in Christ. We are “a peculiar people” (I Peter 2:9) and as such we are to abstain from all appearance of evil. (I Thess. 5:22) Since the fashions of men completely ignore, in many instances, all decency and modesty, it is necessary to spell out what the believer in Christ must do to retain his testimony for and obedience to Christ. We feel that the Lord is not pleased when women and girls adopt apparel that exposes their bodies and in anyway makes them be the cause of exciting lust in the opposite sex (I Timothy 2:9).

In view of this, dresses and skirts must not be shorter than knee length and the neck line not be of exaggerated plunging style. Hip-huggers and bare midsections are highly immodest. Men’s hair must be neatly trimmed and kept so as not to identify or associate them with the godless revolutionary symbols of the day. Likewise, men’s apparel must be modest – not gaudy, wild and spectacular. The believer should not be proud and vain seeking to draw admiration and attention to himself, but rather be inconspicuous so that people’s attention will be focused on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many Christians innocently and without any thought of joining Satan’s crowd are tricked into wearing the fashions of the day, because everybody is doing it. Let us not join the enemies of our Lord by conforming to the ways of this present evil world.

We desire our young people to recognize the moral issues involved in dress standards, and to develop attitudes of modesty and decency in line with the Word of God. We encourage them to recognize that prescribed limitations are necessary and not arbitrary or legalistic. Therefore, these standards of dress are affirmed as applicable to them in their various activities.

This specific example from North Hills Bible Church illustrates the attempt by Christian leaders in every period of church history to help God’s people understand how to apply the biblical principles of morality in specific social situations. Legalism was the furtherest thing from their minds. Sanctification and the pursuit of holiness according to the commandments of Scripture was always their sole objective.

Biblical Guidelines for Sanctification

Nevertheless, we are confronted with the argument that the closer reading and study of God’s Word available to us today proves that church leaders from Tertullian to Martin Luther to O.M. Kraybill to James McClain have been legalistic in establishing specific codes of conduct for the members of their churches. There is, however, another way to look at this. There has been a profound consistency among godly men throughout church history in making specific applications of biblical principles in social contexts. And from this consistent example of godly men, it really appears that today’s Christian libertarians are grossly missing the point.

The setting of rules which help believers understand specific applications to biblical principles of sanctification is not legalism. Legalism is the philosophy by which one attempts to earn spiritual favor from God, particularly for salvation, by his own works. To institute a set of standards for Christian conduct in the form of a checklist of disallowed entertainments and cultural taboos which provide believers with helpful insights as to the difference between that which is clean and unclean is surely not legalism in the biblical sense. If it were, then God himself is a legalist. The Bible is full of lists which outline the difference between right behaviors and wrong ones. For example, Galatians 5:19-23 lists the difference between the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. II Thessalonians 3:6-15 describes the errors and consequences of disorderly conduct among believers. I Timothy 5:11-15 admonishes young widows concerning inappropriate behavior for Christian women. II Timothy 3:1-7 lists the characteristics of those who have a form of powerless godliness and who perpetually pursue knowledge without ever reaching truthful conclusions. I Peter 4:3-5 warns against returning to the activities characteristic of an unsaved lifestyle.

The first century church struggled with this matter of legalism, in which some insisted that Gentiles were required to follow certain Jewish regulations in order to be a Christian. Those godly Apostles and first Elders, while dismissing legalism as false and unscriptural, made a short list of taboo activities. They said:

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men… who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.

This list is particularly interesting in that it includes the activity of abstaining from meats offered to idols. To these men, this was not an optional activity reserved for mature believers. They simply said that Christians would do well to abstain. This gives a whole different perspective on what Paul was teaching in I Corinthians 8 and 10 concerning this activity. The admonitions in these chapters to those who were eating meat offered to idols indicate that there were some serious questions about the propriety of their doing so, even if it did not immediately affect their own personal persuasion in the faith.

Christian libertarians, though, like to use eating meat offered to idols as an example of a gray area in which believers have options and absolute rules for behavior are inappropriate. The term “gray area” is supposed to suggest that an activity so labeled cannot possibly be defined as either right or wrong and that anyone who makes rules against gray area activities is legalistic. The color gray, however, is a mixture of black and white. In fact, it is the presence of black in the color gray which has taken away the purity of what was originally white. How can a sanctified believer justify indulging in an activity that has been compromised by such a mixture? The Bible says we are even to abstain from all appearances of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22). If something has enough darkness in it to call it gray, surely the appearance of evil cannot be far away.

God made it very clear in His word that believers, enabled by grace, are to live sanctified lives.

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour (I Thessalonians 4:3-4).

The emphasis on the word vessel means that a believer must on the one hand deny himself certain worldly entertainments and cultural activities which foster the flesh and encourage carnality in the believer’s life; and on the other hand, he must pursue godliness by carefully selecting behaviors that show in the exterior of his life the sanctification of the inner man being wrought by the Spirit of God. Titus 2:11-12 tells us that the very same grace of God that brings salvation to men also teaches us, that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. Repeatedly, God’s Word tells us that believers are to adopt a lifestyle of non-conformity to the world in order to live a sanctified life (Romans 12:1-2, Romans 8:13, Romans 13:13-14, II Corinthians 7:1, Galatians 5:16, II Timothy 2:22, I Peter 2:11, I Peter 4:3-5, I John 2:15-17).

II Corinthians 6:14-18 explains how believers are to separate from the world and touch not the unclean thing so that our fellowship with God will not be broken. What is the unclean thing that believers are not to touch? This is the monumental question Christian leaders have been trying to help believers grapple with for two thousand years. First, it is important to note that there is such a thing as an unclean thing from which believers are to keep themselves. And, in order to do this, we must identify what that unclean thing is. Secondly, the Greek text does not include the definite article with the phrase unclean thing. The Bible is thus not referring to one specific thing that is unclean, but to anything that is unclean. Whatever is characterized by being unclean, that is what the believer should not touch. So the believer is left with the important exercise of evaluating everything that is available to him in this world and determining whether or not it is clean and therefore compatible with the sanctified life he is to be living in Christ.

The lists provided by separationists serve as sources of advice in determining what is clean and what is unclean. Mature believers who provide such lists in no way suggest that a person can get to heaven by meticulously following their so-called “man-made” rules. Rather, they are providing insight based on their knowledge and experience to growing Christians as to the kind of activities which have the potential of preventing them from possessing their vessel in sanctification and honor. This is precisely what the Apostles and Elders were doing when they told the Gentile believers to abstain from meats offered to idols. This was what the church fathers were doing when they instructed Christians not to attend the theater. And, this was what the Board was doing when it provided a dress code to the congregation of the North Hills Bible Church.

The burden of proof is not on the separationists to confirm that their lists are not legalistic. The burden of proof is on the libertarians to confirm that their lack of restraint is not an occasion to the flesh. In Galatians 5:13, Paul called for perspective in reacting to legalism by saying, For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. The liberty to which we have been called in Christ is not one of indulgence but one of service. Being liberated from sin and all of its consequences, we should not turn again to the self-pleasuring activities associated with the problem, but we should turn instead to the respectable activities that help others find the solution.

Laying this burden of proof on the libertarian’s shoulders, let them answer the following questions.

  1. Does dancing avoid the immoral pitfalls represented in Scripture when Herod derived destructive pleasure from watching his stepdaughter perform before him and his guests? (Matthew 14:1-12)
  2. Does dancing avoid the pitfalls which resulted from the questionable public demonstration of David, albeit in the context of worship, who by it breached his relationship with his first and most legitimate wife? (II Samuel 6:20-23)
  3. Does attending the public movie theater conform with the Scriptural command to come out from among them and be ye separate… and touch not the unclean thing? (II Corinthians 6:17)
  4. Does indiscriminate watching of movies, videos, or television programs which contain violence, sexual content, and other elements of ungodliness fulfill the Scriptural principle stated in Psalm 101:3: I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me?
  5. Does the wearing of mini-skirts, short shorts and other types of clothing that expose more flesh in public comply with God’s instruction to dress modestly? (I Timothy 2:9).
  6. Does changing our wardrobe and conforming to every fashionable fad fulfill the biblical rule not to conform to this world? (Romans 12:1-2)
  7. Do long hair styles on boys which mimic rock ‘n’ roll singers follow the teachings of nature and of the Word of God showing a man’s proper position in the order of creation? (I Corinthians 11:1-15)
  8. Does the incorporation of the elements of worldly music into Christian music actually help a believer to walk in the Spirit and not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh? (Galatians 5:16)
  9. Does participation in worldly forms of entertainment fulfill the Scriptural admonition to let the time past of our life …suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles? (I Peter 4:3)
  10. Is a Christian’s acceptance of activities as neutral merely because they are culturally derived compatible with God’s warning to love not the world, neither the things that are in the world? (I John 2:15)

Final Note

There is a very disturbing statement in Will Durant’s commentary on the infiltration of worldly practices into the early church. He said, “In such matters it was not the priests who corrupted the people, but the people who persuaded the priests” (The Age of Faith, page 75). In other words, the church was turned upside down. Those who should have been leading were following; and those who did not know where they were going were determining the direction the church would take. It has not always been this way in the church, but the pendulum is swinging back in this direction in our day.

