Some thoughts on the preparation and selection of Elder candidates

When I wrote this, the U.S. was grinding its way through another election cycle. More than once I found myself growling about the process. When you consider all the time and treasure which are expended it’s enough to make the blood boil. Even worse, from my point of view, is how candidates are selected. There are times when I’ve seriously wondered if the country wouldn’t be better served if candidates were chosen by random lot. On average would it be much worse than the slate of candidates we’re actually given? Perhaps all political parties should be abolished and the country’s leaders, themselves, selected by random draw.

I know, I know! That’s just the cynic in me talking. Our process in this country is no worse, and often much better, than what goes on in most other places. Lest anyone take umbrage at some of my comments, let me hasten to say that, given human nature and the examples of history, I’m very grateful for the form of government we have. It sure beats the alternatives. Our system of government with its checks and balances has done a pretty good job of keeping the grossly incompetent and/or venal out of public office. Or, more accurately, limiting the damage when we’ve been dumb enough to put them into office. Given fallen human nature, the old boys who wrote the U.S. Constitution came up with a fairly decent system.

Methods of leader selection

But when you stop and think about it, the system of government is not nearly as important as the character of the leaders chosen to run the government. In his essay Constitution for Utopia, John W. Campbell, Jr. points out that any form of government will result in utopia (defined as an optimal – not a perfect – society), provided that the rulers are wise, benevolent and competent. The real problem is how to select such leaders.

Through the centuries a great many systems of selecting leaders have been tried. Campbell rules out the selection of leaders by random chance, which I facetiously advocated, presumably because even if people were, on average, wise, benevolent and competent (which they certainly are not!), random selection would ensure that we got at least a few ‘bad apples’ in every draw.

What of Plato’s notion of training people from infancy to be ‘philosopher kings?’ Campbell points out that there’s no reliable test to predict who will grow up to fit the criteria. Also, as any high school student can tell you, the way to get high marks on any subjective test is to tell the teacher what he wants to hear regardless of whether the answer makes sense. So, even if we could define what a ‘philosopher king’ is, there’s still no reliable way to select and train them.

Aristocracy has worked rather well in certain periods of history. The idea is that a wise, benevolent and competent leader will breed true and pass the characteristics on to the next generation. But Solomon pointed out long before Campbell, that it doesn’t always work that way. “I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune.” (Ecclesiastes 2:18-21 NIV)

Communists have tried the theory that the selection of leaders should be the sole prerogative of the politically indoctrinated. This suffers from the same problem mentioned before: It’s all too easy to feed the testers what they want to hear. It also suffers from rigidity because it perpetuates the assumptions and theories of the founders of the system.

Immunity breeds corruption

Campbell evaluates a few other ways of selecting leaders and finds flaws in each. Though it may be politically incorrect to say so, he points out that one of the worst methods of rule is to do away with leaders altogether and install popular democracy. The idea is that leaders are not needed because everyone gets to vote on everything. In practice, what has repeatedly happened is that popular democracy becomes mob rule. A mob will do all kinds of things which not a single person in it would condone or approve.

What makes a mob so corrupt and destructive, Campbell says, is immunity. The individuals which comprise it are anonymous, therefore there is no one to call to account.

In light of this, leaders, however they are selected, must never be given immunity. They must be held accountable. They must be a minority which is not allowed to achieve a position of security. They rule by the sufferance of those they govern.

A pragmatic test for leader selection

How, then, should such leaders be selected? Campbell suggests that it should be by a pragmatic, non-theoretical test. He proposes the following: In order to qualify for leadership, a person’s average earned annual income over the prior 10% of of his life must be in the top 20% of the population. As with any man-made system, there are probably some hidden flaws and unintended consequences in this proposal, but I found myself strangely attracted to it – even though I, myself, don’t meet the proposed criteria! It would certainly tend to weed out the incompetent.

