You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Church’ category.
QUACKING away…
Posted on August 16, 2012 by M’Kayla
The following story came in as a comment a short while ago. I loved this little story so much I wanted to give it a special place here. Enjoy!
Quacking away…
This is off topic just a bit, and I know M’Kayla has answered it before on this sight. For those who want to label us as judgmental, it is something to consider. For those who post on this sight, I hope it makes you smile.
We have a small flock of ducks on our property. Last winter, a weasel dug into the duck pen and killed all but two of our ducks. Ducks are very gentle and have no real defense other than flight. They are a lot like sheep that way. My ducks couldn’t get away. They were trapped in that pen. All of our drakes (males) were killed. Those drakes got in the way to protect the ducks and were the first to be killed. Had they not done this, we would probably have lost all of the birds.
Anyway, this female was gravely injured. We brought her into the house and cared for her for a few weeks; and, to our amazement, she rallied. Though she limped around the yard for months, she has now fully healed. She has become our warning signal in the yard. If anything is wrong, she starts just a quacking away. She is always on the watch. If another duck wanders off, you’ll find her in the yard just quacking and quacking. She is awesome!
I think that’s what a lot of the posters on this blog are like. We were trapped in a “pen” of false teaching. When the weasel got in, we couldn’t simply fly away. So we were gravely injured. We know the pain of it, and we hope and pray to help others avoid it. Praise God, that He got us all through it!
So now we quack away. It is a warning. I, for one, plan to keep quacking and quacking…not like those in the “Toronto barnyard”, but like one equipped with the Word of God…rebuking, correcting, encouraging. To those who find it offensive, I pray for you and accept that criticism like “water off a duck’s back.” I believe that’s what “turning the other cheek” is all about. Thank you, M’Kayla, for a platform to “quack”.
Answering the Gay Christian Position
Article ID: DG238
By: Joe Dallas
This article first appeared in the Effective Evangelism column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 23, number 1 (2000). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Twenty-two years ago I craved justification for my homosexuality. I had decided I was gay, and I felt utterly incapable of changing my sexual desires. Instead of conforming my actions to biblical standards, I chose to adjust biblical standards to accommodate my actions. My subsequent six-year involvement as a staff member of the pro-homosexual Metropolitan Community Church became the fruit of that compromise and remains a source of deep regret to this day.
During my tenure as a self-professed “gay Christian,” I was often confronted by believers who argued the standard passages on homosexuality. Like anyone steeped in propaganda, however, I knew which Scripture passages would be thrown at me (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; all of which clearly condemn homosexuality) and could recite the pro-gay interpretation of each, leaving my Christian opponent and me at a stalemate.1 The problem, of course, was that we were debating my revised view of the Bible without addressing the state of heart and mind that had led me to that revision in the first place.
Clearly there’s a place for arguing doctrine. When biblical integrity is discarded (as it surely is when pro-gay theology is adopted), then a stand for truth is mandated. Crucial to that stand, however — and often missing in our discussions with those in the pro-homosexual religious movement — is a willingness to include, then go beyond, a point/counterpoint approach to the biblical references to homosexuality. “Going beyond,” in this case, means asking questions of a broader, more penetrating nature.
When our friends who call themselves gay Christians insist that God approves of their orientation and behavior, we do well to challenge the interpretation of Scripture they claim supports their position. When that debate concludes, however, they will often fall back on two general arguments by which they accept, and even celebrate, their homosexuality. The first is based on the seeming immutability of their sexual orientation; the second is their sense of God’s presence in their lives while they are openly and actively homosexual. Two questions come to mind as we consider these arguments.
Is there a divine intent for sexual expression, and, if there is, how do we determine what it is? When Troy Perry, homosexual activist and founder of the Metropolitan Community Church, writes about his sexual awakenings, he describes an encounter he had with another man. Although married (his wife, in fact, was in the adjoining room during Perry’s tryst), he explains his rationale for committing homosexual adultery: “Eventually, I came to realize that what we were doing seemed right for me” (emphasis added).2 While admitting it did not constitute love, he nonetheless refers to the episode as “a marvelous education.”3 Consistent with this subjective approach to ethics, Perry’s first sermon to his newly formed church was titled, “Be True to You.”4
Should the authenticity of our sexual desires be the criteria by which we judge their rightness? If so, one wonders whether pedophilia, incest, or sadomasochism might not also be legitimized so long as they “seem right” to an individual.
The pro-gay apologist might indignantly argue that same-sex contact between consenting adults is a far cry from the horror of pedophilia or incest; yet that response evades the broader issue: Are we to conform our sexuality to a revealed intent or to our own deeply ingrained preferences? If we claim to be Bible-believing Christians (which most in the gay religious movement identify themselves as), yet draw our moral conclusions not from Scripture but from our own passions, then a glaring contradiction exists and cries out for correction.
“But,” the gay apologist counters, “how could God condemn something I’ve tried so hard to overcome and even asked Him to remove?” Mel White, gay author and former ghostwriter to a stellar list of Christian leaders, argues this point in his autobiography Stranger at the Gate (Simon and Schuster). Movingly, he recounts years of prayer, psychotherapy, and shock treatment geared toward obliterating his homosexual desires. When all efforts to remove the temptation toward sex with other men failed, he determined by concession that, since his prayers to be relieved of homosexual feelings went unanswered, those feelings were therefore God ordained.
His testimony echoes that of hundreds of religious homosexuals who assume that unwanted temptations that are not completely removed through prayer must therefore be feelings that cannot be removed at all; subsequently, what cannot be removed at all must be, by its very immutability, legitimate. (E.g., “I prayed for God to remove my temptations, but some of them remained. Therefore, God must expect me to yield to them.”)
In contrast, Francis Schaeffer provides a better approach to the frustration of deeply ingrained temptations: “So I must ask, very gently: How much thought does (our identification with Christ) provoke? Is it not true that our prayers for ourselves are almost entirely aimed at getting rid of the negative at any cost rather than praying that the negatives be faced in the proper attitude?”5
Regarding sexual temptation, Schaeffer is more specific: “Here in the midst of life there is to be a strong choice, by the grace of God. It is not a matter of waiting until we no longer have strong sexual desires, but rather — we are to understand what Jesus means when He talks about denying ourselves that which is not rightfully ours.”6
Placing the concept of being true to myself above self-denial, I (and I fear many like me in the gay church) decided homosexuality was natural because it came naturally to me. Having predetermined the rightness of it, I read that determination into the Bible rather than submitting that determination to the Bible’s authority.
That is the crux of the problem. If there is a divine intent for our sexuality — and, indeed, there is — then we do well to face what it is, not what we wish it to be. To do less is to set ourselves up for a lethal combination of heresy and tragedy.
Does God’s presence in our lives indicate His approval of our lifestyle? “I feel God’s presence in my life,” you’re likely to hear from someone aligned with the gay religious movement. “And at my church, people are born again, and God’s Spirit is manifest. How could that be if He disapproves of homosexuality?”
I can testify firsthand to the power of this line of reasoning. If, upon my first visit to a pro-gay congregation, I had encountered a Roman orgy in progress, it would have been easy to dismiss the very notion of “gay Christianity.” At the Metropolitan Community Church, however, I witnessed traditional hymns, sermons that were theologically conservative, and even an occasional altar call. Isn’t this evidence, I thought, that God sanctions homosexuality?
A cursory look at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church refutes this erroneous thinking. The Corinthians were carnal and full of divisions (1 Cor. 3:3-4), an incestuous relationship existed openly among them (1 Cor. 5:1-5), and drunkenness occurred during their communion celebrations (1 Cor. 11:21); yet God was present in their lives. At the very least, as born-again believers, they had the Spirit of God within them, however grieved the Holy Spirit may have been with their behavior.
Could God’s presence be construed to indicate His approval of their behavior? Hardly. Likewise, though our friends in pro-gay churches claim ongoing fellowship with Christ, their foundation is experiential, in contrast to the surer foundation Christ commended when warning against claiming a knowledge of Him apart from obedience to Him (Matt. 7:24-27).
All of this makes our encounters with those claiming to be gay and Christian reminiscent of an encounter between Jesus and a rich young ruler (Mark 10:17–23). Christ loved the young man and was acutely aware of the spiritual hunger posed in his question, “Good Master, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” Like our friends or loved ones in pro-gay churches, this young ruler obeyed many of the commandments, but something in his life — his riches, which he deemed invaluable — was holding him back. When Jesus put His finger on this one area, the ruler walked away, unwilling to relinquish and obey.
There, Mark’s account of the conversation ends; but who knows? Someday, perhaps years later, this same man may have reexamined the contrast between earthly and eternal wealth. Maybe Christ’s way of speaking truth — gently but firmly — never left his memory. Perhaps — just perhaps — he finally yielded what seemed so important, only to find a hundredfold more when his life was conformed to Christ’s word, then transformed by it.
I know it’s possible. The sound Bible teaching I received as a young Christian haunted me, pursuing me even in the midst of indescribable rebellion. It would not be ignored; truth finally conquered convenience when I realized I’d been kidding myself into believing what I wanted to believe, rather than what I truly believed.
As we address the issue of obedience and truth with our friends caught in the deception of pro-gay theology (and other self-serving theologies), we prayerfully hope they, too, may find the truer blessing of a yielded life.
NOTES
1. For a fuller treatment of the pro-gay interpretation of Scripture, see Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996).
2. Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 38.
5. Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1971), 26-27.
6. Ibid., 27.
Fleshly or Spiritual Leader—Which are You?
By caryschmidt | May 24, 2012
Recently I was having a conversation with a wonderful servant of God who has worked for several “high-profile” Christian leaders in the past two decades. This is a person for whom I have the utmost respect—an individual with a very gracious spirit, incredible gift mix, and true servant’s heart. And this is a person who has expended sacrificial service to the Lord with great poise and faithfulness. Yet, in our conversation, I was sad to discover the mistreatment and disrespect that this person had endured from a well-known evangelical leader. The conversation was brief, appropriate, and rather vague, but enough for me to see that this person had lost a lot of respect for someone once held in high esteem.
Flesh is powerful. Flesh is demanding. Flesh in leadership is ugly—really ugly. Flesh in leadership finds it easy to ride roughshod over people. Flesh enjoys “ripping face.” Flesh reasons that someone “deserves it.” Flesh enjoys dominance. Flesh finds fulfillment in being insulting—especially in a group. Flesh feels justified in giving a piece of its mind, putting someone in their place, and reminding everyone who’s really in charge. Flesh often reminds itself how stupid everybody else really is. Flesh loves to assert and reassert itself. Sometimes it masquerades as well-meaning. Sometimes it rationalizes the “ends justifies the means”—after all, the ministry outcome is for the Lord. But for those on the other end of the “flesh trip”—it always hurts.