Christians have a very significant choice to make: will they let the teachings of the church be the dominant influence on how they live their lives in the world; or will they let the influence of the world be the dominant factor in what they look for from their church? For too many, the latter is the choice they make. They see things they enjoy in the world and they insist that the church provide the same kinds of opportunities for self gratification.

This then forces church leaders to make a choice: will they stand firm and say no, or will they give in and accommodate the worldly desires of people in the pew? Let’s face it. A pastor’s livelihood is almost entirely dependent upon the salary he receives from the local church he serves. An evangelist’s income is derived exclusively from the offerings of the people to whom he preaches. A missionary’s ability to stay on the field is based on the money sent to him by people back home. And, the withholding of funds is a powerful tool by which people in the pew can hold leverage over a man in the pulpit. Dare we say it? Could it be that job security is a greater influence on Christian leaders today than the Holy Spirit? Have we seen the decline of standards in the modern church because preachers face a terrible dilemma of either giving in or losing their jobs? Perhaps it is with good reason that Scripture warns men not to be greedy of filthy lucre.

The devastating thing is that there have always been some all too willing to accommodate the whims of people. From Aaron, the first High Priest in Israel, to the Willow Creek movement in our own day, you can see a long line of church leaders who found it easier to be led than to lead. And the more preachers there are who accommodate the worldly interests of people in the pew, the more power the people gain in pressuring the remaining preachers who want to stand firm. The tide has turned so much in the modern church, that those who maintain an insistence on the pursuit of sanctification are actually made to look like the bad guys. Christian libertarians have successfully branded godly, holy men as legalists and their teachings as pharisaical. It is a clear case of calling good evil (Isaiah 5:20). And the general population in the church is so convinced that there appears to be no means of stopping the flood of worldliness that is overwhelming the church.

In spite of this, there is a simple solution. The whole matter could be resolved if each and every child of God made a personal commitment to obey God’s commandments. His commandments are still the same as they have always been.

  • Come out from among them and be ye separate.
  • Touch not the unclean thing.
  • Adorn yourselves in modest apparel.
  • Love not the world, neither the things in the world.
  • Be not conformed to this world.
  • Possess your vessel in sanctification and in honor.
  • Deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.
  • Abstain from all appearance of evil.
  • Be ye holy, as I am holy.

After all, This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments and his commandments are not grievous (I John 5:3). Keeping God’s commandments is not a burden of legalism; it is an act of loving obedience to the one who delivered us from enslavement to the flesh. Of course God wants us to deny ourselves those things from which He delivered us, and those things which bring us dangerously close to them. Why would He deliver us from the consequences of those things if He did not want us to discontinue our participation in them?

  • Oh, I forgot. Jesus openly associated with publicans and sinners, and somehow this is supposed to justify a Christian’s participation in worldly activities. There is an interesting thing to note about this though. Jesus never sinned (I John 3:5; I Peter 2:22), and His message to these worldly people was always the same, Go, and sin no more. Not bad advice for today. Would you agree?

    • Reverence

    Literature, , , ,

    by David E. Moss

    There is quite a variety of worship styles these days – all the way from very quiet to very excited. Some prefer the more formal atmosphere while others insist that excitement during a worship service is much more appealing. The illustration is offered of a football game.

    “If we can shout and cheer and jump up and down and wave our banners in support of a ball team, why shouldn’t we be just as excited about our salvation and our God?”

    Is this analogy Biblically correct? If it is, we might have to ask the question then, “What about the tailgate parties before the game? Are our activities before worship like a tail gate party?” Unfortunately, I think they are. Our church auditoriums (or sanctuaries, if we can still call them sanctified places) are often as noisy five minutes before service time as a football stadium during warm-up exercises. I guess we are stirring up the adrenalin so we are ready for our sanctified cheers.

    Our focus even in worship has become man centered rather than God centered.

    I do not mean to belittle the sincere spiritual sacrifices that people offer to the Lord. My concern is not really one of volume or emotion. Both may very well have appropriate places in a worship context. My concern is one of motive and objectivity. It seems that even our worship has become man centered rather than God centered. So many aspects of worship that are excitable to human emotions are used not because God necessarily benefits from them, but because they help us feel good about ourselves and about what we are doing. On the other hand, what is it that God wants most from our worship?

    Is worship about what we humans get out of it, or is worship about what we humans are giving to God?

    This is the serious question we must consider: Is worship about what we humans get out of it, or is worship about what we humans are giving to God? The Hebrew word for worship, Shachah, means to “bow down” or “prostrate oneself before.” The Greek word, Proskuneo, means essentially the same thing. It even adds the humble imagery of the bowed individual kissing the hand in the same fashion a dog would lick the hand of his master. Noah Webster said way back in 1828 that worship was

    “Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.”

    It appears to me that the predominant, if not the exclusive, thought in the concept of worship is giving – not getting.

    Key Word

    If there is one word that can summarize this for us, it is the word “REVERENCE.” Both the Hebrew and Greek concepts of reverence consist of fear, an overwhelming sense of awe, shamefacedness and bashfulness, none of which lends itself to the showmanship so often a part of contemporary “worship.” Psalm 89:7 says, God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and had in reverence of all them that are about him.

    When we come together in one place as the Body of Christ, it is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the unity of our faith to Almighty God who deserves our corporate praise and adoration.

    The antithesis to this key word is “ENTERTAINMENT.” As a society, we have become immersed in the desire to be entertained. Our heroes are those who can perform spectacular feats and thrill us with their talent or their courage. This has so completely been soaked up in the Christian community that the church with the greatest “show” gets the biggest crowd. We advertise our newest innovation in the Newspaper or on Radio vying for our portion of the floating congregation waiting to be teased with the most enticing “performance” of the week.

    Confession of an Old-Fashioned Preacher

    I have a confession to make. I happen to believe that the type of format we use for our Worship Services at the North Hills Bible Church is the kind of format conducive to reverent worship. I am committed to preserving this format. This includes the use of the old hymns that glow with reverence as well as doctrinal substance and wonderful harmony.

    Granted, this is not very progressive. It may not be appealing to the unchurched masses and it may not be very entertaining.

    But while I am confessing, let me go a step further. I believe it is wrong for the church to change so that we will be more attractive to people who are reluctant to attend church services. It ought to be the other way around. The church ought to be that place of stability, demonstrating the awesome unchangeableness of the Almighty whose name is holy and reverend (Psalm 111:9): to which wayward souls pursuing the restless and unfulfilling pleasures of the flesh can turn for refuge. Instead, the church has chosen to appeal to those same useless instincts of the flesh to draw the unsuspecting in hopes of capturing their hearts.

    Conclusion

    When we come to church on Sunday, it ought to be our desire that God receive the greatest benefit from all that transpires. Let me suggest some ways we can work to this end.

    1. Begin preparing for worship on Saturday. Pray throughout the day for cleansing so that you can be a vessel capable of beautiful sounds on the Lord’s day. Saturday evening, think about what you will be doing the next day and ask God to prepare you.
    2. Set your alarm early enough for Sunday morning so that you do not have to be frustrated by the rushof getting ready on time. During that pre-church time, concentrate on the worship that is to come and practice spiritual Christian character toward everyone with whom you have contact.
    3. Between Sunday School and church, practice quietness. Go into the auditorium, be seated quietly, read over the Scripture passage for the morning and pray.

    Then, when it is time to worship, you may be surprised at the high level of emotion within you. But it will be different – selfless, giving, adoring, reverent. You may discover real fulfillment for the very first time.

    The Roots of Diversity

    Literature, , , ,
    A Perspective from Church History

    by David E. Moss

    Do you know how many denominations there are in the Church? Consider this. There are 27 Baptist denominations, 23 Methodist, 10 Presbyterian, 10 Brethren, 12 Lutheran, 12 Mennonite, 13 Pentacostal, 200 Churches of God, and countless others by a variety of names. This does not include all the independent churches of which there are nearly 100,000 independent Baptist churches, plus Bible Churches, Community Churches, and many other independent churches by various names. There are definite distinctions between each denomination and many more distinctions among the independents. Yet each uses the Bible and claims to believe the truth. Can there really be so much diversity within the truth?

    Sectarianism goes back a long way. As a matter of fact, it began almost as soon as the church was born. Acts Chapter 15 records an official council which discussed one such division. In verse one of that chapter, certain men taught the brethren a particular doctrine. In verse two, Paul and Bamabas had no small dissension and disputation with them. The council attempted to focus everyone on the truth.

    Variations in Christianity was a great concern from the beginning of the Church as evidenced in Paul’s letters. In Titus 1:11 some were teaching things which they ought not, and Titus was to stop them from doing so. Likewise, Timothy was admonished to charge some that they teach no other doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3). Dissension, however, reached such proportions that in the first 30 years of Christianity different Gospels could actually be identified as testified to in Galatians 1:6-7.