As I was reading Campbell’s essay, it dawned on me that much of what he was saying applies to the church. Particularly his points about immunity and selecting leaders by a pragmatic test.

The form of church government

Now, the New Testament is pretty clear on what form church government should take. There should be autonomous local congregations which are governed and overseen by Elders (plural) who actively speak and teach. (In New Testament usage, the terms Elder, Shepherd, Pastor, Overseer, Presbyter and Bishop refer to the same leader. They are alternative names which describe different aspects of the same role. Also note that in the context of the church ‘leadership’ is characterized and defined as ‘service.’ Yes, an Elder ‘rules’ and ‘oversees’ but he is primarily a servant.) Those who advocate some sort of hierarchical structure or ‘located minister’ or ‘Senior Pastor’ system, need to take another read through the New Testament. What follows is specifically about Elders, but some of the principles apply equally to other leaders in the church.

Elder immunity

Given that congregations should be led by Elders, how should we go about selecting them? Let’s first take take a look at the idea of immunity. Unfortunately, in many congregations Elders are virtually immune. In part, this stems from a genuine reverence for the role. Godly people are very hesitant to criticize someone who is in a God-ordained role. Another complication in many congregations is that while there is a procedure for appointing an Elder, there is no mechanism for removing one. As a consequence, once someone is ordained an Elder, he’s in for life. To compound the problem, Elders often are not required to give an accounting of their leadership to the congregation, nor do they seek input from it. The congregation is isolated from the decision making process and is in the dark about how and why decisions are made.

While this style of leadership can be quite stable, just as often it is hide-bound, rigid and out of touch with the needs and spiritual condition of the church body. More importantly, is it biblical? I think not. Elders who are immune tend to forget that they are servants of the congregation. They can be tempted to “lord it over the flock” (See 1 Peter 5:2-3). According to Hebrews 13:17, leaders in the church certainly will be held accountable. “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account…” (NIV) In the context it’s probably speaking of them giving an account to God of their handling of the responsibilities entrusted to them. But I think it goes further than that. Though the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say so, I believe that Elders should also be accountable to the congregations they serve. There are hints…

Consider the few records we have which mention the appointing of Elders or other servant-leaders in the church. It would be foolish to get too dogmatic about it, but I have the impression that while it was an Apostle, Evangelist or group of Elders which appointed or ordained the candidates through the laying on of hands, it was the congregation which did the actual selection of those who were so appointed. If I’m right about that, it means that existing leaders received and acted on input from the congregation. It also implies at least a certain degree of accountability to the congregation.

There’s more. 1st Timothy 5:19-20 says, “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (NIV) In my experience, this verse is usually used as a defense and safeguard against unjust or frivolous accusations. It certainly does protect – and I think it was intended to. But, when you stop and think about it, the verse also assumes that there is a procedure in place to call Elders to account. They are not immune. They must answer for their wrongdoing. They are, in fact, held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the congregation. Elders who sin are rebuked publicly. It sounds very much like Elders are answerable to the congregation. While action against an Elder is not to be taken lightly, a congregation should have some mechanism in place to “hold their feet to the fire.” Something we did in the congregation where I served as an Elder was require the Elders to report to the congregation once a year about what they’d done during the past year and what their plans were for the coming year. This requirement helps Elders to focus more on what they should be doing. It helps the congregation get a better feel for a man’s effectiveness in the role.