Finish HERE
Deliverance from Extreme Pentecostalism – A Personal Testimony of Bethel’s Influence
Following is a personal testimony of an individual who, under the influence of Bethel Church in Redding, CA pastored by Bill Johnson, fell into error and later was freed. The original article in four parts can be found at inerrantword.]
A Dangerous Journey – My Wife’s Deliverance from Extreme Pentecostalism (Part 1)
****
At the beginning of 2010 I decided I wanted to get involved in a more passionate “Christianity”. I have always thought of myself as a worshipper & I craved being around others who lived & breathed worshipping the Lord.
Our church had been *pushing* & wanting revival to break out. So naturally I went home one day and decided to research about what “revival” actually was and how we could get it! Through my discoveries I found out about The Welsh Revival, Charles Finney and others.
I wanted *revival* to break out in our church. The more I read about the “amazing” things that happened in Wales, the more I wanted that to happen to us.
A member of our church had been involved in the Brownsville Revival. She told me many stories about the revival that happened there & the anointing that she received from there. Whenever she went up for prayer her body would shake & eventually she would, fall to the floor.
I was curious and started looking into the information surrounding the Brownsville revival. Like the Toronto blessing, the Brownsville revival had similar manifestations of the holy spirit, and following that was the Lakeland revival.
At that time I was initially very cautious. It didn’t seem to line up with the God of the Bible I knew and I couldn’t find anything in the scriptures to back up what was happening in these places. BUT I so desperately wanted to feel God and being among passionate Christians, I thought that this was where those sorts of people were. Some of the manifestations, including the prophetic seemed exciting and it drew me in.
Despite my initial caution & a nagging feeling of unease, I started listening to the answers that these extreme prophetic people would give to the sceptics.
Here are some of the things they said/say:
Continue HERE
Heaven
The Most Important Thing
By Pastor Anton Bosch
Most people, whether Christians or not, have some ideas about a future life that could be called heaven. Many of those ideas are misguided or plain wrong and, sadly, even reasonably well taught Christians may have wrong ideas of what heaven is all about.
In a recent Time magazine article, the author said that many Christians are beginning to understand that heaven really is about making this earth a better place. I think he is right – that is what many people believe. But they are wrong. We cannot make this earth into heaven. Unfortunately, that is the agenda of much of the church today. They believe that the purpose of the church is to create heaven on earth and they work very hard to change the various structures of this world.
This world is simply too corrupt, sinful and contaminated to ever become heaven. People who are trying to save the planet and change governments to create God’s Kingdom on this earth are wasting their time. Yes, one day Heaven will be back on this earth, but in order for that to happen, God will completely destroy the present heavens (sky) and earth (Revelation 21:1, 2Peter 3:10-13). In fact, the process by which He will do that can be described as “uncreating” – He will reverse the whole process of creation and the present creation will cease to exist. He will then create a “New heavens and a new earth” and then the New Jerusalem will descend out of heaven and be located back on the New Earth (Revelation 21:3, 10).
So what will heaven be like? Modern Gospel songs do not sing about heaven because their writers are looking for heaven in this creation. But if I have to believe the old Gospel songs, then heaven will be about streets of gold, a mansion over the hilltop, crowns and an eternity of comfort. That is actually how most Christians see heaven and of course those ideas are actually based on the Scriptures.
But there is one problem. All these ideas about heaven miss the most important part of heaven – The Lord Jesus Christ!
We have missed the point regarding the purpose of the church. We believe church is about worship, preaching, fellowship, evangelization, meetings and so on. Most churches have forgotten that all those things we do every week is secondary and that it should really all be about Jesus Christ. Paul put it this way: “And He is the head of the body, the church… that in all things He may have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18). Thus church has become a whole bunch of activities and Jesus finds Himself outside His own church (Revelation 3:20).
In the same way we have created a Heaven in which Jesus is simply a curiosity. Just like when you go to Paris, you have to see the Eiffel Tower and when we go to heaven, we will get to see Jesus. But we are really more interested in the big mansion and wonder if we will have air conditioning, a big screen TV in the living room and a barbeque in the back yard. We wonder if our crown will be bigger than our neighbor’s and if my mansion will be the grandest on the block.
Because of our materialistic worldview we have turned heaven into a place of things, houses and streets. Because of our sinful pride we have re-created heaven into a place where I will be the big deal, with the big crown and mansion and where I will eventually be vindicated.
Heaven is not about you or me, or even about Paul or Peter – it is about Jesus. He is the center, the focus and the purpose. We will spend eternity simply being in His presence and worshipping and serving Him. And here’s the problem. For the majority of Christians that is not very exciting. If God told us that heaven would be a squatter camp but Jesus would be there, would you still want to go? If Jesus is what your life is about you would agree with the hymn writer:
Oh, hallelujah, yes, ’tis Heav’n,
’Tis Heav’n to know my sins forgiv’n;
On land or sea, what matters where?—
Where Jesus is, ’tis Heaven there.
The same Christians who say they long for heaven complain when the service goes five minutes too long or the pews are too hard. Friend, if you find an extra five minutes in the Lord’s presence a challenge or if you cannot sit through a one hour service without checking your cell phone, I have news for you. Heaven will be a long hell for you!
Do you find that shocking? Well, it is supposed to be because it’s the truth. If you cannot wait to get out of the prayer meeting, or don’t even bother to go to the prayer meeting, or wonder why the hymn could not have a few less verses, I seriously doubt that you will enjoy heaven. If you find reading the Bible or attending the Bible study boring, you will be very uncomfortable in heaven.
If Jesus is not the real center of your life – I mean that everything you do and think, revolves around Him, then heaven really has nothing to offer you. Heaven is not about streets, mansions and crowns. It is about simply being in the presence of Jesus for ever and ever. If you find that idea scary, I am concerned that you will be disappointed with heaven. Actually, you won’t even see heaven because heaven is only for those who love Him with all their hearts and whose lives revolve totally around Him.
Be honest now: Are you looking forward to heaven because you are tired of this life or because of the secondary attractions of heaven, or is it simply that you want more of Him? If your answer is anything except you want to see Him face to face and be in his presence forever, then you need to check your birth certificate.
If, on the other hand, you enjoy this life so much that you hope Jesus will not come too soon, you also have a serious problem. You are probably not fit for heaven either.
Paul said: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain… having a desire to depart and be with Christ… is far better.” (Philippians 1:21, 23). His highest goal was simply to “be with Christ.” That is heaven!
Source of Article HERE
Exposing Error: Is It Worthwhile?
By Dr. Harry Ironside
Objection is often raised even by some sound in the faith-regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the brethren who assume this attitude forget that a large part of the New Testament, both of the teaching of our blessed Lord Himself and the writings of the apostles, is made up of this very character of ministry-namely, showing the Satanic origin and, therefore, the unsettling results of the propagation of erroneous systems which Peter, in his second epistle, so definitely refers to as “damnable heresies.”
Our Lord prophesied, “Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Within our own day, how many false prophets have risen; and oh, how many are the deceived! Paul predicted, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch.” My own observation is that these “grievous wolves,” alone and in packs, are not sparing even the most favoured flocks. Undershepherds in these “perilous times” will do well to note the apostle’s warning: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” It is as important in these days as in Paul’s-in fact, it is increasingly important-to expose the many types of false teaching that, on every hand, abound more and more.
We are called upon to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” while we hold the truth in love. The faith means the whole body of revealed truth, and to contend for all of God’s truth necessitates some negative teaching. The choice is not left with us. Jude said he preferred a different, a pleasanter theme-“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordainedto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 3, 4). Paul likewise admonishes us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).
This does not imply harsh treatment of those entrapped by error-quite the opposite. If it be objected that exposure to error necessitates unkind reflection upon others who do not see as we do, our answer is: it has always been the duty of every loyal servant of Christ to warn against any teaching that would make Him less precious or cast reflection upon His finished redemptive work and the all-sufficiency of His present service as our great High Priest and Advocate.
Every system of teaching can be judged by what it sets forth as to these fundamental truths of the faith. “What think ye of Christ?” is still the true test of every creed. The Christ of the Bible is certainly not the Christ of any false “-ism.” Each of the cults has its hideous caricature of our lovely Lord.
Let us who have been redeemed at the cost of His precious blood be “good soldiers of Jesus Christ.” As the battle against the forces of evil waxes ever more hot, we have need for God-given valour.
There is constant temptation to compromise. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” It is always right to stand firmly for what God has revealed concerning His blessed Son’s person and work. The “father of lies” deals in half-truths and specializes in most subtle fallacies concerning the Lord Jesus, our sole and sufficient Savior.
Error is like leaven of which we read, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and, therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.
Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls “caught in the snare of the fowler”-how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.
[Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951), a godly Fundamentalist author and teacher for many years, served as pastor of Chicago’s Moody Memorial Church from 1930-1948]
BLIND FOLLOWERS OF MEN
MARCH 20,2012
(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)
One of the great errors that has permeated the independent fundamental Baptist movement (IFB) is the blind loyalty given to some men.
This is one of the reasons why I predict that most IFB churches will be well down the emerging path within a generation. (See Why Most Independent Baptist Churches Will Be Emerging, which is available as a free eBook from Way of Life — http://www.wayoflife.org).
The correction that is needed will not be received because reproof is not allowed in the context of these exalted men.
The Grand Poobah of poobahs among IFBaptists was the late Jack Hyles.
In the early 1990s, when a pile of evidence was published, including multiple eyewitness testimonies, exposing Hyles’ improper relationship with his secretary and the rampant immorality in the church that had been covered up and not disciplined (including the adulteries of Hyles’ son Dave when he was on staff), instead of a loud chorus of voices reproving the man, the largest chorus supported him unquestioningly and blacklisted the “critics.”
In fact, from coast to coast his fans donned buttons that announced “100% Hyles.” The very fact that he didn’t condemn that idolatrous practice in no uncertain terms, and allowed the buttons to be distributed at Hyles-Anderson College, proved that he was more akin to a cult leader than a biblical pastor.
I have felt the lash from Hyles’ fans ever since 1998, when I published an article entitled “Pentecost vs. Hylescost.” This report analyzed the man’s braggadocios claim that more people were saved at his church (First Baptist Church, Hammond, Indiana) on May 3, 1998, than were saved on the Day of Pentecost or on any other day in church history. (That article can be found under the Evangelism section of the Article Database at the Way of Life web site.)