    The concern, of course, was that the dividing of Christianity was occurring because of a departure from the truth. There really was not a flexibility in truth that allowed for so many differences to co-exist. When the truth was bent, it ceased to be truth. When truth was mixed with lies and grossly distorted, truth was changed and redefined, making it to be something other than the truth. Yet all the variations of the truth continued to claim identity with truth, even though they were contradictory in nature.

    Multiply the process through nearly two thousand years. Today the church at large encourages a celebration of diversity as though that were something God intended to exist. This is hard to rectify though with the Scriptures that say , Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10).

    By the year 300 A.D. there were already at least 100 identifiable sects of Christianity. Later in the middle ages, when the Roman Catholic Church developed a monopoly within Christianity, little was settled regarding truth in the Church because of Catholicism’s progressively changing dogma. When the Reformation burst upon Christendom, it opened a flood gate of sectarian theology. As a result, today “truth” is splintered into literally hundreds of thousands of diverse fragments. The search for truth in our day has become a staggering challenge.

    In the following paragraphs, we will briefly examine the historical development of the church which has brought us to our schismatic present. Hopefully, this commentary on church history will help us to understand how we have gotten where we are. Beyond that, it is imperative that we gain a confidence in being able to sort out the real truth from the maze of doctrinal diversity in the church.

    0, yes! The truth still exists in its pure form. Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). May our vision of Him take on a clearer focus in the following thoughts.

    1. Diversity From The Beginning

      Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. All those who receive Jesus into their lives receive the author of truth. They become part of his spiritual body and stewards of the truth which He proclaims (1 Timothy 3:15). It is sad, however, to observe how so many who claim to be attached to the truth can be so diverse in their understanding of it. This diversity began long ago.

      The adolescent church (A.D. 50-500) struggled to develop a sense of maturity. The Roman philosophy was that everything revolved around the state, including religion. Patriotism was number one in the Roman mind set. If a religion dissuaded its adherents from loyalty to the state, the religion was wrong. On the other hand, the church believed that all life revolved around its Saviour.

      Loyalty to God was number one in the Christian mind set. If a government forced its citizens to violate their Biblical convictions, then the government was wrong. This conflict produced a pseudo unity among believers in the early church as they all commonly suffered under state sponsored persecution. Even though definite differences were growing among believers, they did not gain much attention because of the conflict Christians shared. However, the dissension in these years laid the foundation for the splintering of the church later.

      In those first few centuries there were sound men of the faith. Clement, one of the first Bishops in Rome, wrote letters of exhortation to other churches. Ignatius (100-150 A.D.) was arrested for his faith and sent to Rome to die in the Arena. Polycarp (70-155 A.D.) had originally been a disciple of John. At age 86 he refused to deny Christ and was burned at the stake.

      There were others who were part of mainline Christianity but held different ideas. For example, Origen (185-250), who is considered one of the church fathers, allegorized Scripture and argued heavily against literal interpretation. He believed that Christianity was a philosophy that was buttressed with Scripture but rested on reason. He contributed greatly to the fragmenting of the church.

      Then there were those who were obviously of a non-Christian persuasion yet claimed to be Christian. Mani (216-276) believed perfection was the possession of pure light. Anything related to the material world was darkness. He promoted celibacy for all. Montanus believed that inspiration was immediate and continuous and therefore the Bible was incomplete. Two women of his group monitored doctrine through trances. Marcion believed that there were two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament God was bad and the New Testament God was good.

      The Docetists believed Christ’s body was a phantom and that he had no real human flesh. On and on we could relate the increasingly more bizarre ideas of “Christians” even in the very early days. This really is not a modern problem. Yet always, as God promises, He preserves a remnant. As he says in Romans 11:5, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    2. Hiding The Truth

      By the year 300 A.D., the political attachment to paganism had died out in the Roman Empire. Philosophy among Roman Aristocracy helped to kill it and Christianity compounded the effort. However, the form of pagan religion remained with many temples still in technical operation.

      Politically, the Empire was weakening. Diocletion had organized the Empire but created such a bureacracy that it did not provide a sufficient foundation for continuing stability. A cleavage between the East and West segments grew in intensity.

      In an effort to draw the Romans back into a glorious union, Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the State. It was the type of relationship familiar to the Empire. The affairs of the throne and Senate were extensively interrelated with those of the temples to Roman gods. However, as the state weakened, it became increasingly more dependent upon the growing Church. Making Christianity the official state religion was supposed to help the Empire. What actually happened was that the Church absorbed the State and became the dominant factor of European history for centuries to come.

      It may appear that this is just where the church wanted to be. As masters of Europe it could witness for Christ without restraint. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Power and prosperity were detrimental to the growth of true spirituality. The Church of the Roman Empire had the opportunity to focus everyone on the truth. It had the wealth, the education, and the available means to teach all its citizens the Word of God. The potential was unlimited. And so it is hard to believe what actually happened. Instead of freely giving out God’s precious Word, the Ecclesiastical hierarchy closeted all the manuscripts of Scripture into Monasteries and Cathedrals and prevented all but a few isolated Monks and Priests from knowing anything about it. After hundreds of years of the truth being distorted, something worse occurred—it was hidden altogether.

    3. Institutionalizing the “Truth”

      The course of church history followed a definite pattern. In its infancy, the church had many new things to learn about itself. As it grew and developed through the second and third centuries, the church went through an adolescence during which there were many internal and external conflicts. When the church finally came of age as the state religion of the Roman Empire, there were many good things. There were strong leaders committed to Biblical excellence and an unprecedented opportunity to influence the whole European and Middle Eastern world with no strings attached.

      There seems to be, however, an unfortunate pattern in any group or organization. When it becomes established and resistance is all but eliminated, perspective is easily lost, and an institutionalization can set in which causes stagnation. This is exactly what happened to the church. Its leaders became so intoxicated with their ability to influence that they translated this into political power, rather than evangelistic influence. In 800 A.D. the Bishop of Rome laid the crown upon the head of Charlemagne and thus established the supremacy of the church over the state. During the next 600 years there would be a dramatic struggle between prelate and noble to determine who had the right to grant existence to the other. (There are still elements of this conflict evident in our American society.)

      The church, with the assistance of feudalism, put European society to sleep. Education took place only inside monastery walls. The activities of nobles consisted primarily of fighting each other or resisting invasion from the North. Life expectancy was about 35 to 40 and little changed in the way people lived from 600 A.D. to 1200 A.D.

    4. Fighting For Survival

      When one reflects upon these dark years, he may wonder what can be learned from such a time. How could God allow such corruption and complete deviation from what He intended? How could He tolerate the unethical and immoral behavior of those who were responsible for his spiritual body on earth?

      Here is where we need to develop a deeper appreciation for the mercies of God. When Scripture says that God is not slack concerning his promise but is longsuffering to us-ward, the word long is suspended in a time warp that allows God to be extremely tolerant of our foolishness. During that time warp He spends unlimited energy in an attempt to bring us to our knees and to a renewed understanding of the truth.

      In God’s mercy, this is just what he did with the Church. He created a just cause in which it could struggle in the Crusades and rediscover its dependency upon God. He opened the eyes of faithful men and gave them the courage to stand for truth – in many cases at the expense of their own earthly lives. He awakened the human soul to the reality of sin and death and hell and brought conviction that generated a confession and reception of salvation through justification by faith.

      The Crusades are one of the most curious aspects of Church History. They consisted of military invasions conducted by European Kings and nobles against the Moslems occupying the Holy Land. The participants of the Crusades never fulfilled their original purpose, to liberate the Land of Israel from Moslem domination. However, something of far greater significance resulted from this 275 year campaign. Instead of preserving medieval Christianity in the land of Palestine, the buttresses of this form of Christianity were completely knocked down and the political and spiritual personality of Europe was totally transformed.

      Militarism was the sum total of European political thought through the dark ages. Chivalry would come later, but in A.D. 1000, knights sang more love songs to their swords than they did to their ladies. The leader of the church, Urban, thought it wise to direct this aggression toward an outside subject before Europe lay in total ruin from constant in-fighting. The Moslems had been a threat to European security for several hundred years. They would be the logical target. Urban created such enthusiasm for the cause that in 1096 A.D. a large mass of peasants marched from France to Palestine, poorly armed and poorly organized. The group was brutally massacred by the Moslems. While there were some military victories for the crusaders later on, this first failure represents the haphazard manner in which most of the Crusade campaigns were conducted.

      There were many consequences of the Crusades. One of them, however, was more of a blessing than a problem. While Europe had been intellectually dark for more than half a millennium, the middle east and northern Africa prospered. The Christian soldiers from England, France, Germany and Italy were exposed to this advanced culture during the Crusades and the European human soul was awakened by it.

      In the appearance of things, the Christians soldiers of the Crusades fought against the Moslems. But in the heart of these enduring campaigns, they fought just as much against their own enslavement to feudalism. The church had become just as intensely feudalistic as European society was. A personal relationship with Christ was hidden in the shadows of a history largely unknown to us today. Everyone who called himself a Christian in Europe was held subservient to religious lords who neither knew Christ nor cared if anyone else did. But once the human soul was awakened, it realized that there must be more to the Christian experience. The stage was silently set for the birth of men like Peter Waldo, John Huss, John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther. Through these and others, truth would be rediscovered and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through faith alone would be returned to the people.