But here’s the rub: Suppose that there is no moral or ethical failing. Suppose that there is nothing you can really put your finger on but, for whatever reason, a particular man is ineffective as an Elder. Suppose the congregation made a mistake in selecting a particular person. Once a person has been ordained to fill the role, how can you remove him? It’s a real problem. It’s extremely difficult to overcome the inertia of incumbency. In the absence of sin (and, unfortunately, sometimes even when blatant sin is involved) it is rare that there will be 100% agreement that an Elder should step down. Should even a majority ask for an Elder’s removal, it has real potential for causing hard feelings or even a split in the congregation. If the entire congregation is agreed that a particular Elder should step down, it’s still likely that he will have hard feelings toward the congregation. The net result is often inaction. Because the spiritually minded do not want to cause division, they remain silent. If they become too frustrated, they eventually leave rather than cause a disturbance. In the meantime, the congregation continues to cripple along with an ineffective Eldership. Since the Elders feel immune, because they are not made accountable, they continue to make poor decisions. As a result, the congregation either stagnates or falls prey to fads and false teaching. How can this type of situation be avoided? How can Elders be held accountable, not only spiritually, but in effectiveness? How can Elders be removed as gracefully as possible? Since the Bible does not seem to give specific guidelines, it’s a real dilemma. Each congregation will have to arrive at its own conclusions.

In the congregation where I served we gave these questions some long and hard thought. Several of us came from congregations where the Elders effectively were immune. The congregations had little input and the Elders were secure in their incumbency. We did not want to repeat the experience. The solution we came up with is term limits. Elders were appointed for three years. At the end of three years they were required to step down for a year. If they wished to serve again, they had to again go through the process in which their qualifications were examined and approval was again given by the congregation. Our system was not perfect. One obvious limitation, was that while it provided a graceful way to get rid of ineffective Elders, it also limited or constrained the service of those who are competent and effective. Why should those who are doing an excellent job of serving have to step down? Why should the congregation be deprived of their leadership after an arbitrary period of time? However, after taking everything into consideration, the three-year time limit seemed like a good compromise. [Note: After I left the church scrapped the term limit requirement.]

Elder qualifications

Having taken care of the immunity question, we’re still left with the problem of a non-theoretical, pragmatic test to screen Elder candidates. Fortunately, just as the New Testament defines what form church government should take, it also provides the basic parameters for Elders. The qualifications of Elders are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4. But, until recently, I had not considered them in terms of Campbell’s criteria.

As I go through the lists, I have to admit that some of the qualifications of Elders are subjective. Take, for example, the statement that an Elder must “not be given to much wine.” How much is much? It’s a judgment call. Some would say that any is too much. Others would say that drinking is permissible as long as the guy isn’t an alcoholic and never gets intoxicated. In the congregation where I served, we ruled out all social drinking and the consumption of alcohol in public. We did tolerate an Elder having a glass of wine at dinner in the privacy of his own home. But, it’s a judgment call and each individual congregation has to decide just what the requirement means.

Another qualification of an Elder is that he must be “able to teach.” I’m fairly rabid about this qualification. One reason I feel so strongly about it is that I’ve seen far too many Elders who, in my opinion, couldn’t teach their way out of a wet paper bag. But that’s the rub – it’s my ‘opinion’ that they can’t teach. In someone else’s estimation they might be a fine teacher. You also have to consider context while evaluating whether someone is capable of teaching or not. Teach who? Teach what? The fact is that a person may be a very capable teacher in one setting and a flop in another. Though I hate to admit it, the requirement that an Elder must be able to teach is not entirely objective. A candidate’s ability to teach must be evaluated in the setting of the individual congregation where he will serve.

Pragmatic, objective tests for Elder candidates

Several of the other Elder qualifications are also subjective. But there is at least one that is not. As I was reading Campbell’s essay, this one leaped to mind. The letters to Timothy and Titus both say that an Elder must be “the husband of but one wife.” (The Greek literally says, “a one-woman man.”) Most commentators these days seem to take the position that if an Elder is married he must remain faithful to his wife. I’ve heard all the arguments that say that an Elder can be single – as in never married. I’ve heard the arguments that the requirement doesn’t apply to divorce and remarriage. I’ve heard the explanations that these passages say nothing about the issue of polygamy. Blah, blah blah. Yadda, yadda yadda. Choke, gag puke! May I submit the radical proposition that the Apostle Paul, and therefore the Holy Spirit through Paul, said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said? I suggest that this is not a subjective option which can be interpreted any way we like. It is an easily verifiable, pragmatic and objective criterion which is there for a very good reason. In contrast to some of the other qualifications, it’s very easy to see whether a man is married. It’s an objective, pass/fail test. Has he got more than “one woman” (whether he’s married to them or not)? Again, it’s an objective, pass/fail test. Is he guilty of serial polygamy – as in divorce and remarriage? Another objective, pass/fail test. As far as I’m concerned, Scripture is clear on this issue: If a man is not married, or he has not been able to keep his marriage together, or he has multiple wives, he is not qualified to oversee the Lord’s church as an Elder. Period. He may have many sterling qualities and talents; he may be a very godly man but he is disqualified for the role of Elder. He might make a wonderful Evangelist or Teacher, but not an Elder.