The following e-mail was is of many that I have received through the years from Hyles’ fans:
“Mr. Cloud, I don’t know if you will personally read this e-mail, but I read your article on Pentecost vs. Hylescost. What kind of ‘Christian’ is a man that would critique a man of God? How could you possibly say such horrible things about a man of God that is serving the Lord and doing exactly what God put him on this earth to do? Until you pastor the Worlds Largest Sunday School, and see over 5,000 people saved in a day, you have no right to speak as you did about Dr. Jack Hyles. No decent Baptist would say negative things about another Baptist preacher. Therefore I don’t believe that you are a Baptist. I can’t believe that I even allowed myself to even read such a disgusting article. I attend Hyles-Anderson College, and First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. I WILL STAND FOR JACK HYLES, AND EVERYTHING HE PREACHES, I will not let anybody put him down. If you say that you are who you really are, you would too. If I let people know about this article, you will have thousands of people against you. Jack Hyles is doing far above more for the cause of Christ than you can ever do.”
This concept of not allowing “criticism” of influential men and organizations within the IFB movement has spread widely, and I am reminded of this fact every time I dare to mention anything negative about them.
I could print similar letters and e-mails that I have received in blind support of Clarence Sexton, Bob Jones University, Jack Schaap, Peter Ruckman, and many others.
Consider the following e-mail (January 2012) that is typical of dozens I have received last year in defense of Pastor Paul Chappell of Lancaster Baptist Church, Lancaster, California, after I warned about his extensive use of Contemporary Christian Music:
“Please stop judging and criticizing our Brother in Christ Paul Chappell. You cannot judge the brothers and sisters in Christ. If you see something wrong, then just pray to God that He will take care of it. YOU BETTER KEEP YOUR BUSINESS OUT OF THEIR LIVES. … You need to repent of what you have done to Paul Chappell and to others. I feel that you bring shame to the gospel and the principles of God. Repent and ask for their forgiveness for hurting or criticizing them for no reason. … God is the JUDGE. Remember that. You are not a JUDGE to Christian friends. … Repent yourself and send letters to say that you are sorry and it will not happen again. I WILL KEEP AN EYE ON YOU IN EVERY MOVE.”
This is nearly a mirror image of the 1998 e-mail defending Hyles.
REPLY FROM BROTHER CLOUD
The following reply that I sent to the Hyles’ fan in 1998 is as applicable and needed today as it was then. In spite of the dreadful downfall of so many of the overly-exalted IFB heros over the past 20 years, it seems like we haven’t learned anything.
__________________
Hello. I am sorry that you feel that way, but I have the responsibility before God to judge preachers and their message by the Word of God, and I intend to continue to do that in spite of the opposition by those who blindly follow men (which is idolatry).
I realize that I am nothing and I am nobody. I am simply a man that the Lord saved by His grace and called to preach. I am not worthy of the calling, but God doesn’t call worthy people; He calls whomsoever He pleases to call, typically the weak as opposed to the strong, the nobody as opposed to the noble.
No one likes to be criticized and no one likes to hear his pastor or some spiritual hero criticized, but there is no reason to get angry and to lash out at those who are issuing the criticism. There is no reason to go on the attack against the messenger and blacklist him. We do well, rather, to weigh the criticism by God’s Word rather than respond to it in a carnal way like a junkyard bulldog.
We see from the following Scriptures that the believer has the responsibility to test everything by God’s Word:
“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalms 119:128).
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Corinthians 14:29).
“Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21).
The following Scriptures authorize the preacher to proclaim God’s Word with reproof and rebuke and exhortation.
“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Romans 15:14).
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16).
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2).
“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15).
“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…” (1 Peter 4:11).
“But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Hebrews 3:13).
I have never seen anything in the Bible that would limit a ministry of testing and reproof so that certain influential pastors are not subject to it. And I have never seen anything in the Bible that requires that a preacher can give reproof only in a private context.
The prophets of old reproved even godly kings for their spiritual compromise.
“Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish” (2 Chronicles 20:37).
Paul publicly reproved Peter for his hypocrisy.
“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Galatians 2:14).
If Peter’s friends had been like a lot of independent Baptists I know, they would have lashed out at Paul for his audacity at reproving “the man of God,” and especially for reproving him before others. Why didn’t Paul talk with Peter privately instead of making a public issue of it, they would ask? Was he jealous of Peter? Yea, that must be it. Who was Paul compared to Peter? When Paul won 3,000 to the Lord through one sermon and pastored a church of tens of thousands, then he might be qualified to reprove the great man, but not before. Why, when Paul preached on Mars Hill only a handful of people responded, probably because he made too much of an issue of repentance! Who does Paul think he is to reprove Peter for hypocrisy? Does he think he is the epitome of Christian perfection? Yea, he is probably puffed up with pride and besotted with jealously. Further, Paul is nit-picking. Peter’s little “hypocrisy,” if you want to call it that, is no big deal. Why doesn’t Paul aim his guns at real errors instead of shooting the wounded? Doesn’t Paul realize that it is wrong to be divisive? Further, Paul wasn’t even a member of the Jerusalem church, so he needs to mind his own business. If he wants to reprove someone, let him reprove the Judaizers and the Gnostics and leave the man of God alone.
This is the thinking of large numbers of IFBaptists, but the attitude of unquestioning loyalty to any man is not scriptural but rather is cultic. No preacher is above being tested by the Word of God. Any preacher is liable to compromise and error. And if his compromise and error is public and has a public influence, the reproof should be public.
A godly preacher does not desire “unquestioning loyalty.” While no man enjoys reproof, a godly man knows that reproof is necessary.
“Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish” (Proverbs 12:1).
Like Paul, any godly preacher is pleased when the people judge him and his message and his ministry properly and graciously by God’s Word (Acts 17:11).
I’m not talking about a critical, nit-picking spirit. I’m not talking about carnal gossip. I’m not talking about criticism based on personal opinion or ignorance.
I’m talking about a godly critique issued with wisdom in a compassionate attitude and based solidly upon the Scripture rightly divided by people who love Christ and have His glory in view.
The Bereans are not called “noble” in Scripture because they gave blind loyalty to Paul; they are called “noble” because they tested Paul’s preaching by God’s Word. Not only were they right in doing so; they were exercising an essential and fundamental spiritual ministry.
A preacher’s only authority is the Bible, and when he strays from that he has no authority whatsoever. Consider the following exhortation:
“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation” (Hebrews 13:7).
Here we see that qualified spiritual rulers are those who speak the Word of God. That is their authority, and that is their sole authority, and they are to be tested by that same Word. Their conversation or manner of life is also to be tested as to whether it conforms to God’s Word and as to whether they are qualified to hold the office of pastor as given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
The Bible describes a man like Jack Hyles in the first churches. His name was Diotrephes, and the apostle John warned about him in no uncertain terms.
“I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who LOVETH TO HAVE THE PREEMINENCE among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, PRATING AGAINST US WITH MALICIOUS WORDS: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (3 John 9-11).
Diotrephes had a HEART problem. He was a proud man. He was puffed up in his own estimation, loving to have the preeminence.
Diotrephes had a WILL problem. He ruled the church by his own will, but the pastor’s job is to rule by God’s will. The qualified pastor is not “selfwilled” (Titus 1:7). The church is God’s flock, God’s building, God’s husbandry. The pastor is not to be lord over God’s heritage (1 Pet. 5:3).
Diotrephes also had an AUTHORITY problem. He obviously felt that he was an authority unto himself; whereas the pastor’s sole authority is the Bible. The Christian leader who attempts to lead the church by human thinking and man-made tradition and philosophy is to be rejected.
No independent Baptist preacher that I know of prats directly against the apostles, but some of them prat against those who try to test them by the apostles’ doctrine and practice. And they “forbid” their “critics” just like Diotrephes did, sometimes even casting them out of the church.
THERE ARE MANY DIOTREPHES IN THE INDEPENDENT BAPTIST MOVEMENT WHO HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY JACK HYLES.
You can tell that a man is a Diotrephes when he forbids “criticism” and when he prats against his “critics” with malicious words and pretends that those who speak against him are actually speaking against God.
My friends, beware of the spirit of Diotrephes.
Preacher, don’t let that spirit light on you.
Brethren, don’t be caught up in the cultic clutches of such men. They will try to usurp the place of Jesus Christ in your life and will rob you of your God-given right of private interpretation and spiritual judgment.
At the same time, I would exhort God’s people to submit to godly authority. If you are not a pastor, you don’t have the authority of a pastor and your job is not to lead the church. When every church member thinks of himself as a shepherd of the church and considers himself or herself able to determine the direction of the church, there is confusion. Obedience to God-called pastors is a very important spiritual discipline and is necessary for peace in the church and for blessing and progress in God’s work in this needy world. We must learn that We will never agree with any pastor in all matters. The final decisions are his to be made before God, as he is the one who will give account.
“And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
God-called, qualified pastors have real spiritual authority that God has given them and they are to be obeyed as they obey God’s Word (Heb. 13:17), but a Diotrephes exceeds this authority and lords it over God’s people in a carnal, self-willed manner.
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen” (1 John 5:21).
What Calvinism And Arminianism Have In Common
by Edward Fudge
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
What does it mean that Jesus died for all? The question is beguilingly simple. You would not know from the face of it that the question has been at the center of a heated and sometimes vociferous debate. For almost two thousand years, Christians have struggled to understand the effect of Jesus’ death and the scope of its saving power. With the publication in recent months of a number of books by evangelicals on the fate of the unevangelized, larger questions about the scope of the Atonement are gaining renewed currency. Does “all” refer to individual human beings, or nationalities and peoples, or just the elect?
Within the Reformation mainstream, two contending viewpoints have emerged, which observers often label Calvinist (after John Calvin), on the one hand, and Arminian (after Jacob Arminius, an early Dutch opponent of Calvin) or Wesleyan (after John Wesley), on the other. On the Calvinist side of the debate, you have Augustine, Calvin, and their followers. They argue (with varying degrees of explicitness and forcefulness) that the “all” refers to the elect: Christ died to save only those whom the Father had predestined to eternal life.
On the Arminian side, represented also by Wesley, believers argue that Christ in his atonement intended to make salvation available to everyone. It is faith (or, in some versions, obedience) that makes the saving work complete. The debate includes a host of related questions. What are we to make of this preposition “for”? If Jesus died “for” every human ever born, can anyone finally be lost? Does a yes to that question mean Christ’s death was somehow ineffective? And just who are these “elect”? Does this scriptural term refer to an indeterminate and nameless mass of people (as Arminians would tend to argue), or does it describe specific individuals with faces (as Calvinists would suggest)? Do we speak of Jesus’ death making salvation possible for all people, or, as the traditional query phrases it, does a “particular” atonement necessarily exclude those who are not saved?