      We Christians today take this freedom for granted. This freedom to exercise faith in God alone, apart from ritual, penance and indulgence, is far more precious than we realize. The Holy Scriptures say, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast, and whosoever will may come (Ephesians 2:8-9; Revelation 22:17).

    Conclusion

    No matter what men attempt to do with God’s truth, whether they change it, bend it, distort it, or hide it, it will always resurface in clarity and power. When the truth finally reemerged again many hundreds of years later, there came with it a renewed conviction of the sinfulness of man’s heart and his need to be saved through faith in the Gospel of Christ.

    God has declared that His Word is alive. Men will never be able to affect it, but it will always effect men. It will dissect and convict and then heal. God’s Word, the Truth, is deserving of our faith. Let us give ourselves to the Truth without reservation, and allow its full effect to impact our lives.

    By knowing what those who have gone before us have had to endure, let us learn to appreciate the blessing each of us possesses in our personal relationship with the Saviour. Let us not fail, by neglect, to show Christ our appreciation. Show Him by walking with him faithfully every day. Praise God we can know that we are saved. Praise that there have always been those who have known that they were saved. Praise God that the truth has been preserved through all the turmoil of church history. It is preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures. Let us not allow our hearts to wander from it.

    While we look at the history of the church as a movement, we may also look at the movement of our own lives through stages of development. Being honest with ourselves we will be able to identify dark days in which we have been less than faithful. But for the mercy of God, where would we be. Before we give up on those who are going through dark spiritual days in their lives, let us remember the long night of the institutionalized Church and let us remember the bleakness of our own experience. In each case remember also that God did not leave us, nor forsake His church but in time brought hope, and joy, and life through faith. Let us allow ourselves to be the instruments that God may use to bring these things to others.

    Counting Our Blessings

    Counting our blessings is good practice.

    1. It makes us get along with people better.
    2. It makes us look around us instead of within us.
    3. It makes us more considerate, sympathetic.
    4. It causes us to live for others, not ourselves.
    5. It makes us a blessing instead of a burden.
    6. It corrects our perspective of life.
    7. It strengthens our inner resources of faith and hope.
    8. It increases our confidence for living.
    9. It increases our awareness of God.

    The Branches of Diversity

    Last month we considered some thoughts from Church History regarding the roots of diversity. Those roots came from the very beginning of the Church when men who called themselves Christians took many different paths of doctrinal persuasion. One would think that the natural result of this would have been the prevalence of denominationalism very early in the history of the church. In fact, the opposite occurred. A powerful centralized authority suppressed sectarianism among Christians and brought most of the active church under one “roof” – The Roman Catholic Church.

    Again, one would think that the influence of one, unified, strong church would stabilize church doctrine and bring a period of unprecedented enlightenment to the world. However, with the institutionalization of the church came also a stagnation of spirituality and a progressive departure from sound biblical doctrine. Through the period of the dark ages, there were not many denominations diverse from one another, but the centralized Roman Church became increasingly diverse within itself from biblical truth. For example, it was in 593 A.D. that the church declared purgatory to be an official doctrine. In 754 A.D. the Pope claimed the right of civil authority in Italy as well as ecclesiastical authority. In 847 A.D., forged documents were used to establish the authority of bishops. This included such things as 72 witnesses being required to condemn a bishop, immunity from prosecution for bishops before secular tribunals, and the prohibition of a cleric from ever bringing an accusation against his superior in the church. In 858 A.D., the bishop of Rome as successor of Peter was established as having authority over all the bishops in the world. He was also given the right to wear an imperial crown and a purple cloak. In 1075 A.D., all marriages of the clergy were declared invalid and all preachers were required to divorce their wives. In 1100 A.D., the practice was established of giving money to a priest for the performance of a mass on behalf of individuals. By the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the authority of the Bible had been replaced with the authority of church tradition and the infallibility of the Pope. Justification by faith had been replaced with salvation by works. Transubstantiation, the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, replaced the finished work of Christ. Confession to men replaced confession directly to God. The veneration of saints and the adoration of relics replaced the invisible Spirit. And, ceremony replaced the sermon. It was inevitable that there would eventually be a reaction against such ecclesiastical and theological corruption. That reaction came in the form of the reformation. Unfortunately, the reformation did not only result in freeing men’s soul’s from the bondage of Catholicism, but also further contributed to the diversification of doctrinal beliefs.

    1. Events Leading Up To The Reformation

      The nations of Europe for many hundreds of years were fragmented fuedalistic lands. They did not exist in well defined countries as we know them today. As the Crusades intensified and waned, the influence Europeans received from their encounter with the east led the French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English people to develop a sense of nationalism and submit themselves to centralized governments. This political break from the Holy Roman Empire encouraged the Europeans to nationalize their religion as well. As native-son Churchmen began to speak independently of the church in Rome, many found guaranteed protection by their King and compatriots. Along with the political influence of the east came an exposure to culture that had been hidden from Europeans for centuries. The revival of culture in Europe during the period before the reformation became known as the Renaissance. In southern Europe, primarily in Italy, this was expressed through a revival of the arts. In northern Europe, it was expressed more in the revival of literature and language. The ancient manuscripts of the Greek and Hebrew Bible were brought out of their closets and studied directly, giving renewed insight into biblical truth. Then came the printing press. With this amazing invention, came the innovative idea of translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew directly into the language of the people and giving the average man an opportunity to read the Bible for himself.

      The Renaissance was accompanied with another important movement – The Age of Reason. For centuries, the masses were discouraged from thinking for themselves. They were told that a blind faith in the teachings of the church was all they needed. But as nationalism spread, culture was revived, and a new middle class of skilled workers began to emerge, education and free thinking also found a renewed place in the human soul. This meant that men no longer simply accepted what the Roman Catholic Church Priests taught them, but they began to think and meditate upon the Word of God directly which resulted in a widespread transformation of men’s faith.

      Other reasons for the Reformation were both practical and doctrinal. In light of the requirement for clerical celibacy, there were excesses of immorality among the priests. This made the Church unbelievable. Indulgences had become church taxes which were draining local monies from newly formed European national treasuries. By the time people paid the Church, they had nothing left for the King. This broke a sense of allegiance to the church and a rechanneling of resources to local civil government. Then, when the printing press made the Scriptures available to many people who never before had seen them personally, people were no longer dependent upon the official Church to tell them what the Bible was saying. The Word of God did its work in their hearts and changed their lives and the course of religious history.

      The lesson of the Reformation is a simple one. Only the Word of God gives life and hope and peace to men. Organizations and men’s traditions are only useful when they are servants of God’s Word. Tradition which supercedes the Word of God is dangerous. Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered and many such like things do ye (Mark 7:9-13). But when a man’s heart is exposed to the actual words of Scripture, it is inevitable that a dynamic impact and change occur. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim. 3:16-17).

      The Scriptures are clear. Let them speak to our hearts. May we learn from those who broke from the cocoon of darkness and realized first hand the wonderful impact of God’s Word.

    2. The Men Of The Reformation

      In the Reformation, personalities stand out just as strongly as doctrine. There were Luther and Menno Simons in Germany, Zwingli and Calvin in Switzerland, and John Knox in Scotland, among many others. Of all the eras since Christ, the 16th Century has been perhaps the most saturated by great human minds. What makes these men so outstanding that the vibrations from their lives can still be felt four hundred and fifty years later?

      For one thing, they were all sincere in their desire to know the truth. Each man mentioned above was a priest or monk in the established church of his day. They studied in the Seminaries (universities) and were taught the “accepted” theology. For many hundreds of years, the infallibility of Church doctrine stood unchallenged. But in the hearts of these men and others arose the conviction that Scripture was superior to organization and man-made policy. They adopted as their motto the declaration of Christ, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

      Luther was freed from ascetic bondage in realizing the just shall live by faith. Menno Simons was freed from the loneliness of a monastery by realizing the importance of genuine spiritual fellowship. John Knox experienced the joy of revival as he learned to preach dynamically and to centralize the Word of God in the ministry. All of the Reformers were victorious because they were willing to stand alone for the truth when necessary.

      Unfortunately, their efforts at rescuing the church from doctrinal corruption were less than perfect. Instead of pooling their energies in the rediscovery of biblical truth, they often viewed each other as competitors and allowed their disagreements to keep them apart. Consequently, when much of the church was freed from Roman Catholic doctrinal divergence, it did not simply return to the truth, but splintered into multiple variations, and the diversity that was rooted in the beginning of the church came to full bloom in the Reformation and its aftermath.