A related issue is that of children. In Titus 1:6 it says that an Elder’s children must believe (NIV, NASB, ESV) or be faithful (KJV, NKJ). Here we have some more objective criteria for an Elder candidate. Does he have children? Yes, or no? Are they old enough to make an informed choice about how they are going to live their lives? Yes, or no? Further, have the children decided to live a godly life? Yes, or no? Similar to the arguments that say an Elder doesn’t have to be married, there are all kinds of justifications for ducking these tests. I’ve heard of cases where men have been put forward as Elder candidates who had no children at all, or whose children were infants. But we ignore these criteria to our own peril.

As the home, so the church

Why is this so important? Paul tells us in 1st Timothy 3:5, “If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (NIV) The family is the proving ground of a man’s ability to oversee and shepherd the church. Without the experience gained in the home, a man is not fit for a similar responsibility in the church. If you want to know how a man will perform as an Elder, just look at his home. It’s high time we ditched the politically correct malarkey so many pattern church government by, and the business-school theories used to pick Elders (if churches have Elders at all), and get back to the objective standards of Scripture. Oh! And by the way, here’s another pragmatic, objective test that is sure to raise the ire of many these days: Paul assumes that Elder candidates are of the male persuasion. Women need not apply.

Growing Elders at home

All this brings up an important corollary. We want our Elders to be wise, benevolent and competent, but are dismayed that so few of the available candidates actually actually meet the criteria Paul lays out. If one of the keys to effective oversight and leadership in the church is effective leadership and oversight in the home, we need to equip and enable the men in the church to be effective at home. Is it possible that one of the reasons there are so few qualified men who could be appointed as Elders is that we have not emphasized their role in the home as we ought? But that takes long-range vision and planning. We tend to operate with a quite short horizon. Perhaps if we taught men how to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25-28) from before the time they marry, and to raise their children in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4) from the time the kids are born, we’d have more men qualified to lead in the church 20 years down-road. Let me forestall the notion someone is sure to bring up, of sending our men to Bible college to learn how to be effective husbands and fathers. It just isn’t going to happen that way! Even if it were possible to send everyone to Bible college – which it certainly isn’t – a student would typically get only a single one-semester course on family and marriage during an entire four-year degree program. No, it’s going to take major commitment on the part of existing leadership in the churches to provide year-in and year-out training, mentoring and support if we are going to develop the kinds of homes, and thus the kinds of leaders the church needs. Something to think about!

Christians have curiously mixed attitudes towards prosperity and affluence. Many have merely adopted the attitude of the culture in which they live. They have the same concerns, the same desires and the same reactions as their unbelieving neighbors. Just like their neighbors, they worry about how to stretch the paycheck to cover the mortgage, pay something on their credit card bill, save up for the next vacation and finance the kids’ education. Just like their neighbors, they dream about having a larger disposable income. It has probably never even occurred to many of these Christians that there could be any other way to look at things.

Others have concluded that prosperity is a Christian’s birthright. They think that wealth and affluence are indications that they have God’s approval. Some even go to the extreme of saying that it is a Christian’s duty to become wealthy. Moderate income, lack of material possessions, and sometimes even poor health, are taken as signs that a person is outside of God’s will.