The question is also sometimes phrased in terms of those who have never heard of Jesus. Will they all be lost? If so, why? Because they never heard — or for some other reason? Does Scripture allow (or even encourage) one to conclude that, based on Jesus’ atonement, God might finally save still others who in life never knew what Jesus had done on their behalf?
For those who take Scripture seriously, these distinctions represent more than abstract theories. These “theories” express convictions. And they may collide with the convictions of other Christians — people as sincere and informed and committed as we are. When concern for people and for theological integrity seem to clash, the anguish only increases. Sometimes people from the different camps lose sight of their brothers or sisters in the doctrinal thicket.
I was trained through graduate school in the Arminian viewpoint as expressed by the Churches of Christ. Later, I studied under Calvinists at Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri. These queries thus reflect the honest uncertainties of one who has been the lone Arminian in a classroom of Calvinists and a suspected Calvinist in a fellowship where that term is no compliment. Today, some 20 years downstream, I am certain that neither “side” has the whole truth in its pocket and that no human analysis can fully contain or explain what God accomplished for sinners in Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet we can speak truthfully even when not exhaustively. Convinced that evangelicals of all stripes share more than they generally realize, I propose the following seven couplets as a modest attempt at bridge building. Of course, this is only a step. But perhaps we can at least survey the terrain, establish some boundaries, and drive a few stakes. Doing so is surely better than defending our doctrinal turf while firing volleys of proof texts at each other.
Couplet 1:
Every accountable person deserves to be lost.
No accountable person deserves to be saved.
On this point Scripture is transparently clear: “All …are under the power of sin…that…the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:9, 19). “[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
God requires absolute obedience, and not one of us has presented it. The mystery is not that some are finally lost but that any are finally saved. Every person finally lost will receive justice, whereas every person finally saved will receive mercy grounded only in its giver (Rom 1:18-20, 32; 2:5; 3:4-8).
There are important differences between Augustine and Pelagius, between Calvin and Arminius, between Whitefield and Wesley. But this is not one of them. Every careful Calvinist insists that God deserves no blame for the fate of the lost. Every careful Arminian affirms that God deserves all glory for the salvation of the redeemed. Stressing each of the two points in the couplet can help us minimize needless misunderstanding, define genuine differences with sharper clarity, and cultivate a fraternal climate in which to study jointly the Word of God.
Couplet 2:
God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any.
God finds pleasure in the salvation of every person who is saved.
God finds no joy in the death of any sinner. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” he asks rhetorically in Ezekiel 18:23 (see also Eze. 18:32; 33:11). He is not vengeful or vindictive. The Creator dues not delight in the destruction of any person he has made, not even his enemies. He desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Whoever is finally lost will not see God smiling as a result. Indeed, the Son of God says, there is celebration in heaven over every sinner who repents (Luke 15:7,10).
Couplet 3:
No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.
Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.
These statements did not originate with Calvin, Augustine, or even the apostle Paul, but with Jesus himself (John 6:37, 44). The assurance that God is in control should stimulate courage rather than contention; it should inspire hope and not harangues. To know that God has a plan and a people emboldens us to proclaim the gospel to every person we meet (Acts 18 : 9-10) . What God initiated in eternity he will consummate in his own good time (Eph. 1:1-14; Rom. 8:28-31).
If we recoil at the prospect of divine sovereignty, as though God’s gracious choice of some requires his unilateral rejection of others (a notion sometimes described as “double predestination”), we may rejoice that Scripture here is “splendidly illogical,” to borrow a phrase from biblical commentator A. M. Hunter. For, as Hunter notes, “the opposite of election is not predestination to destruction; it is unbelief a self-incurred thing.” Many Calvinists urge the same point. Instead of charging them with “doublespeak,” Arminians should welcome the unexpected common ground and rejoice. Until one claims to know everything personally, there is room to tolerate paradox in others. The hallmark of a Christian is not logic, but love.
The proclamation of God-who-acts-to-save is as old as Exodus and as relevant as next Sunday’s sermon in our day of positive-attitude platitudes and self-help schemes. It ignites holy boldness even as it smites our pride. That God is sovereign means that none can come to Jesus — despite our clever phrases, latest methods, and polished salesmanship — unless the Father draws him or her. At the same time, it assures us that every person the Father has given to Jesus will come — without exception, and despite our own faulty choices and often bumbling work. If prophets are mute, donkeys can speak. If disciples remain silent, the stones can cry out. If the church should prove unfaithful or disobedient, God’s plan still will see its intended end.
Couplet 4:
The ultimate basis of condemnation is the lost person’s own works.
The ultimate basis of salvation is the work of Jesus.
Calvinists and Arminians already agree that every person finally saved will enjoy salvation only because of what God did in Jesus. “No one comes to the Father,” said Jesus, “but by me” (John 14:6). “There is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). All who “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” will do so “through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:17) . It is his “act of righteousness” alone that “leads to acquittal and life” (Rom 5: 18).
These truths apply equally to those who lived before Jesus and to those who lived after, to Jew as well as to Gentile, to those who hear the gospel and to those who do not. None will be saved except on the basis of the atonement Jesus has made. Salvation will be conclusively “to the praise of [God’s] glory (Eph 1:6, 12, 14). The mere presence of each redeemed human will attest throughout eternity to the “immeasurable riches of his grace” (Eph 2:7). On the other hand, all who ultimately perish in hell will do so despite the fact that Jesus died for sinners and despite the fact that he receives everyone who truly wishes to come.
Couplet 5:
Salvation occurred objectively two thousand years ago in Jesus’ work.
Salvation occurs subjectively as each person believes the gospel.
Jesus himself announced that he came “to save” the lost (Luke 19:10; John 12:47; 1 Tim 1:15). He accomplished his stated assignment and triumphantly proclaimed from the cross “It is finished” (John 19:30; Heb. 1:3). God scrutinized what Jesus had done and was satisfied (as foreshadowed in Isa. 53:11). Then, to confirm the mission accomplished, God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:25). After he had made purification for sins, Jesus took his place at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3; 10:11-14). If we preach that Jesus’ death was the payment for our sins, we may also proclaim that his resurrection was God’s paid-in-full receipt.
All this occurred in the historical experience of Jesus, our substitute and Savior. God reconciled the world to himself in Jesus’ fleshly body (Col 1:19-22; 2 Cor 5:18-19). Salvation is not a theoretical possibility but a fait accompli. It is “the good news of [our] salvation” (Eph 1:13). We may speak of this finished aspect of Christ’s work as “objective” salvation. It happened once for all, outside us but for us, in the personal life and death of Jesus of Nazareth almost two thousand years ago.
On the other hand, every person who enjoys salvation in this life does so by a response of faith to God’s gracious call. Whatever the case in the age to come, no one can enjoy salvation now apart from hearing and believing the gospel. We may speak of this present participation in Christ’s work as “subjective” salvation.
Just as President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and, by the stroke of his executive pen, freed every slave in the Confederate States effective January 1 , 1863, so Jesus, by his perfect act, effectively saved every human being who finally will enjoy eternal life. Yet just as no slave empirically enjoyed the benefits of Lincoln’s act until she or he heard and believed the good news of emancipation, so no redeemed sinner experientially enjoys Christ’s redemptive blessings now except through hearing and believing the gospel (1 Cor 1:18). Until women and men learn the good news of their salvation, they continue to live as if nothing has happened. They remain as they were — without hope, not knowing God, unaware of his forgiveness and favor. The gospel ministry is for the sake of such individuals, that they may obtain salvation in every sense, subjectively as well as objectively (2 Tim. 2: 10). Like Paul at Corinth, we need to declare the good news fearlessly and without ceasing, so long as God’s patience indicates that he still has others who do not know they have been reconciled in his Son (Acts 18:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; 2 Pet. 3:9).
Couplet 6:
Every person finally l0st will have knowingly rejected God’s goodness.
Every person finally saved will have accepted God’s goodness as it was known to him or her.
Scripture speaks of some who perish “for lack of knowledge” or “by believing a lie” (Hos 4:6; 2 Thess. 2:8-10) This “knowledge” is relational as well as cognitive; it is not only intellectual but also moral and spiritual. Whoever rejects this “knowledge” does so by conscious choice and inevitably courts condemnation (John 3:19). Yet, because God is so just, and because Jesus’ saving work is so extensive and so powerful, the apostle Paul confidently affirms that only those who consciously reject God’s light will finally be lost (Rom 5:13-14, 18-21).
Not all who are finally lost will have rejected the gospel, at least not in this life. But even those will have consciously rejected knowledge of God in some form, whether in nature (Acts 14:17; Rom 1:19-25), conscience (Rom 2:15-16), or divine revelation (John 5:45-47). God’s judgment of condemnation will be manifestly just in every case (Rom. 2:5-12).
On the other hand, Scripture indicates that all those finally saved will have welcomed in a spirit of faith the light of God they had. “God is one,” Paul writes, “and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised because of their faith” (Rom 3:30). Abraham is the prime example of one who was justified by faith though neither Christian nor Jew, and with limited gospel understanding as well (Rom 4:9-22). Jesus had in mind those who hear when he said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).
Couplet 7:
No person is better for not hearing the gospel.
No person is injured by hearing the gospel.
Sometimes people mistakenly assume, upon learning that Jesus’ work saved all who are finally saved whether they hear the gospel or not, that those who never hear are somehow better as a result. That inference is neither necessary nor proper.
The ultimate rejection of God is in the rejection of the light of the gospel. For that reason, whoever willfully rejects Jesus incurs the greatest guilt (Heb 10:26-31). It does not follow, however, that those who gladly receive God’s dimmer rays before they learn of Jesus will reject the brightest light when ut appears. Each heart remains the same regardless of the degree of light to which it is exposed (Luke 16:30-31; Rev 22:11). We may be sure that no person who rejects the gospel and is lost would have been saved if only that one had remained ignorant of Jesus. It is inconceivable that anyone who cries “yes” to God from the hopeless darkness will suddenly shout a defiant “no” when the bright light of the cross and the empty tomb burst finally into view.
Common Ground
These seven couplets come short, of course, of providing a third alternative to Arminianism and Calvinism, although with cultivation by brighter minds they might furnish seeds for a biblical “via media”. Even so, they can serve a useful purpose. For they stake off common ground — to the surprise, at times, of participants all around — marking a safe and neutral area large enough for both groups to stand while growing together in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. After 450 years of constant controversy, perhaps that is no small step.