      For example, Martin Luther not only taught justification by faith, but also taught consubstantiation – a variation from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which Luther said that the elements of communion maintained their natural substance, but the presence of Christ in the elements was none the less very real and grace was obtained in partaking of them. John Calvin defined the doctrines of election and predestination to mean that man had no choice in his salvation, but that the sovereign God made that choice for him in that Christ died only for the elect who were selected by God Himself before the foundation of the world. The rest of mankind had no hope of being saved since Christ did not die for them. Jacob Arminius countered with the teaching that salvation was so much by the free will of man that man’s wayward will could also cause him to lose his salvation. Zwingli became a passionate militant who actually led Protestants in military battles and died from wounds received in one such venture. Menno Simons on the other hand encouraged passivism and nonviolence even when personally attacked. He also taught that material possessions were dangerous, leading his followers into a plain and humble lifestyle free of personal adornments.

    3. Circumstances Following The Reformation

      The Reformation did restore the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. But what happened after the dust settled from the great struggle required to bring about reformation to church? The two key words of Church History since the Reformation are “diversity” and “divergence.”

      Because the Reformation involved several outstanding personalities spread over a politically fragmented European Continent, the reforming effect was one of great diversity. Diversity has always been part of the experience of the Body of Christ. In diversity there can be unity through balance. However, diversity can easily be translated into divergence. Diversity gave men of different personalities to the church such as Paul and Peter and Apollos. But as in the church at Corinth, the personalities of these men became catalysts to divergence – a drawing apart which has the potential of resulting in corrupting change. The book of 1 Corinthians was written to prevent such a thing from happening. It helped in the first century, but not in the 16th century or since. In Germany there were the Lutherans and Anabaptists. In Switzerland there were the Presbyterians. In Great Britain there were the Anglicans, Puritans and Separatists which respectively correspond to the American Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. At first, these various groups portrayed what appeared to be a healthy diversity in the church. From this, however, there continued to be an unrelenting fragmentation and unfortunate divergence from the truth.

      From John Calvin and the Reformed Movement came the Presbyterians, the Scottish Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, the Swiss Reformed and the Congregationalists. In future generations of these Reformed Churches have come such groups as the Bible Presbyterian, the Churches of Christ, the Church of God, and the United Church of Christ, from which also came the Unitarians.

      From the Anabaptists came the Mennonites, the Amish, the Brethren in Christ, the Moravians, the Church of the Brethren and in some degree the Seventh Day Adventists.

      From Lutheranism has come several Lutheran denominations and the Evangelical Free Church.

      From Anglicanism (the Church of England) has come Plymouth Brethren, Protestant Episcopalians, and Methodists. From the Methodists has come the Wesleyan Church, the Salvation Army, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of the Nazarene, and the entire Pentecostal and Holiness movements.

      From the original four or five major groups that emerged out of the Reformation, there have been the beginning of so many denominations and independent churches that it is almost impossible to keep track of them all, or to decipher all of the diversity of doctrinal persuasions that have resulted.

      Several factors influenced this course of events. After each of the major Reformation participants settled into their own habits and liturgical philosophy, they developed a comfortableness that caused them to lose a sense of appreciation for redemption. In society there emerged a movement of “Rationalism” which only served to discredit the spiritual reality of faith. Consequently, those who practice the most involved religious rituals today seem to have a very low level of consciousness of the holiness of God and the redemptive value of Jesus Christ.

      There are lessons to be learned from the history of the Church. Diversity is good. Divergence is bad. Diversity provides balance. Divergence destroys the purity of true Christianity. In our own local church we must recognize the value of diversity, similar to that of Paul and Apollos and Cephas in 1 Corinthians. In spite of all their differences, they contributed equally to the production of real fruit in men’s lives. But in our own local church there is no room for divergence. There is no room for encouraging specialized groups which will dwell upon some corrupted or exaggerated notion that moves people away from the purity of God’s Word and the reality of Christ. There is no room for setting the ideas of man above the wisdom of God. There is no room for false doctrine or foolish questions or foolish genealogies or perverse disputings of men. Scripture says, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness (I Tim. 6:11).

      The Church is not divided into micro-groups because of wholesome diversity but because of carnal divergence from the truth. Again Scripture says, for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (I Cor. 3:3).

      We can be different in the unique character development that God gives to each of us. That kind of diversity can provide a wonderful balance to the Church and its program. Simply being different does not require division. However, when our differences are defined by divergence from the truth we have a horse of a different color. The purity of Christ and His righteousness must never be compromised through conflicting views of the truth.

    Conclusion

    Can the Church of the 20th century learn any lessons from the divergent paths of the church throughout its history? It should. Once again we have fallen into a complacency of accepting what is fed us without personally verifying its veracity. Too many professing Christians are just listening to the preaching of others through sermons and books and music and not investigating the Word themselves. It is so easy to believe that modern day Christianity has been successful in defining theological truth once and for all. But such complacency prevents us from appreciating the necessity to personally study the Scriptures and discover the truth for ourselves. We say, “why reinvent the wheel?” The danger is that such apathy towards personal Bible study may result in another dark ages in which the average Christian not only does not study the Bible, but does not know how to do so.

    While there are many things in life that are contagious, that is, involuntarily transferred from one individual to another, truth is not. It must be purposely ingested by each individual for its effects to be experienced. II Timothy 2:15 says, Study to show THYSELF approved. There are many communicable diseases. For example, our society is at present bracing against the dreaded Aids for which there is apparently no cure. But the disease can be passed from one person to another. No one seeks such a disease, but many become its victims. Would to God that we could be the victims of Truth. It would be so much easier that way. Unfortunately, we can never possess the truth against our will or obtain it without seeking it. We must pursue the truth with a passion and actively submit ourselves to God so that His Holy Spirit may guide us into all truth.

    May we prevent the corruption of truth and the need for another Reformation by confirming the Truth through our own personal investigation of God’s Word. Romans 15:4 says, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

    The wonderful thing about finding the truth is that when we do, we will also find other believers with whom we will be in perfect harmony. In the truth, there is no diversity. It is absolute and unchangeable. Therefore, when many people come to the same truth, they come together and are joined in an unbreakable unity. In that unity, we may find a marvelous diversity of personalities and people from many varied backgrounds. But the truth will bring a shared sameness to our hearts that will reflect the glory of God Himself.

    Old-Fashioned Church

    Literature, , ,

    by David E. Moss

    An old Doonesbury comic strip portrayed a conversation between one of the characters and a Minister:

    Man: “So how’d your new church get started Rev.?”

    Minister: “Aerobics.”

    Man: “Aerobics?”

    Minister: “I needed something to attract folks from the community. The focus group suggested an aerobics class. It worked, so I added yoga and bingo, and then a few 12-step programs, and then we opened a soup kitchen, which led to cooking lessons. Before I knew it, I had my own denomination.”

    Man: “Wow… so that’s how religion spreads.”

    Before you dismiss this as a mere spoof on the church, consider this. In the early 1970’s, a young man and three friends conducted a door-to-door survey “to find out what people wanted in a church.” With results in hand, they began to construct a church based upon the opinions and interests of unchurched people. This was the beginning of a dramatic change in the way churches “minister” to their communities. With a theater-like atmosphere, and a come-as-you-are invitation, church services are becoming more like television variety shows. This is necessary, it is argued, because traditional forms of worship have become boring and predictable and consequently do not appeal to people where they are.

    The flaw in this philosophy is in believing that what goes on inside the church should be driven by the experience of people outside the church. Worship, they say, should include elements of daily cultural experience so that people can relate to a spiritual message in a context they understand.

    Proponents of these changes are the ones who do not understand. What good is a church that is patterned after the world? The church should be a place that stands in stark contrast to the world, offering itself as a refuge from all that is wrong. Instead, it is becoming a place in which each person who attends can find some element of compatibility with his personal experience.

    1. The Culture Gospel

      Nearly a century ago, Christians were concerned about the Social Gospel. Instead of being a light house for lost souls, the Church became a soup kitchen.

      Now, in the latter part of the 20th century, Christians need to become concerned about the Culture Gospel. Instead of being an oasis for the spiritually desperate, the Church is becoming a play house of cultural relevancy.

      Traditional forms of worship are disappearing as if they were dinosaurs. An atmosphere of reverence is nearly extinct. An expectation that people attend church services dressed respectfully for the occasion is frowned upon as archaic and old fashioned — as if there is something wrong with being old fashioned.

      Popular wisdom prescribes observing the cultural elements of people’s daily experience, transcribing them into a liturgical format, and presenting a Christian message in a vernacular setting. The more diverse the demographics of the community, the more diverse “worship” becomes. Something must be included to appeal to every segment of society. Baby Boomers, Generation X, Singles, ethnics, and an infinite list of other special interest groups become targets with new innovations. The activities of “worship” are fabricated with great sensitivity to all the people who may enter the refurbished halls of the Church.

      There is a very simple explanation for this phenomenon. The Church used to be focused on God. Now, it is focused on itself.

    2. Real Worship

      Traditional forms of worship are being discarded because of a misconception about their origins. The movement of Multiculturalism contends that European culture is oppressive and chauvinistic, preventing the free expression of other cultures. The carry-over into Christianity leads to a claim that traditional forms of worship are too restrictive because they originated within European culture. The conclusion is that they must be replaced with forms of worship that are more culturally inclusive.