Still other Christians view prosperity with deep suspicion. They have a tendency to look at all money, regardless of source, as tainted. Though required in order to live in today’s world, it is a necessary evil. Wealth must have been acquired through questionable, if not dishonest, means. Even Christians who do not adopt this extreme distrust of prosperity and affluence, are often troubled by the way the world’s wealth is distributed. If they enjoy a modicum of prosperity, they feel almost guilty that others do not have the opportunity.

Now, your attitude toward prosperity and affluence does not necessarily depend on how much you actually have. The “love of money” can, and does, afflict the poor just as easily as the rich. But I suspect that wrong attitudes in this area are more of a potential problem in our day and age that at any other time of history. You see, affluence wasn’t a realistic possibility for most people until fairly recently. Oh sure, like Tevye, we might occasionally daydream about “If I were a rich man,” but we normally don’t waste much consideration on things which are hopelessly out of reach. And that’s just what affluence was – an impossible dream.

For most of human history, and in most societies there were basically two kinds of people: The haves and the have-nots. Either you were rich, or you were poor. The gap between the two conditions was large and there were comparatively few people in it. And, while the rich could become poor, there was little opportunity to change your status from poor to rich. At least that’s what my reading of history seems to indicate.

While, historically, the poor may not have had much opportunity to change their status relative to the rich, their condition was affected by general economic conditions. The poor generally experience even greater hardship during an economic downturn. Conversely they, along with everyone else, tend to benefit from a booming economy. “A rising tide lifts all boats.” General prosperity increases the opportunity for individual prosperity.

With that in mind, I think it is highly significant that God told the Israelite exiles to pray for the prosperity of Babylon. “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”” (Jeremiah 29:4-7 NIV) It’s incredible that even though the Israelite people had been driven into exile as a result of their sin, God still cared for them and desired them to prosper. It reminds me of Romans 2:4, “…God’s kindness leads you toward repentance…” (NIV)

In our day, aside from prayer, what is it that drives prosperity? What brings affluence to a whole region or nation? I blame it on the horse collar. No, not really, it’s not the horse collar but rather what the horse collar represents which is one of the major causes of prosperity and affluence. You see, it was the invention of the horse collar which made rapid transportation and large cities viable. If memory serves, before the collar, a horse couldn’t haul much more than its own weight without choking on the harness. With the collar it could (if I have my figures straight) haul ten times its own weight. Because a horse is much faster than an ox, this meant that produce and other goods could be moved more quickly than before. It also meant that a farmer could plow more quickly or, and this is the important thing, could plow a larger area in the same day. This meant that fewer people were needed on the farm to accomplish the same amount of work. Redundant people tended to move to the cities in the attempt to find employment in the manufacture of goods or in providing services. The horse collar, in turn, made it possible to haul enough produce to feed the larger cities and to transport the goods produced in them. Thus, began the long process of migration from the farm to cities. The trend accelerated dramatically during the industrial revolution when steam, internal combustion engines and, later, electricity, began to displace muscle power. I witnessed the mechanization of the farm in the country where I grew up. Untold thousands of people were displaced from the countryside and flocked to the cities hoping to find work.

Where was this work supposed to come from? Who was going to provide it? Why factories, of course! But that was only a hope. A factory can exist only as long as there is a market for its products. So, in order for people to find work in a factory, the factory has to produce something that can be sold. The big question is, “Who is going to buy the stuff the factories produce?” Obviously, people who can afford to do so. The problem is that it takes a degree of affluence in order to buy non-essential goods. But when only a small percentage of the population is affluent, the rich can consume only so much. So, we have the classic problem of people needing work which will only be provided if someone will buy the goods produced. But nobody can buy the goods unless they have the means to do so. And they won’t have the means to do so unless they have work. It’s a vicious circle.