——————————————————————————–
About this article
This article was written by Edward Fudge, a minister, elder, publisher, lecturer, and author. He also practices law in Houston, Texas. Visit his website, Edward Fudge Ministries
Chuck Baldwin’s Blatant Appeal to Violence
In his most recent column, Remembering the Alamo, Pastor Chuck Baldwin extols the gallantry of the Alamo defenders and implies that Christians may soon be required to to take up arms against tyranny here in America.
Beyond that, how much longer do we have before it will become necessary for freedom-loving States such as Texas (and maybe Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Vermont or South Carolina) to declare their independence one more time? An argument could be made that Washington, D.C., is considerably more brutish and tyrannical than old Santa Anna ever was. I’m not so sure that it isn’t already time to again hoist the “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, shout “Remember The Alamo,” and renew the faith and courage of William Travis and Patrick Henry.
This is not the first time Baldwin has suggested that violence may be called for in defense of freedom in this country but it is certainly his most blatant appeal to rebellion. It is a direct invitation to discard the teachings of Christ and give heed to our carnal instincts. Pastor Baldwin is not the only one traveling the road to rebellion. Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily recently penned a column (Is It Time For A Revolt) in which he suggests we withhold our tax dollars to protest the administrations Middle East policies. Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s but Farah says render unto Caesar only what you think Caesar rightfully deserves.
Let me begin by saying that I am a native Texan. I can trace my family roots back to the days of the Republic of Texas. I am directly related to one of the most famous figures in the history of Texas independence. I am also a student of history. I say this to let you know that I am not some Johnny-come-lately with a revisionist view of history. But neither am I swayed by the heroic and rather simplistic view of freedom loving Alamo defenders put forth by Mr. Baldwin.
The story of Texas independence is not as simple as is often portrayed by those on either side of the Rio Grande. After gaining independence from Spain, Mexico found that they had neither the resources nor the population to fully occupy and develop the territory of Texas. Many also felt they needed a buffer zone against westward US expansion. The solution was to allow people to come from the US and other nations to settle the land. In exchange for land rights, the settlers were required to swear allegiance to Mexico and become citizens. Becoming a citizen of Mexico at that time also required them to convert to Catholicism. This was all done under the Mexican Constitution of 1824.
When Antonio de Lopez de Santa Anna was elected President in 1833 he decided that Mexico was not ready for democracy. Nullifying the constitution, he named himself military dictator for life. As you can imagine this did not go over too well with a large percentage of the population and it was particularly distasteful to the men and women who had left the United States to become Mexican citizens in Texas. Eleven Mexican states went into open rebellion with several of them forming their own government. Texas was the only one to defeat Santa Anna and gain independence.
Many of those who fought for Texas independence felt they were fighting for a noble cause. They believed they were simply upholding the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of 1824. Like some in the US today they saw the document to which they had sworn allegiance usurped by a tyrannical ruler.
At the same time there were others who came to Texas with not so noble intentions. Many had come from the US with the express intention of taking Texas from Mexico and making it a separate nation or bringing it into the United States. Some of these men wanted to extend the reach of slavery in North American. Others simply wanted land and treasure for themselves. Some were criminals fleeing from their past evil deeds.
The struggle for Texas independence involved many complex motives and agendas. Some of these motives were noble by human standards and some were not but none of them had anything to do with advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Pastor Baldwin writes some moving words in his homage to the Alamo defenders. I must admit that something within me is stirred when I think of heroic men standing against hopeless odds in the face of certain death for the principles of liberty and justice. The question though is this; are these principles of human liberty and justice the ones for which we are called to stand and die as Christians or are we called to proclaim a higher standard of liberty.
Nowhere in scripture are we encouraged or instructed to take up arms for or against any of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said specifically that his kingdom was not of this world therefore his servants would not fight to prevent him from being persecuted and even crucified by a worldly kingdom.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.
Paul was a citizen of Rome.
Acts 22:25-28
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.” Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”
He was imprisoned by Roman authorities on false charges brought by his Jewish adversaries. His rights as a Roman citizen were violated. Yet in all this he never suggested that the answer was to fight in the flesh against the Roman government. Paul did not imply that perhaps it was time to revolt against the wicked leaders of that day. He did not suggest to his followers that they form a political action committee to protest his imprisonment. In all the persecution endured by the apostles and early church fathers we never see any hint of fighting against human governments and kingdoms.
Too many Christian leaders have falsely equated patriotism with godliness. Patriotism is not something unique to the United States. Patriotism is common to every nation and culture. It appeals to mans fleshly sense of pride and sectarianism. It causes us as Christians to feel no connection or responsibility to our Christian brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. Patriotism mixed with Christianity makes us think that just because someone is patriotic they are also Godly.
The founding fathers of this nation were great patriots but they were not all Godly men. Benjamin Franklin was an avowed atheist all his life. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense which was instrumental in stoking the embers of revolution in America. But Paine was a radical Deist who compiled his own list of bible inconsistencies along with his advocacy of Deism in a tract called The Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson believed in God but did not accept Jesus as Lord. He did not believe in the virgin birth and created his own version of the bible by editing out all references to miracles. John Adams was a Unitarian who, like Jefferson, denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and any other aspect of orthodox Christianity which could not be explained by human reason.
Today we see the same sort of carnal reasoning among many of our so called Christian leaders. Some, including Chuck Baldwin, have become quit adept at twisting Romans 13 into something other than what it says.
Romans 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
That seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it. All authority is ordained by God who is sovereign over the affairs of man. If you find yourself under the authority of a tyrannical government it is because God has ordained (or at least allowed) it. Even in these cases we are admonished not to resist the authority lest we bring judgment upon ourselves. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the actions of all the apostles in their dealings with human kingdoms. But Baldwin and others think they have found a loophole.
Rom 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Now we are told that our obedience to authority is applicable only as long as that authority is doing good. And who decides when a government is doing good or doing evil? Why we do of course! With this simple stroke of human reasoning, we rather than God become sovereign over our affairs. By mixing our reasoning with the Word of God we make the Word of none effect.
This was the same mistake our founders made. They decided that taxes were too high and they weren’t being properly represented in London therefore they had the right to rebel. Remember they already had the right to the free exercise of religion. They had the right to own and carry firearms. They operated businesses and civic organizations. They were able to assemble and speak freely. Certainly there were other issues but the love of money was really at the root of all the unrest.
Was it good that Paul was imprisoned on false charges? By our natural reasoning we would all say no. But God used it to advance His kingdom. The same applies to all the hardship and persecution endured by the saints. Even when governments are doing that which we see as evil, God can and often does use it for His own purpose. If we do what is right we have no reason to be afraid of authority even when we suffer by it because we know that in our suffering Gods sovereign plan is being carried out.
John 15:20
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
Now please do not misunderstand me. I have not said that our submission to human authority must be absolute. The whole counsel of God as well as evidence from church history demands that we resist human authority under two conditions.
1.) When any government compels Christians to commit sinful or immoral acts.
2.) When any government prohibits Christians from carrying out the instructions of our Lord such as proclaiming the gospel.
When either of these elements are present we must obey God rather than man. At this time however, with the exception of a few isolated and mostly correctable incidents, our government has forced neither of these conditions upon us.
Like many of you I can see a time, perhaps in the very near future when one or both of these conditions will be present. The threat of laws against “hate speech” are very real and I believe may soon be implemented in our country for the purpose of stifling the proclamation of the gospel. Rest assured when that time comes I am determined that I will continue to speak boldly as God commands. I will also be prepared to accept whatever consequences follow just as Paul, Peter, John, James, Thomas, and all the other persecuted saints of old endured.
We as Christians must stand for a greater liberty than that for which our human forefathers fought. Our liberty is true liberty that sustains us regardless of our temporal circumstances.
2Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Paul and Silas understood true liberty when they were imprisoned in Philippi (Acts 16:23-25) Beaten with many stripes for casting a devil out of a fortune telling woman, they were placed in chains and cast into prison. But at midnight they were singing and praising God while all the other prisoner listened. The Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of true liberty was there with them and sustained them.
Peter understood true liberty when he was in prison. Herod had already killed James the brother of John and had decided to kill Peter as well. He put Peter in prison and had four squads of soldiers guarding him. (Acts 12:1-7) But the Sprit of the Lord, the Spirit of true liberty was with Peter and he was found to be asleep, chained between two guards as an angel came to deliver him. Though he was chained yet he was free.
John 8:36
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
Jesus was the living embodiment of liberty. By giving up his life to do the will of the father he had true liberty. Even so he never challenged any human kingdom or authority in the flesh. Though he could have destroyed his enemies single handedly he submitted to the will of his father.
Mat 26:52
But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?”
As he stood before Pilate Jesus knew who wielded true power.
John 19:10-11
Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above…..
Jesus proclaimed the sovereignty of God and his own willingness to submit to that heavenly authority regardless of the personal cost. This is the liberty for which I am willing to stand and even to die if necessary. This is the freedom we are called to proclaim.
Human freedom is transitory and illusory. It is always based on the willingness of men to govern themselves and allow others to do the same. Unfortunately the sinful condition of the human heart will never allow that sort of freedom to last for long. That is why the freedom we have enjoyed in America is such a rare thing in human history.
It is obvious to me that the sins of America have brought Gods judgment upon us. A big part of that judgment will be the loss of many of the freedoms we have taken for granted. We will not stop this judgment with petitions, laws, constitutional conventions, or guns. Neither will we delay it with prayer. God has ordained this shaking and through it He will discover which of His people truly love Him and which love their lives in this world.
American Christians will soon begin to endure the kind of persecution that so many saints have endured down through history. This persecution will bring about a great separation between those who are willing to lay down their lives in this world and those who will not. America and all that it has stood for, both good and bad is and always has been a a part of the world system. Anyone who loves his life in this world more than Christ is not worthy of Him.
Mat 10:38-39
And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
I encourage you by the Sprit of God not to be seduced by carnal reasoning and appeals to our fleshly notions of liberty and freedom. Stand fast in the freedom in which you’ve been called and do not be entangled with the yoke of bondage to human kingdoms and empires. Don’t sell your citizenship in the heavenly kingdom for a lesser citizenship in an earthly kingdom that is temporal and will soon pass away.
1John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world–the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life–is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
Steve Lumbley 2009 http://www.apostasywatch.com
This article may be reproduced and distributed free of charge as long as it remains in its original form.
SEVEN KEYS TO FRUITFUL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
By David Cloud
Way of Life
FEBRUARY 14,2012
A few years ago, I received a letter from a young couple who exhorted me as follows:
“Your book on separation is very good, but you may want to add a caveat that a person must have a better church to separate to before he separates from a church. We were shocked at the liberal doctrines held by the fundamental churches in our city.”