      If truth be told, traditional forms of worship are not rooted in culture at all. It is mere coincidence that they were developed in a European cultural context.

      Traditional forms of worship are actually based upon a set of beliefs. 1. God is holy. 2. Those who approach God should do so in a manner which acknowledges His holiness. 3. This requires reverence, respect, order, mannerliness and a decorum honoring the station of Godliness. 4. Worship is the act of approaching God. 5. Therefore, worship is a sacred activity in which man conducts himself appropriate to the occasion.

      The effect of this is to bring people from all cultures into a uniform approach to the Almighty. Culture becomes irrelevant in worship because worship has nothing to do with where man is, and everything to do with where God is. The objective of worship is not to help man find himself, but to help man find God.

      1. Respect

        Respect is a primary ingredient of worship. It is demonstrated by attitude and appearance.

        One should enter a church service quietly and thoughtfully. This is so, not because the building is a hallowed place on the order of the Old Testament Temple, but because the gathering of the believers for the purpose of worship is a hallowed occasion.

        One should also dress appropriately for such an important event. Clothes communicate our attitude toward our activities. In the secular world people dress up for appropriate occasions. Business men wear suits to work, women wear evening gowns to banquets, and teens rent formal wear for graduation parties. But along comes the church with an invitation for people to attend the most sacred activity imaginable, dressed in clothes more suitable for the playground.

      2. Reverence

        Reverence is another primary ingredient of worship. It is demonstrated by our conduct.

        A worship service should be characterized by activity that shows the Lord God, our Heavenly Father, we understand who He is. One’s deportment in worship should communicate a reverence for the importance of the person to whom sacrifices of praise are being made.

        Entertaining ourselves ought to be the furtherest thing from our minds in a worship service. Sensuous music, lewd gyrations, hilarity and applause have absolutely no value in reverencing a holy and sacred God. They are totally man-centered activities. Worship should be completely focused upon the Lord God.

    3. Old-Fashioned Church

      There is a great deal of pressure on local churches to conform to the new ways. Not only is there competition from the secular world of entertainment, now churches are competing to create the most effective appeal to a demanding, self-indulgent community.

      In spite of this, there may yet be a place in each community for a local church that will resist this tidal wave and maintain an old fashioned form of worship. It can be an oasis for those who are being strangled by the crassness of man-centered worship. It can be a gathering place for the remnant who desire to acknowledge the real God in a worship format that is not based upon a cultural experience, but upon a set of doctrinal convictions. It can be a refuge for those who want to rest in all that God is, instead of relishing in all that man can do. It can be a quiet place of worship, where a soul can rest with other weary pilgrims and escape the disconcerting noise of a confused and disorderly world.

    Conclusion

    This may sound out of touch. It is. It is out of touch with the wisdom that descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

    But this is in touch with the wisdom that is from above. Such wisdom is first, above all things, pure. It is only with this wisdom that the Church can offer worship to God that is truly acceptable to Him.

    The people of every local church face this decision. Will they give in to the demands of a group of people who are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? Or, will they stay the course, maintain respect and reverence in their worship, and think first about God and last about themselves? Will they be a modern innovation with a man-centered priority, or, will they be an old fashioned church with one simple objective — approach God on His terms, rather than their own?

    Church Membership

    Literature, , ,

    by David E. Moss

    A Biblical Basis for Maintaining Local Church Membership Lists

    Most local churches maintain membership lists. To some people this is very important. When they leave one church of which they have been a member, and begin attending another church, they soon transfer their membership. To some local churches this is also very important. They maintain regulations which restrict certain leadership and teaching positions to members only.

    Not everyone agrees, however, on the importance of local church membership. Most churches which maintain membership lists, also have a good number of folks who attend on a regular basis and never join. There are various reasons they do not join: some do not want to be asked to serve in leadership roles, some do not want to make a commitment, some want to avoid the potential of conflicts they experienced in other places, and some do not believe that local church membership is either necessary or appropriate.

    Who is right? Is membership important in the local church or should we do away with it all together? Can local church membership be established from a biblical basis, or is it entirely a matter of man’s imagination?

    The Biblical Basis for Local Church Membership

    1. Membership in the Whole Church

      The Bible presents the church on two different levels. The first level is the whole church made up of all those who have been born again by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. There is really only one church, that is, one body of Christ. Ephesians 4:4 says, There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. Romans 12:4-5 says, For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 1 Corinthians 12:12 says, For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

      Membership in the whole church, or the body of Christ, results from an individual’s salvation and relationship with the Holy Spirit. Salvation, of course, occurs only by grace through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A person first must understand that he is a sinner and cannot save himself. Then he must understand that what Jesus Christ did on the cross in bearing his sin for him is all that needs to be done. If he confesses his sins and receives Christ, he is born again into the family of God. John 1:12 says, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. In the very moment that a person is born again by faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in his body. Thus Galatians 4:6 says, And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Then in the very moment that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the believer, He places the believer in the body of Christ. I Corinthians 12:13 states, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. The word baptize means to immerse or place into. Here the Scripture teaches that all believers are spiritually immersed into the one body of Christ. All believers thus become members of the body of Christ. As 1 Corinthians !2:12 says, …the body is one, and hath many members…

    2. Membership in the Local Church

      The second level on which the Bible presents the body of Christ is the local church. While it is clear from the verses listed above that there is only one church, or one body of Christ, the Bible often speaks of multiple churches as it refers to local manifestations of the body of Christ. Several times groups of churches are identified by region as the churches of Galatia in 1 Corinthians 16:1, or the churches of Asia in 1 Corinthians 16:19, or the churches in Macedonia in 2 Corinthians 8:1. Other times, multiple churches are referred to in more general terms as in Acts 16:5, And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily; or in 1 Corinthians 7:17, But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. In still other places, specific local churches are identified individually as the church which is at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) or the church of the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:1).

      Regarding membership in the local church, there are numerous references which identify people with a specific church in a specific place. Sometimes believers are identified with a local church in a particular city such as the saints of the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) . At other times, believers are identified with a particular household meeting place of which there may be several within the same city. For example, when Paul wrote to the saints in Rome, he sent separate greetings to the groups of believers that met in the houses of Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:3-5), Aristobulus (Romans 16:10), Narcissus (Romans 16:11) Asyncritus (Romans 16:14), and Philologus (Romans 16:15). Clearly there were individuals who worshiped regularly in each of these households and developed an identity with that particular local church. This is why Paul greeted them separately as members of distinct local churches.

      Romans chapter 16 is a key passage in establishing a biblical basis for maintaining local church membership lists. The book of Romans was written to all the saints in Rome (Romans 1:7). But Rome was an immense city and the church there was too spread out for all of them to be able to gather in one large meeting place for worship, especially in the hostile environment that existed under the pagan Caesar, Nero. Romans chapter 16 identifies at least five different assemblies that met in private homes throughout the city. As Paul referred to these various local churches he addressed the specific groups of people that were identified with each one respectively. There was the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, them which were of Aristobulus’ household, them that be of the household of Narcissus, the brethren which were with Asyncritus and his associates, and all the saints who were with Philologus and his associates. There is no indication that believers in Rome floated around from place to place. In fact, the implication of the words of Scripture is that each household church had a very specific list of people who were identified with that meeting place.

    3. The Biblical Necessity for Local Church Membership

      We have no way of knowing whether a written list was kept of the those who “belonged” to each local church in the first century, but practical reasons emerged very early for knowing who did and who did not belong.

      In Acts chapter two, the whole church consisted of only one local church in Jerusalem. There, all the saints who made up the church were together in one place and had all things in common (Acts 2:44). They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread and in prayers (verse 42) and they continued daily with one accord in the temple, breaking bread from house to house (verse 46).

      As the church dispersed from Jerusalem, groups of believers gathered in other cities. In these new places they continued what they had learned to do in Jerusalem (Acts 8:4; 11:26; 13:1-3). In these new local churches and in many others started by the apostles, leadership was ordained and believers were established in the faith. In these local manifestations of the body of Christ, Christians found the opportunities to identify personally with others with whom they shared membership in the whole church. Scripture emphatically mandates the assembling of believers together in these local places (Hebrews 10:23-25).

      In the infant church, scrutinizing those who participated in its ministry activities became extremely important. For example, in Galatia false brethren were brought in unawares to spy out the liberty of gentile believers (Galatians 2:4). Peter warned of false teachers who would be among the true believers, bringing in damnable heresies and causing many to follow their pernicious ways (2 Peter 2:1-2). Jude lamented that certain men had crept in unawares and were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. In each of these cases, unrighteous men were able to infiltrate local churches under a cloak of deception and implement their destructive schemes before the true believers knew what was happening. The Apostles quickly exhorted local church leaders to put safeguards in place to identify those who would try such things and prevent them from being successful (Acts 20:28-31).