Enter Henry Ford. In the early days of the automobile, most manufacturers produced high priced vehicles intended for the well-to-do. The logic was quite simple: The well-to-do were the ones with the money. Also, higher priced vehicles carry a higher profit margin so you had to sell fewer of them in order to get a decent return. The problem with this strategy was, of course, that there were relatively few well-to-do people able to afford the high priced vehicles. This, in turn, meant that relatively few expensive vehicles could be produced before the market was saturated. There was little room for growth or expansion. Ford’s genius was that he realized that it was possible to increase the market by reducing the price of his cars. The reduced profit on each individual vehicle would be offset by the increased volume of sales. In order to make lower prices possible, Ford turned his attention to increasing efficiency of production. During the years 1913-1914 Ford introduced the first moving assembly lines in his factories. As a result the time needed to produce a Model T automobile fell 87%. By the end of 1916 Ford was able to lower the price of a Model T 58% to only $345, yet still rake in millions in profits.

Had Ford merely lowered the costs of production and the price he charged for his cars the impact on society would have been relatively minor. The main difference would have been that the wealthy accumulated their wealth even faster. But he did something else which had a profound influence on the economy, not only of the United States but the whole world. In 1914 he introduced the $5 a day wage plan. At the time such a high level of compensation for a day’s work was unheard of. Thousands of desperate men from all over the United States swarmed into Detroit in hopes of being one of the fortunate who landed a job in the Ford factories. While some applauded Ford for a stupendous act of generosity, others derided him as an altruistic fool who would not be able to sustain such astounding wages. Others denounced him for mixing “spiritual principles” with business. What Ford’s detractors could not know was that with the efficiencies obtained by the moving assembly line, Ford could have easily paid his workers much more and still made a handsome profit.

Something else which Ford realized, and his detractors did not, was that by increasing wages he also increased the purchasing power of his workers. He expressed his philosophy this way: “I hold that it is better to sell a large number of cars at reasonably small margin than to sell fewer cars at a large margin of profit. I hold this because it enables a larger number of people to buy and enjoy the use of a car and because it gives a larger number of men employment at good wages. Those are two aims I have in life.” (As quoted by Robert Lacey in Ford, The Men and the Machine, Ballentine Books, New York, 1986, p. 179)

What was the result of those high wages? According to Lacey, in two short years, the value of houses owed by Ford employees increased 900%. In the same period, their savings rose some 282%.

To his credit, Ford never attempted to patent any of the assembly-line and manufacturing technologies which he and his team invented – something which he could have easily done. The techniques Ford pioneered were soon adopted by manufacturers everywhere. They had to in order to remain competitive. Other manufacturers were also forced to follow Ford’s lead in paying higher wages. For who was to buy all the increased output of the newly efficient factories if it were not for the very laborers who operated them? Efficient factories produced large quantities of goods at comparatively inexpensive prices. High wages enabled workers to buy the goods. The standard of living rose with increased purchasing power.

There is no doubt that the U.S. economy, and that of much of the world, is now based on consumption. Consumption and the ability to consume has produced a level of affluence unprecedented in all of human history. More people have more wealth than ever before. The middle-class U.S. consumer is the engine which drives much of the world’s economy.

And this brings us back to those ambivalent attitudes I mentioned at the beginning. On the one hand, consumption has brought prosperity and increased standards of living all over the world. What could possibly be wrong with that? Like the exiles of Israel should we not pray for the prosperity of the place we live? If the American consumer were to suddenly stop buying, it would bring genuine hardship to millions.

On the other hand, there is something about the consumption economy which seems cross-grained to Christianity. For one thing, there’s the sheer waste of it. It just seems wrong to throw so much away! This is particularly evident in high-tech. We are forced to toss out perfectly good equipment for the sole reason that it’s no longer compatible with the latest software. When something breaks it’s often cheaper to replace it than to repair it. Somehow, it doesn’t sit well, even when there isn’t a viable alternative.