Later they wrote to share more detail about the “liberal doctrines.” Following are specific things that they mentioned:
“(1) Their former pastor did not teach that women should not work outside the home, and the wife of the associate pastor worked. (2) The church held parties or fellowships on Valentines Day, Halloween, and Christmas. (3) The pastor allowed a divorced person to work in the bus ministry. (4) The pastor failed to correct publicly certain erroneous statements which were given during testimony times and certain (supposed) erroneous statements which were made by visiting preachers. (5) The pastor failed to do anything about missionaries who joked and told stories in the pulpit. (6) Though the church took a stand for the KJV, this man did not think there was sufficient teaching on the subject of Bible versions. (7) The pastor “used humor to break the tension” in his preaching, whereas this one felt that sober- mindedness required that such levity in the pulpit cease. (8) The pastor seemed to prefer to let God change people about such things as appearance (long hair, ear rings on men, etc.) rather than approach them directly.”
The couple eventually wrote and said they had “separated” from this fundamental Baptist church and from its pastor “because of his liberal teaching on remarriage, women working outside the home and his refusal to correct error.”
It is natural that in any church we will find things with which we do not agree. To practice Bible separation based on the type of things discussed in this letter, though, is not proper or healthy. These are matters of preference, or, at best, relatively minor issues. Church members must learn to deal with many such things.
While we are to separate from error, we are also exhorted to submit ourselves to pastoral authority and to exercise grace in the church. I believe there are many types of things about which we can disagree in a church while continuing to submit ourselves to God-ordained authority. There does not have to be a contradiction here.
I know of others who have separated from practically all churches because none of them take what they believe is a proper stand in all matters. Many times these are good people who want to contend for the truth in a confused and apostate hour. (Many others, though, are contentious people who simply refuse to submit to God-ordained authority.) I praise the Lord for anyone who has a zeal for the truth, but I also believe there are some important lessons in the Word of God that can help us deal with the complex matter of church membership.
The following thoughts, which are an enlargement of my original reply to the aforementioned couple, can help us to have a more fruitful attitude toward the assembly in spite of the many problems and imperfections we find there.
No Ecumenism or Compromise
Let me hasten to say that I am utterly opposed to ecumenism and spiritual compromise. I realize that New Evangelicals and ecumenists take some of the things we will deal with in this article and misuse them to excuse their disobedience. They speak much of love and grace and liberty, but they take verses on these subjects out of context and refuse to deal with the enormous amount of teaching in the Word of God on other matters, such as rebuking sin and error, contending for the faith, warning about apostasy, and exercising separation and discipline.
In this article I intend to deal with grace and liberty and submission to church authority, but I have no intention to ignore these other issues.
Those who know us will not have to be told this, but I say this for the sake of those who do not know us. For thirty-nine years, we have stood unapologetically for Bible separation. In this instance, though, we are dealing with other important matters.
Keys to Fruitful Church Membership
Please bear with me while I offer seven things we must know and do in order to be a fruitful member of a New Testament church. I think of these as “keys to fruitful church membership.”
A Vibrant Relationship with Jesus Christ
The first and foremost key to fruitful church membership is a real and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ.
“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:67-69).
“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me” (John 15:4).
“And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming” (1 John 2:28).
In order to submit to godly pastoral leadership and to have the spiritual discernment to know right from wrong in churches, one must be born again and have the indwelling Spirit of God.
Many church members who cause unnecessary problems in the church and who injure the welfare of the church do so because they do not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. They lack spiritual discernment; they walk after the flesh rather than the Spirit; they do not know how to submit to authority; and they do not care how they harm the church.
The Bible warns that God will deal severely with those who harm His churches. “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:17). The reason many troublemakers do not fear God’s retribution for their actions is that they are not saved.
In order to be a fruitful church member year after year, one must not only be saved but he also must abide in Christ. He must walk in fellowship with Christ. When we walk with Christ and have our eyes on Him, we do not become offended at what man does. “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them” (Psalm 119:165).
This is why some church members throw up their hands and quit or become disgruntled and spiritually ineffective when they witness a pastoral failure or some such serious problem in the church, whereas other church members keep on for the Lord in spite of any discouragement that comes their way. They are disappointed when men fail them, but they do not quit or turn aside because their eyes are upon One who never fails!
Abiding in Jesus Christ is the most essential key to fruitful church membership.
The Importance of the Church
Another thing we must understand to be a fruitful church member is that the church is a divine institution and it is at the center of God’s work in the world today and is to continue until Jesus returns.
The Bible emphasizes that the church is God’s appointed means of accomplishing His purposes in this age. Even the most cursory study of the New Testament proves this. There are more than 100 references to the church in the New Testament. This shows how much the Holy Spirit has emphasized the church, and the vast majority of those references refer unquestionably to the local assembly, not to a general or prospective aspect of the church.
Men have corrupted churches, but the church is God’s plan. The Lord Jesus said, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mat. 16:18). The church is Christ’s program.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:16), and the context is a church with elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1, 8).
Most of the New Testament was written directly to churches. And even those portions not written directly to a particular church refer to the church. The theme of Acts is the planting and multiplication of the first churches. The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were written to instruct church planters.
Even the General Epistles, which are not written to particular churches, always have the churches in mind. Hebrews refers to the church in chapters 10 and 13. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts God’s people not to forsake the assembling of themselves together. In Hebrews 13:7 and 17 Christians are exhorted to obey church rulers.
The last chapter of James refers to the church. Those who are sick are to call for the “elders of the church.”
The final chapter of 1 Peter also refers to the church, in exhorting elders in their duties.
John refers to the church in his third epistle, when he mentions the proud Diotrephes.
The book of Revelation, of course, is addressed to seven churches that existed in that day.
Consider, too, that there is no Bible instruction about the discipline and watch care of Christians apart from the church. There is no instruction about leadership among Christians apart from the church. The entire life and work of God’s people for this age appears in the context of the assembly.
We must also understand what a church is. A proper New Testament church has certain biblical ingredients. It is not merely a group of Christians meeting for prayer and Bible study. Paul wrote to Titus about church work in Crete. The gospel had been preached and believers were meeting together, but that was not sufficient. Paul instructed Titus that certain things were lacking (Titus 1:5). Those things were qualified leadership and biblical organization, the things Paul emphasizes in his epistle to Titus.
The very first thing that Paul mentions is the ordination of elders. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5).
We see the same thing in the book of Acts. When Paul and Barnabas raised up groups of believers in various towns through the preaching of the gospel, they were careful to “ordain elders in every church” (Acts 14:23).
A proper New Testament church, therefore, is a body of baptized believers who are congregated together under the oversight of qualified and ordained pastor/elders and who are following the pattern of government and accomplishing the work described in the apostolic epistles.
It is clear from Scripture that it is God’s will that every believer be a faithful and fruitful member of a sound New Testament church. That is what we see in Acts 2. Those who were saved on the day of Pentecost “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42)
If there is not such a church in the area, the establishment of such a church must be the highest priority. A believer should never be content merely to listen to recorded preaching sermons, or to read sermons from a book, or to listen to preaching on radio or television, or to meet together with a loose-knit group of believers without proper leadership and organization.
The reason I have remained a faithful member of a church for 39 years is not that I have found perfect pastors and perfect churches, but because I know that this is God’s will and anything less would displease Him. It is my understanding of the doctrine of the church that keeps me going in spite of grave imperfections I have found in churches.
No Perfect Church
Another key to fruitful church membership is to understand is that there are no perfect churches. We have mentioned this, but it needs to be emphasized. It sounds like a simple matter, but it is not. It is something that must be relearned frequently.
Even the early churches founded and pastored by the apostles had problems. In fact, there were very serious problems in many of the early churches.
Consider the church at Corinth. The members were carnal and divided. They refused to discipline one of their own although he was living in open fornication with his father’s wife! They were taking each other to court. They were getting drunk during the Lord’s Supper. They were misusing the spiritual gifts. They allowed false teachers to discredit the Apostle Paul. What a church! Yet Paul was thankful for the grace God had given them (1 Cor. 1:4).
The seven churches mentioned in Revelation two and three also had many serious problems, including spiritual coldness, false teachers, and immorality.
Two women in the church at Philippi had to be corrected for being antagonistic toward one another (Phil. 4:2).
Paul had to rebuke Peter for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14).
Paul and Barnabas had a contention that was “so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other” (Acts 15:39).
Need we go on? There never has been a church that did not have problems, and the simple reason for this is that church members are sinners.
It is not therefore surprising to find many problems in independent Baptist churches today. I have been a member of independent Baptist churches for four decades and have spoken in more than 500 churches across North America and in many other countries, and I have observed the problems firsthand.
When I was a young Christian at Bible school, I saw problems that almost devastated me. As I started Bible school training in 1974, I was almost 25 years old, but I was only one year old in the Lord, and I was shocked at many things. Forty years later, I am still saddened by these same things! These were things such as Sunday School promotionalism which turns the church of Jesus Christ into a carnival; extreme levity at times in the pulpit; little biblical content in much of the preaching; exaltation of men above that which is proper; shallow, manipulative methods of evangelism, and an overemphasis on “decisions” and “prayers” rather than on repentance and regeneration.
Because of issues like these, I left after the completion of my first year of Bible College, determined to attend a different school. The Lord gave me no peace over my decision, though, and within a few weeks I returned and completed my studies.
In looking back, I am thankful for the Lord’s leading, though I did not understand it very well at the time. The other school that I was looking at was Calvinistic and was part of a group that was already part way down the path to New Evangelicalism, and I would have faced an entirely different set of problems–problems even more unhealthy to my Christian life than the ones I was trying to flee.
I still believe the aforementioned issues are wrong, and I try to avoid them as much as possible; but I have also learned some things that have helped me, I believe, have a more balanced attitude toward church problems in general.
In spite of the fact that all churches are imperfect, we do not see in Scripture any healthy examples of Christians who disregarded the assembly. In fact, those who separated themselves were considered unregenerate. John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19).
Keen Spiritual Discernment
Another key to fruitful church membership is keen spiritual discernment which enables us to distinguish between the important and the less important issues.
Observe the following Scripture:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23:23).
In Matthew 23:23, the Lord Jesus Christ taught that not all things in the Bible are of equal importance. Some biblical teachings are “weightier” than others. Everything in the Bible has some importance, but everything is not of equal importance. Knowing the difference between the two requires a thorough knowledge of God’s Word and keen spiritual discernment.