      Such is indeed a biblical basis for modern day local church membership lists. If local churches in the first century could be successfully raided by destructive forces, how much more vulnerable is the church of today. Back then, it was much easier to know who was a Christian and who was not. After all, with persecution as intense as it was, it was not socially fashionable to be a Christian. A person generally had a serious reason for identifying himself as a Christian. Either he was a genuine believer, or he had some ulterior motive of destructive influence to impose upon the church. Today, with so many different doctrinal opinions and persuasions, and so many brands of Christianity which people follow, responsible leadership must have a means for determining who should be allowed to teach and lead and who should not. Having individuals make a commitment to the local church and its doctrinal convictions through the membership process provides considerable assurance to the whole group of local believers that they are protected from unwanted intruders.

    The Practical Rationale for Local Church Membership

    Through the centuries, culture, society, government and organized religion have continued to bombard the church with a variety of influences greatly expanding the practical reasons for local church membership. Please note the Scripture passages attached to each point, indicating that even these expanded practical reasons for maintaining local church membership lists are rooted in biblical principle.

    1. Membership in a local church serves as an expression of commitment between the group and the individual. This gives the local leadership the best way of knowing who is looking to them for personal ministry and who is receptive to personal exhortation. Otherwise, some may be neglected unnecessarily, or others may resent what they consider to be an unwanted intrusion into their personal lives, creating nasty complications for the local church family.

      • Acts 6:1-7
      • Galatians 6:1-8

    2. The Bible directs the setting apart of elders and deacons to function as leaders in the local church. Much space is given in the New Testament to describing what their responsibilities are and how they are to qualify to serve. The need for qualified leadership assumes a membership from whom and by whom these men can be appointed.

      • I Timothy 3:1-13
      • Titus 1:5-11

    3. The need for church discipline also suggests the imperative of a definite membership list for a local church. The Scripture has clearly outlined the responsibility of the local church to judge sin and to discipline its members when their sins are of a serious nature. When a Christian sins today, it is very easy for him to move on to another church that is either ignorant of his transgression or willing to tolerate it. Without a membership commitment, it is nearly impossible to pursue the individual and help him see the error of his ways. With a membership commitment, local church leadership has a basis for imposing church discipline upon the individual in an attempt to rescue him from his fault.

      • 1 Corinthians 5:1-12
      • 2 Thessalonians 3:11-14
      • 2 Timothy 2:24-26
      • Galatians 6:1
      • 1 Timothy 5:19-20
      • Titus 3:10

    4. Legal constraints and regulations give an institutional nature to the church today. Membership and records are needed for good compliance with regulations of society. Weddings must be performed by licensed or ordained pastors, and licensing and ordination are done by organized memberships of church institutions. Also, chaplaincies of military and medical institutions usually are assigned only to organized church groups.

      1 Peter 2:13-16

    5. The principle of “orderliness” supports local church membership. If both saved and unsaved, or if both carnal and spiritual believers help make decisions in a local church because the lack of membership guidelines allows it, the door is open to mass confusion. Maintaining active membership lists provides some confidence that those who are voting agree at least on doctrines and basic church policies.

      I Corinthians 14:40

    6. The principle of “safeguarding the truth” encourages church membership. If the church were in the hands of unqualified leaders because unqualified voters put them in office, it would not be long before doctrinal error and unscriptural practice would creep into the local assembly.

      I Timothy 3:15

    7. The principle of “identification” supports membership. Through membership, a person publicly identifies with a local fellowship of believers and its beliefs. On the positive side, this identification helps the community to know what a particular church stands for by the public testimony of its members. On the negative side, one’s identification with a local church serves as a wholesome restraint against the committing of certain sins, knowing that such transgressions will bring reproach upon the whole assembly of which he is a part.

      • 1 Timothy 3:7
      • 1 Timothy 5:24-25
      • 3 John 1:12
      • 2 Corinthians 6:3

    8. The principle of “belonging” teaches church membership. Some do not really feel a part of that to which they do not belong. Reluctance to teach, to take positions, to exercise leadership and to share responsibility in a local church may rise from the words, “I am not a member.”

      1 Corinthians 12:22-27

    9. The principle of “care and nourishment” is enhanced as individuals come under the watchful guidance of godly leaders in a local church. Local church membership allows local church leadership to know for whom they must give an account. One source of grief such leaders experience is from the detachment and unsubmissive attitudes of some believers.

      Hebrews 13:17

    10. The principle of “family stability” promotes membership. As a man joins the local church, he leads his family in the path of godly direction, thus bringing greater stability to his home.

      1 Timothy 3:4-5,12

    11. The principle of “unity of service” argues for membership. As a person joins the local church, he promises to “join hands” with that membership in a unity of service and prayer and in support of the ministry of the Word at home and abroad.

      • 3 John 1:5
      • Romans 16:1-2
      • 1 Thessalonians 4:9

    Conclusion

    When a person is saved, one of the things he should do is be baptized with water. Water baptism does not save a person, make him more saved, or add to his true spiritual condition in any way. What it does do is give the believer an opportunity to publicly declare his identification with the body of Christ. While local church membership is not an ordinance of the LORD like water baptism, joining a local church may be seen as serving a similar purpose. As water baptism serves as a public testimony of a person’s identification with the whole church, local church membership serves as a means by which a person can publicly identify with and declare his commitment to a local church.

    The Bible says that the Chief Shepherd knows exactly who belongs to Him in the whole church. In John 10:3, He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. In following the example of the Chief Shepherd, it is reasonable for each local church and its under shepherds to know who belongs. This is necessary not simply to affirm those who are genuine members of the body of Christ for whom these shepherds are responsible, but even more importantly to protect these local sheep from the wolves who would bring in destructive schemes. Establishing and maintaining membership lists in local churches is a means by which these under shepherds can accomplish this.

    If the reader is a member of the body of Christ, but not a member of a local church, please answer a few questions. Do you have a biblical basis for not being a member of a local church? Does the Bible teach that individual believers should be detached from the local church? Does the Bible teach that individual believers should be independent of the local church? Does the Bible teach that individual believers are free of accountability to local church leaders? For which side does the Bible provide the strongest support — no membership, or maintaining membership in the local church?

    Please carefully examine the evidence offered in this article for the biblical basis of maintaining local church membership lists. If the case has been made convincingly, will you consider making a more definite commitment to your local church? Talk to your pastor soon, and tell him you are ready to publicly identify with your local church family.

    Church Discipline

    Literature, ,

    by David E. Moss

    Christians sin. They sin against their own bodies (I Corinthians 6:18). They sin against each other and they sin against Christ (I Corinthians 8:12).

    But it is Christ’s desire that the Church be pure. He gave Himself to redeem it from all iniquity, to purify it unto Himself as a peculiar people (Titus 2:14), to sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, and to present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing (Ephesians 5:26-27).

    For this reason God gave extensive instruction in the Bible about dealing with Christians who have sinned. His design was to build within the church a self-cleansing mechanism. It is this mechanism that we call “church discipline.”

    1. Current Problems Regarding Church Discipline

      One fault in churches today is the failure to discipline. Sin has been euphemized. Things for which we once held people responsible, now are either consequences of victimization or merely alternative lifestyles. In addition to this, many churches have subscribed to the sensitivity movement of society at large. The rule is that you must not do anything to make another person feel inferior, or discriminated against, or labeled in any adverse way. Furthermore, many churches are desperate for members. As a result, they would rather overlook the “private” lives of their parishioners than risk chasing them away by the disciplinary process.

      Another failure in churches is to adopt a “one size fits all” policy regarding the disciplinary process. While all sin is equally serious, not all sins require the same response in order to resolve them. There are many contexts in the New Testament that address these issues. Unfortunately, some insist upon lumping them all into the mold of Matthew 18:15-17 where Jesus outlined a means to deal with a brother that had trespassed. Dealing with all sins identically can be potentially volatile to an entire congregation. It is a toss up as to which is worse: not disciplining sin at all, or disciplining sin irresponsibly.

    2. What Does Matthew 18:15-17 Really Teach?

      Matthew chapter 18 is only one of numerous places that instruction is given for dealing with those who sin. It is important to understand the specific purpose of this instruction so that it is not utilized for actions that do not apply. Other types of sins are assigned different means of discipline in other places in the Scriptures.

      In Matthew 18:15-17, the sin involves a personal trespass. Please note that no Scripture anywhere suggests that this process applies to any other kind of infraction. If any passage parallels this one it is Galatians 6:1-9 where again the situation is specified as one person dealing with a matter involving only one other person.

      The initial response in Matthew 18 is a personal confrontation. The offended person is to approach the offender privately. If the matter is resolved, this is as far as it goes. No one else needs to be involved.

      Only if the matter is not resolved, does the offended person begin to bring others into the situation. A second confrontation, in this case, includes one or two others. The purpose of these “witnesses” is to observe the conversation between the two parties. They may not necessarily be witnesses of the original infraction. They become, however, witnesses of the attempt to restore fellowship. If the matter is resolved, it stops at this level and no one else needs to know about it.