Another way in which the consumer economy seems at odds with Christianity is that it is so materialistic. It’s easy to allow the sheer number of ‘things’ to divert time and attention from what is really important. Is it really necessary to have so many gadgets? The bigger house? The newer car? Does it really matter if the neighbor buys something we don’t have? The Apostle Paul writes, “For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.” (1 Timothy 6:7-8 NIV)

And that, I think, is the solution to living a Christian life in a consumer economy. It’s a matter of perspective. Having things is not wrong in itself. In its place, consumption is okay too – particularly when it provides employment and daily necessities for someone else. Where we get into trouble is when we allow the things to take priority. Jesus said, “…do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matthew 6:31-33 NIV)

How will the leader shortage be filled?

Have you ever wondered what preachers talk about when they get together? Being as I’m not only a preacher’s kid but a missionary’s kid as well, and have witnessed countless such chin-wags, I think I can answer the question with some authority. Like any other group of like-minded people, preachers will eventually start “talking shop” even if that wasn’t the purpose of their get-together. They’ll laugh over the amusing incidents which have occurred in their ministries. They’ll commiserate, or chuckle depending on circumstances, over some of the bone-headed faux-pas they’ve pulled in the pulpit. They’ll pray together. They’ll weep over the tragedies. They’ll ask and give advice about how to handle various situations. They’ll bounce ideas or sermon topics off each other. They’ll argue theology or ask each other’s insights about passages of Scripture. But there’s one topic which probably comes up more than any other. It’s almost inevitable that sooner or later, preachers will start bemoaning the shortage of preachers, the dearth of leaders in the church in general, and wonder where the next crop of workers in the church is going to come from. I’ve heard several conversations that painted the situation in terms of crisis.

Leadership crisis

There really is a crisis. There is a perpetual shortage of leaders in the church. While I don’t agree with the system which says that a church must have a ‘pulpit minister,’ it is the system followed by almost all of the congregations with which I am familiar. At any given time, there seem to be several that are looking for someone to fill the pulpit. I know of congregations which have looked for six months or more before finding someone to fill the position. If even existing congregations have trouble filling leadership slots, then where are the leaders going to come from to plant new congregations?

The situation is even more dire than it appears on the surface. If, as I believe, congregations should not be dependent upon ‘pulpit ministers’ but should be led by Elders who are competent to speak and teach, there is an even greater lack of qualified leaders. The same lack is evident when it comes to competent Deacons and Teachers.

Bible colleges aren’t the answer

For at least the last 100 years or so the thinking has been that Bible colleges and seminaries would train and supply the leaders we need. By now it should be obvious to all that the strategy isn’t working. If the colleges and seminaries really were the answer to solving the shortage of leaders, the shortage wouldn’t exist. If they haven’t been able to solve the problem in over 100 years of trying, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to do so any time soon.

There are a lot of practical reasons why the colleges and seminaries will never be capable of turning out the leaders we need. Consider:

1) In many cases students are forced to move to where the college is located if they are to receive training.
2) As a result, those with leadership potential who are unable to relocate, or choose not to do so, are unable to receive appropriate training.
3) In the case of those who do go, their home congregations are deprived of the services of some of their most talented and capable people.
4) Many of those who go do not return. Instead of gaining trained leaders, the home church loses them.
5) The cost is often prohibitive. The colleges must charge high tuitions in order to maintain their infrastructures and staff.

These are just a few of the practical limitations of the college/seminary model. But the real problem with the college or seminary approach to leadership training is systemic. More on that later.

Unfulfilled vision

My father has often told me that when he was in Bible college, the professors said that the college was merely an expedient. As the students established congregations according to the New Testament model, the congregations would take over the burden of training and the need for the college would end. Obviously, it didn’t happen. Far from disappearing, the college my father attended grew and, during the 60 years since, has become a university.

Not only that, in spite of the fine words of the professors, the training they gave didn’t equip their students to train others. Nor did they give practical training in the establishment and operation of congregations based on the New Testament model. The men they trained, and the churches the men established after their training were, for the most part, incapable of passing on the training to the next generation. (At least they haven’t done so.)