This is the lesson of the following passages:
“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Rom. 15:14).
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).
Such discernment comes only through diligent study of God’s Word and the exercise of the spiritual senses to discern good and evil.
Paul told the church at Rome that the reason they were able to admonish one another was because they were full of goodness and filled with knowledge (Rom. 15:14). this refers to the maturity of their Christian lives and to their Bible knowledge.
It is my conviction that the friends who wrote to tell me that they were separating from all independent Baptist churches lacked the maturity to distinguish between the “weighty” matters of biblical truth and those matters that are less significant. Although they lacked such maturity, they were convinced they had better discernment than even their godly pastor.
This happens frequently. In fact, it is a characteristic of young Christians. Someone has wisely stated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This is one reason why God forbids a novice to be a church leader (1 Tim. 3:6).
The young Christian begins to gain some knowledge of the Bible and the ministry, and suddenly he “knows it all” and tries to straighten out everybody else, blithely ignorant of his own serious shortcomings. This happens frequently to young Christians who are in Bible College. They have some knowledge, but often they don’t have the experience and maturity to use it correctly. If they are not careful with their newly found knowledge, they can cause more problems than they solve!
Pastors and churches are to be judged by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21), but church members cannot do this until they first gain the necessary biblical knowledge and discernment required for such judgment. Young Christians need to be extremely cautious and patient about exercising judgment against a pastor. Unless the matter in question is something that is exceedingly plain in the Bible and unless there are mature Christians who can confirm the judgment, it is wise for the immature Christian to defer to the pastor’s greater knowledge and maturity.
Some of the “weightier matters” of God’s Word in relation to churches are things such as sound doctrine, the gospel, Christian love, godliness, separation from error, and soul-winning and missions. Some of the less weighty matters are things like promotions, youth activities (unless the are clearly worldly), and political involvement. Good examples of less weighty matters are the list of eight things mentioned at the beginning of this article: whether or not the church has fellowships at Christmas or jokes being told from the pulpit, etc.
I am not saying that the child of God should ignore Christian rock music or false teaching or unqualified leadership or anything like that. I am not saying we are to be blind to things that are clearly unscriptural. I am simply saying that not all matters are of equal importance, and we must learn to weigh various issues of church life before the Lord in order to exercise mature judgment.
We see this in Christ’s judgment of the churches in Revelation 2-3. The problems He rebuked were of a truly serious nature. He did not rebuke a church for having a church social on Valentine’s. I’m not trying to be facetious. I’m not trying to make light of the less important things, but the fact remains that Christ did not treat all church problems with the same degree of seriousness, and we must follow His example.
This is exactly what we see in the church epistles. The problems rebuked by the Apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit were of a serious nature. The Church at Corinth was not rebuked for allowing a divorced man to work in the evangelistic ministry, but for drunkenness and immorality and carnal divisions.
Conviction vs. Preference
Another key to fruitful church membership is to understand the difference between conviction and preference. Conviction is based upon a clear teaching of God’s Word. Preference is not. A Christian can have preferences on all sorts of church matters, but he is not at liberty to make his preference a law for others. This is discussed in Romans 14:
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (Romans 14:1-6).
This passage is often misused by ecumenists to support their phony idea of legalism. They claim that it is not right to judge others even in matters of doctrine, but that is nonsense. It is not legalism to cry out against sin, to judge false teachers, to set standards for God’s people based on the clear teaching of the Word of God, to demand that Christians obey the details of the Bible. In Romans 14, the Lord forbids us to judge others IN MATTERS THAT ARE NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. Two examples are given: what we eat and how we respect holy days. These are issues that the New Testament does not address. There are no dietary laws for Christians, and there are no Old Testament holy days that we must keep. These are matters of Christian liberty. I am free to eat meat or not to eat meat, but I am not free to judge others by my conscience in this matter or in any other matter that is not plainly taught in the Scripture.
When the Scripture speaks plainly, we must speak; but when the Scripture does not speak, we have no authority to speak. In such matters I am free to follow my conscience and the Lord’s leading for my personal life, but I am not free to make my conscience a law for others. That is the teaching of Romans 14.
The things mentioned earlier in this article fall into this category. There is the matter, for example, of holding fellowships on Valentine’s Day, Christmas, and Halloween. Obviously it is wrong to be involved in witchcraft, idolatry, or immorality, but as for the days themselves, they are nothing. The Lord made the days. Why would it be wrong to have a church fellowship on October 31, for example, as long as the church does not promote things associated with evil, such as a haunted house or things connected with ghosts and goblins? If the church tries to incorporate such worldly things into the youth activities, this should be resisted loudly, but if they are simply having a youth activity on or near October 31 in order to reach the unsaved or for the edification of Christian young people, there is nothing wrong with this. It is a matter of preference rather than law. Our former church had a Harvest Fellowship at Halloween time, primarily to provide an activity for to help keep young people away from the wicked things that go on in the world then. I see nothing unscriptural about this.
Likewise, the Lord made February 14. The Lord made romance. If a church wants to have some sort of fellowship on that day, so be it.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not giving a blanket endorsement of the world’s holidays. There is much that is evil there. Cupid is connected with a pagan god of lust, and the Christian must avoid every form of immorality; but I don’t believe it is wrong for a church to have a fellowship or some sort of sweetheart banquet at Valentine’s Day for married couples.
I am convinced that there is freedom of conscience in such matters. These are matters of preference. If a person doesn’t want to have any type of get together on such days, he shouldn’t have them. He doesn’t have to participate in something at the church if his conscience will not allow him to do so, but he shouldn’t make his own opinions about these things a law for others when God has made no such laws.
I know some are going to groan when they hear this, but I believe this principle is applicable for certain Christmas practices, as well. We know that the Christmas season has come from Rome. I am as opposed to Romanism as anyone. I have written many unpopular books against Rome. Yet while I am sickened at the commercialism and debauchery that characterizes the Christmas holidays on the part of some, I don’t think it is wrong to enjoy some aspects of that season. I am convinced there is Christian liberty in many of these things. Definitely we must not be involved with Santa Claus, which is a combination of a pagan god and a Catholic “saint,” but I believe a person can enjoy the social and family aspects of the season without worshipping false gods or committing sacrilege. I don’t believe in setting up Christmas trees in or having a Santa visit the church, but I don’t think it is wrong to have a nativity play and sing some of the Christmas carols that are Scriptural and otherwise involve one’s self in activities that do not bring dishonor to the Lord Jesus Christ.
I know this is a delicate subject, and there are strong feelings on all sides. My objective is not to defend Christmas. I am simply talking about one’s attitude toward those things that other people or churches do that I might not agree with, but that are not directly and plainly condemned in the Word of God. I am trying to illustrate this with some concrete things that we face in everyday life.
I don’t expect every reader to agree with me in all of these matters; I am simply saying that we have liberty in matters not directly addressed in Scripture.
The very fact that each of these matters is highly controversial illustrates my point. I must be careful that I am not trying to make my own preference a law for others.
While we must stand for the Word of God, we must also be careful that we not take away God-given liberty and hold our own conscience up as a law for others. Anything that is not clearly taught in Scripture falls into this category–whether or not a church uses musical instruments, times and days of services, evangelistic methods, how to conduct children’s ministries. The list is very long. It is a blessing to understand that God has given us much liberty in Christ and that in these matters each Christian and each church is free to follow the Holy Spirit’s leading.
Avoiding Hypocrisy
Another key to fruitful church membership is to beware of hypocrisy.
It is much easier to criticize and judge others than it is to live a consistent spiritual life in my own right. The sin that Jesus reproved in Matthew 7:1-5 is the sin of self-righteous hypocrisy, the sin of judging others for things of which I am guilty.
We must never forget that we are sinners, too. We must not forget that God has been very, very patient and merciful to each of us. We must not forget the long path that has taken us to where we stand today, and how many sins and failings the Lord forgave in order to bring us along in our Christian lives.
To require perfection of others when we have never had such perfection in our own lives is hypocrisy.
I think of my own Christian life. I think of the early years of my Christian life and what a mess I was in so many ways. It took me months even to cut my long hair or to give up smoking, which are quite superficial things. Even today, after decades of growing in the Lord, I am so very far from what God wants me to be spiritually. We are to lay aside the old man and put on the new man, which is Christ. We are to be conformed to His image. He has the Spirit without measure. He is the definition of love as described in 1 Corinthians 13. He is the perfect holy man of Psalm 1. That is our objective, yet how terribly far we fall short. Each and every one of us!
Let’s flee from that hypocrisy whereby we are so quick to judge others about things that we are guilty of in God’s eyes if the truth be known, even if it perhaps in a smaller measure than those we are judging.
Judging is something we are accountable to do. We are to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). But let us be more severe in judging ourselves than others.
Building the Church
Another key to fruitful church membership is to be busy building the church to the glory of Christ.
It is easier to criticize what others are doing than to do something constructive ourselves, but we are less likely to criticize improperly when we are busy building.
Many church members aren’t actually building the churches. They are spectators, and spectators are naturally critics. They are “Monday morning quarterbacks.”
Before I have a right to “criticize” others, I need to get in the battle and be an effective part of building up the church and furthering the Lord’s Great Commission. If I am bringing people to the Lord and helping them grow, I know how very difficult this job is and how much patience and wisdom is required and how far from perfect our converts are.
Those who zealously participate in the work of joining hands with the leaders to build the church for the glory of Christ are invested in the church in a very real way, and they will be less likely to criticize unnecessarily and unwisely and destructively than those who are mere spectators.
The question to ask is this: what am I doing to build the church? Have I dedicated myself without reserve to this important business? If I were to leave, would the church even miss me?
Pastoral Authority
Another essential key to fruitful church membership is to have a right attitude toward pastoral authority.
“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation” (Heb. 13:7).
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).
We have looked at the emphasis God has placed on the local church. That emphasis is woven into the very warp and woof of the New Testament and is undeniable. It is God’s will that every Christian be a faithful, fruitful, contributing member of a sound church. That being the case, it is not surprising that we are exhorted to obey those who have the rule over us. The verses quoted above are strong; we are to obey our church leaders. They are not to be dictators; they do not have unlimited authority; they are not to be obeyed unquestioningly; but they ARE rulers. Hebrews uses plain language, and I believe it means exactly what it says. Not all Christians have equal authority in this world. Some are rulers and the others are to obey those rulers.
The pastors of a church have the major responsibility before the Lord for the teachings, practices, and direction of that church.
The Bible says that the church leaders watch for our souls and that we must not cause them grief for that is unprofitable for us. I believe that this points to the judgment seat of Christ. If I am a grief to my pastor, it will be unprofitable for me at Christ’s judgment bar.