      If the matter is not resolved after the first and second confrontations, it may be taken before the church. Keep in mind that when Jesus gave this instruction, the New Testament Church had not yet been started. The term “church” was still a generic term and had not yet assumed its exalted usage as the designation of the Body of Christ. It is more likely a reference here to the assembly designated in Israel for the administration of justice. The Elders of the Synagogue had the power of excommunication over their local constituents. In Jerusalem, there were two lower Sandhedrin courts, each consisting of 23 members; and there was one high Sandhedrin court consisting of 71 members. The offended person could go before these official assemblies, undoubtedly beginning at the lowest level and present his case including those who witnessed his attempt at reconciliation. Excommunication is not even necessarily implied as the result. Verse 17 merely says that if the offending person neglects to hear the church, he shall be to “thee” (singular – meaning the offended person alone) as an heathen man and a publican. The judging assembly may choose to deal with the individual further regarding his obstinance, but no official action is specified in the text.

      The general interpretation of the Matthew 18 prescription is that an unresponsive person when confronted with their sin (any sin) should be dragged before the full assembly of a New Testament local church. He is then publicly embarrassed, admonished and banished from the fellowship. But nothing in the actual text supports such an interpretation.

    3. A Survey of Church Disciplinary Actions

      I Corinthians 5

      In this passage, six things are identified as public sins that need to be dealt with firmly and decisively: fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, and extortion (vs. 11). The public nature of these things is indicated in verse one where fornication was “reported commonly.”

      It is never suggested that this public sin be first dealt with privately as the personal offense was in Matthew 18. Instead, very direct instruction was given that the offending parties were to be removed from the assembly immediately (vs. 2,13), delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh (vs. 5), purged from the lump (vs. 7), and not kept company with (vs. 9,11).

      The minimum goal was to preserve the spirit of the offender in the day of the Lord Jesus (vs. 5). In the follow up passage of II Corinthians 2:5-8, it is clarified that the punishment was intended to turn into repentance on the part of the offender, and forgiveness and the confirming of love by the church.

      II Thessalonians 3

      Here is a case of disorderly conduct. Scripturally this means that instruction had been given from the Lord on how to live the Christian life honorably but was disobeyed (vs. 6,12-14). There are two things suggested in this text as a response. Those who walked disorderly by failing to work, becoming busybodies instead, were to be commanded and exhorted (vs. 11-12). Those who were blatantly disobeying the Word of God were to be removed from fellowship (vs. 6, 14).

      It appears that this may be a two stage process but this is not specified in the text. Rather, it may be two different types of infraction. Note that personal conflict is not involved, nor is gross public sin. This is the sin of disobeying Scriptural “traditions” (vs. 6) concerning the Christian life.

      II Timothy 2:24-26

      Another kind of fault described in these verses is the “opposition of self.” It involves the rejection of truth and is undoubtedly related to the disorderly conduct described in II Thessalonians 3. However, there is also a clear difference.

      The offender is described as being in the snare of the devil. This is, therefore, a rescue effort more than a disciplinary one. All striving is to be eliminated and gentleness is to govern ones approach. The goal is to bring the guilty party to a point of repentance so that they will acknowledge the truth. Herein can be appreciated the teaching of Jesus that the truth can make you free.

      Galatians 6:1

      This is the case of a man who is overtaken in a fault. The verb “overtaken” includes the element of surprise. It is also in the passive voice. These things suggest that the guilty party was not willful in his fault but was drawn into sin by the influence of others.

      This verse teaches that assistance to a person in this situation is purely restorative and should be done with a meek and cautious attitude.

      I Timothy 5:19-20

      The subjects of this particular disciplinary action are Elders. The context begins in verse 17 and runs, at least, to verse 22, all of which is addressing matters concerning Elders.

      It is the Elder that sins that is supposed to be rebuked before all. The reason is their visible position. Because of the significance of the office, there are lofty qualifications for those who would serve in it. It follows that accountability corresponds to the scope of the responsibility.

      Note that in all the contexts regarding church discipline, this is the only one that specifies rebuke in front of the entire assembly.

      Titus 3:10

      Finally, we consider instruction for dealing with heretics. A heretic is one who adopts a different doctrinal viewpoint, thus causing confusion or division.

      The heretic is given the benefit of two admonitions before he is rejected, or ejected from fellowship.

    4. A Comparison of the Different Types of Discipline

      To put this all in perspective, the following is a brief comparison of the different types of faults and the forms of discipline that correspond to them.

      Situation Response
      Personal Conflict
      1. Private meeting
      2. Second meeting with witnesses
      3. Hearing before judicial assembly
      Commonly reported gross sin
      1. First remove from assembly
      2. Have no company
      3. Confirm love
      Disorderly conduct by disobeying Scripture
      1. Command and exhort
      2. Withdraw
      Opposition of self Teach the truth
      Overtaken in a fault Restore
      Elders that sin Rebuke before all
      Heretics
      1. Admonish two times
      2. Reject

    Conclusion

    Church discipline is multi-faceted because sin is multi-faceted. God set the precedent in the Old Testament by prescribing different consequences for different violations of the Law. So it is today. It is important that we exercise discipline within the church, but it must be done responsibly.

    The Church and Missions

    Literature, , , ,

    by David E. Moss

    Several of my missionary friends have expressed dismay over the attitude toward missions they find in some local churches. In one instance, a missionary on furlough called one of his supporting churches to arrange a meeting. In that phone conversation he discovered the church had changed Pastors — he was never informed. On another occasion, a missionary tried to contact a church, but no one there recognized his name even though they had been sending him money for years. In another case, a missionary spent more money traveling to a church to report to them than they had sent to him in support during his entire term on the field.

    To be fair, there are equally as many stories on the other end of the spectrum. Many churches are very generous to missionaries. In fact, some people may even feel that their church goes “overboard” in their missions program. With the economy the way it is, with the world growing smaller through advanced communication technology and with all the services required by our own people here at home, how much emphasis should a local church place on missions?

    It is my conviction that missions must be one of the highest priorities of every local church. In the dark ages, there was little zeal for reaching the lost. The Church became ingrown. It hid the Word of God from its lay people and isolated its clergy in cold monasteries. With the dawn of the Reformation came a renewal of the evangelistic enthusiasm so vividly displayed by the Apostles and their first followers.

    The modern day church, however, is in danger of creeping into the shadows of selfish internalism. We have so heavily committed ourselves to the maintenance of elaborate edifices and monstrous programs that budgets strain to provide meager funds for missionary efforts. If all of this was accomplishing something we might have more of a forgiving attitude. The unfortunate thing is that in spite of all the services which have been provided and for all the lessons which have been taught to numberless groups of Christians in the last twenty years, Bible knowledge and Christian living skills are at dangerously low levels.

    I truly hope the Church can once again revive its evangelistic priorities before we plunge headlong into another age of spiritual darkness. It really would not be very difficult. A simple willingness to obey the instruction of the Word of God would be sufficient.

    So what does the Bible teach about the Church’s involvement in Missions?

    A Biblical Mandate

    “Mandate” is defined by the dictionary as a command or a commission. It implies that something is required.

    I believe the Bible teaches that the local church should be actively involved in missionary endeavors. There is, of course, the obvious statement of Jesus Himself which we refer to as the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Some may argue that this was intended only for the original disciples. Yet many statements in the New Testament Letters clearly define the importance of a gospel witness by all believers.

    II Corinthians 5:20 – “Now then we(all inclusive) are ambassadors for Christ.”

    II Timothy 1:8 – “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord… but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel.”

    Jude 3, 22-23 – “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith… and of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.”

    There is also much evidence in the Acts and the Epistles that the distribution of the Gospel is a corporate responsibility as well as an individual one. Consider the following.

    1. It was a local church at Antioch that sent out Paul and Barnabas as the first missionaries (Acts 13:1-3).
    2. It was to the local church at Antioch that those missionaries returned and reported (Acts 14:27).
    3. It was the local churches that sustained the financial support of the missionary efforts of Paul (Philippians 4:15-16).
    4. It was because of their support of missions that God promised to meet all the needs of the church at Philippi (Philippians 4:17-19).
    5. It was from the local churches that Paul solicited prayer support for his missionary efforts (Colossians 4:3-4, Ephesians 6:19-20, II Thessalonians 3:1).

    The most striking of these statements is from Philippians 4:17-19. In that context, Paul praised the Philippians for faithfully sending money to him to provide for his personal needs while he carried out his missionary work. Under Divine inspiration, he associates God’s promise of provision for the Philippian Church with their commitment to contribute financially to the spread of the Gospel. As David testified that he never saw the righteous forsaken, I believe God will not forsake the church that will set Missions, local and abroad, as one of its most important priorities.

    The most ignored of these statements is the one concerning the sending of missionaries. The Church has failed for too long to understand some of its most important responsibilities. Did you ever wonder where preachers and missionaries come from? For too many local churches, they come from some place else. A local church to be successful must be able to identify specific individuals who have gone out from that congregation and are presently active in full time ministry.

    Conclusion

    Many churches seem to be struggling these days merely to survive. We are stretching all our energies to pay our bills and to keep our families intact. Perhaps if we changed our emphasis we would find our attempts at self preservation less desperate. Our internal efforts should have external goals. Our buildings should be tools for discipleship and ministry preparation. Our budgets should reflect an evangelistic priority. We should be a people with a mission — selflessly.