The notable exception to this, of course, is if the pastor himself is not obeying the Word of God or is leading contrary to the Word of God in some area of his ministry and is grieved at me simply for my stand for truth.
(In the free eBook “The Pastor’s Authority and the Church Member’s Responsibility” we deal with the abuse side of pastoral authority. This is available at the Way of Life web site under the Free eBook tab.)
In light of exhortations such as Hebrews 13, 7, 17 I must find a church that is following the Word of God, and I must then obey my leaders in that church; I must support that church in every way possible. That is the will of God for every Christian.
The leaders, in turn, will give an account to the Lord for their teaching and decisions. THEY HOLD THE GREATER RESPONSIBILITY, AND I, AS A CHURCH MEMBER, WILL NOT GIVE ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE CHURCH.
Obviously, this does not mean that we are to close our eyes to false teaching and sin, but it DOES mean that I am not to try to impose my views in all matters upon the church and its leaders. I must remember that I am not the pastor of the church; I therefore don’t have the wisdom, the unction, or the responsibility for that. I must submit to those who are the pastors and I must allow them to make decisions with which I might not agree, submitting myself because God has told me to do so.
The church member will never find a pastor with whom he agrees 100%. Think about it. This would be impossible. The only one with whom I agree with 100% is myself, and sometimes I disagree with myself! We all know this in theory but the practice of it is often a difficult matter.
I must recognize that if I am ever to submit to a pastor, it will be to an imperfect one.
Isn’t it reasonable to believe that God will guide the man he has placed over the church? Who am I to try to impose my views upon him?
I must understand this if I am to learn to get along in a church and be a fruitful member. God works in this world through our imperfections. This, of necessity, is the way He works in a church.
The friends who wrote to me that they were separating from a certain fundamental Baptist church said that the pastor holds what they believe to be a weak position on divorce and remarriage. By this, they meant that the pastor allowed a divorced person to work in the bus ministry. I take a strong position personally against divorce and remarriage. I believe we must preach against divorce, and I don’t believe a divorced man is qualified to be a pastor or a deacon, but I don’t believe it is wrong for a divorced person to work in the bus ministry. There are difficulties with any position one might take on this issue, and the more perverted our society becomes, and the more fragmented our families become, the more difficult it will be to deal with these issues.
The problem with divorce and remarriage is not so much whether a pastor believes divorce is wrong; practically all Bible-believing pastors believe this. The difficulty comes in how we treat those who are divorced. Do we allow them to join our churches? I know of one fundamental Bible church that does not allow divorced people to be members. Does the pastor perform the weddings for those who are divorced? If so, under what conditions? Do we allow divorced people to serve in the church? If so, in what capacity? Can they be Sunday School teachers? Ushers? Can they work in the bus ministry? Good churches differ in these matters, and I believe this is an example of something in which a church member can submit to his leaders, leaving it in the hands of the Lord.
The pastors will answer to God about these things, and there are many matters like this.
I might disagree with my pastor over his teaching on giving, for example. Some believe tithing is a law in the New Testament dispensation and others don’t.
I might disagree with some of the music in my church. Some Christians don’t like any “canned” or recorded background music to be played during the services; others don’t like guitars to be used; others don’t like gospel quartets. In my estimation, none of these things are wrong in themselves; it is the character of the music that is performed that makes such things right or wrong. I have heard some spiritual recorded music, and I have heard a lot of unspiritual recorded music. I have heard guitars used in a spiritual manner as well as in a worldly manner. I have heard spiritual quartets and unspiritual ones. The point is that there is room for some variety in the music program of the church, and I might not agree with all of the decisions that are made. (Our video series “Music for Good or Evil” deals with this issue extensively.)
I might disagree over the standards my church has for workers, thinking the standards are too strict or not strict enough.
I might disagree over whether or not a pastor has a TV and whether or not he preaches against this enough. We would never encourage someone to stay in a church that has low moral standards for workers, if they listen to rock music, for example, or wear immodest clothing, or where the pastor and other leaders watch ungodly television programs and movies. I am merely saying that my exact standards might not be enforced by the pastors, and that alone does not mean that they are wrong or that I should leave.
I might disagree with how my church conducts its business meetings. A church we were once members of, for example, doesn’t include women in the business meetings. The women can attend if they choose, but they do not make motions or vote. The men conduct the business. Imagine such a thing in this feministic society! I am sure there are many who would not agree with this, but it is not contrary to Scripture.
I might disagree with some of the missionaries the church supports.
I might disagree with some of the ways the church finances are used.
I might disagree with the kind of materials that are used in Sunday School, about whether or not promotions are used, about whether or not puppets or plays or such things are used, about whether or not there is a bus ministry.
I might have problems with how the missions program is conducted. I might not like some of the special speakers that the pastor brings in. I might disagree with my pastor over his involvement in or lack of involvement in political issues. I might disagree with him regarding his dealings with erring members. He might seem too patient or too harsh.
I’m simply saying that there are many things that we must leave in the hands of the pastors, and this is never an easy matter.
In every church I’ve been a member of I’ve disagreed with some things. There is a time to leave a church over things that we believe are wrong, when we have a clear scriptural basis and the direction of the church is set, but we must also learn to put many things into the hands of the Lord and do what He has told us to do: submit to the church leadership and be a blessing.
The pastors must be allowed to be the pastors. They will answer for things that I will not answer for, and they have an authority that I do not have. This is not shirking responsibility; it is obedience to the Bible; and it is the path of wisdom and blessing.
Grace
Another essential key to fruitful church membership is to bathe all of our judgments in love and mercy and graciousness.
“But speaking the truth IN LOVE, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort WITH ALL LONGSUFFERING and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, IN FAITH AND LOVE which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13).
“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; BUT BE GENTLE UNTO ALL MEN, apt to teach, PATIENT, IN MEEKNESS instructing those that oppose themselves…” (2 Tim. 2:24-25).
“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one IN THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2).
Some of the things mentioned in the letter from the friends who “separated” from the fundamental Baptist church remind me of these verses. God tells us that we must maintain an attitude of meekness, patience, and compassion when dealing with others about their problems.
The friends mentioned some instances in which their pastor supposedly “failed to correct error in the church.” The examples they gave made me think of the above verses. While it is essential to stand for the truth and to rebuke sin and error, there is also such a thing as wisdom and patience and caution when dealing with people. You don’t necessarily come down hard and publicly on every problem that arises.
They mentioned the rambling testimony of a new convert. She believed a woman who had recently died went to Heaven because of the peaceful expression on the face of her corpse. That’s a weird testimony, to be sure, but I don’t think it is something the pastor should necessarily have corrected publicly. Lack of wisdom can easily turn a slight problem into a very large one. The pastors are the ones who have to make those calls.
They mentioned a deacon who testified that “he liked to put God in impossible situations just to see what He will do,” and they seemed shocked that their pastor and the other deacons said “amen” to this. They said this contradicts Matthew 4:5-7, in which the Lord told the Devil that we are not to tempt God. But the deacon was probably just saying that it is a great thing to be in a situation in which God must do something special to help us, or something to that effect. I read a little ditty in the Maranatha paper a few years ago that said, “When God is going to do something wonderful, He begins with difficulty; if it is going to be something very wonderful, He begins with an impossibility!” That is probably the same idea that the deacon was trying to convey. His way of saying it might have left something to be desired, but this is not a serious matter. We must judge such things in a spirit of graciousness and patience, always giving the benefit of the doubt and giving room for people to grow.
They mentioned that the song leader said one night that Satan was the king of this world, and that Christ was not king. They said that since Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King, they felt the title of king is reserved for Christ. That is not so. Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, but there are kings many and lords many in this present order of things. Satan is called the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) and the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). He is not necessarily spoken of as king of the world, but I do not believe it would be wrong to call him that in light of these verses. He is king in the hearts of lost people. Again, this is a petty matter that requires more graciousness and spiritual maturity than that which was displayed by the couple who wrote to me.
A pastor has to exercise supernatural wisdom and kindness. This is one reason I have a tremendously high regard for godly pastors who are committed to God’s Word. They must always walk that fine line between caution, concern, and compromise, between zeal for the truth and patience with the erring. I believe they have the most difficult job in the world. If they make mistakes and fail to do everything exactly as we think they should, we shouldn’t be surprised! How would you do in the pastor’s shoes?
We must always season our judgments with grace. Mel Rutter, late Vice President of Maranatha Baptist Mission, once told me, “Dave, be as firm as the rock in your position for truth, but as sweet as the honey from the rock in your disposition when striving for truth.” That’s good advice, and though I have often fallen short of practicing this, it is definitely one of the chief goals of my ministry. I want to be a gracious Christian and a gracious preacher. Anything less is un-christlike and wrong.
Conclusion
There is much more that could be said, but I will stop here.
I must add that I am definitely not giving a blanket endorsement of independent Baptists churches. There are MANY I would not join because of matters I count too serious to overlook. In fact, I am on the periphery of the Independent Baptist movement and the number of churches I can recommend with a good conscience is relatively small, probably 10% or less. Some are New Evangelical. Some use corrupt Bibles. Some remind me more of a carnival than a church. Some appear not to know anything of old-fashioned Bible holiness and separation from the world and have very low or nonexistent moral standards. Some use the world’s music. Some have a strutting Poobah for a pastor, a man who requires unquestioning loyalty to himself. (The pastor’s authority is limited by the Bible, and he is to be proven in all things — 1 Thess. 5:21. Further, a biblical pastor is not a proud lord; he is a humble shepherd, 1 Peter 5:1-5.)
Please understand, too, that I am not trying to quench anyone’s zeal for doing right. We need more zeal for truth and righteousness, not less. It is not wrong to try to correct perceived problems in our churches or to talk to the pastor about things about which we disagree. The Bible instructs us to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21) and to judge all preaching (1 Cor. 14:29). There is a ministry of correction that is taught plainly in Scripture, but I did not set out to address that subject in this article. Here, I am dealing with other important issues.
I want to be a blessing to the Lord’s churches. The Bible makes it plain that God wants His work to be done through the church; thus it behooves us to make a supreme effort to submit ourselves to this institution except in matters of clear doctrinal error and entrenched moral corruption.
POSTSCRIPT: The people to whom I originally addressed the above information did not receive my counsel. In fact, they cut off all fellowship from me and counted me as their enemy and as a compromiser of the truth. The last I heard about them, they were moving from church to church, becoming increasingly bitter, in search of that ideal congregation. This is very sad, but I have seen the same thing happen many times.
DiscernIt 
Recent Comments