Let me give you an example. Aside from some classes taught by my father while on the mission field, plus a few academic courses taught by ministers in local churches, I have no formal training in church work. The few courses I’ve had were mostly of the survey type, or doctrinal, and were very short on practical application. What I know has largely been learned through observation, self-study and by doing. When I and a few others established a new congregation where I served for while as an Elder, I was surprised by the sheer amount of administrative detail and the mechanics of running a congregation. Out of curiosity, I asked my father what he had been taught in college about the practical details of leading a congregation. The answer was revealing. He hadn’t been taught anything. He and his contemporaries were expected to go out and start congregations, but were given little or no information about how to organize the various ministries, how to plan the assemblies, oversee the finances or any of the other practical disciplines which are needed for a congregation to function. They were expected to somehow muddle through and figure it out on their own. Even worse, they were never instructed how to recruit and train other leaders.

Just for fun, I’ve looked at the current course catalogs of some of the colleges and seminaries. In all fairness, I have to say that there appears to be an attempt to address the lack of practical knowhow that my father’s generation faced. In skimming through the catalogs I noticed several courses on practical aspects of ministry. In addition, the schools also support internships of various types and lengths. All this is to the good. Yet, unless I have misunderstood, in a typical 4-year degree program of 160 credit-hours, only 2 or 3 credit-hours of practical ministry is required. I’m sorry, but something is out of balance when a program, whose stated purpose is to train people to work in the church, requires more time spent learning English and History than in learning the practical nuts and bolts of ministry.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me hasten to say that I do not question the motives of the educators. I respect their dedication in trying to train up leaders to serve the church. I respect and admire even more those in my father’s generation who went out with inadequate training to do a very difficult task. In spite of the shortcomings of their training, they started many congregations from scratch – many of which are going concerns to this day. As a result of their work, untold thousands have come to know the Lord.

Captured by the system

Though I think the college/seminary model is deeply flawed, there is no doubt that much good has been accomplished through it. It can be argued that had the system not been in place, the leadership crisis would be far worse than it currently is. Yet, the very successes of the colleges contain one of the seeds of the continuing problem.

The emphasis of the colleges in my father’s day – and it is an emphasis which is still present – was on turning out Evangelists. Now don’t get me wrong. The role of the Evangelist is absolutely essential. The world needs as many as we can get. The problem is that the role, as taught in the colleges, and as practiced by those so taught, is quite different than the picture given in the New Testament. In spite of lip-service to the contrary, many Evangelists seem to have forgotten part of their biblical job-description. As I understand it, the Bible does not contemplate ‘pulpit ministers’ much less the ‘pastor system’ which is so rampant these days. In contrast, Evangelists are to, first of all, evangelize and, then, set churches in order. Inherent in setting churches in order is the training and nurturing of leaders to take over the shepherding of the flock – including the speaking and teaching. It was never intended that Evangelists do the majority of the speaking or dominate the administration and pastoral roles of the church. Those functions were to be turned over to others so that Evangelists could concentrate on their primary task of preaching the gospel to the unsaved.

The colleges, however, have fostered the ‘pulpit minister’ syndrome. In practice, what generally happens, is that a preacher (Evangelist) either establishes a new congregation or takes over an existing one and is virtually the person who runs it. Instead of training others to shoulder the pastoral responsibilities, he trains them to be dependent on the services that he and others like him provide. More often that not, he is the one who appoints the Elders (or lacking Elders, a board of some sort). Since they are not trained to shepherd; since they have little opportunity to speak and teach (though Scripture makes the ability to teach a primary requirement of an Elder) they are often little more than business managers. If the Evangelist leaves, they are almost forced to hire another one to take over the pastoral responsibilities. It’s a vicious circle. This is one reason why I call it a systemic problem.

Measuring the wrong things

There’s another reason why the Bible college/seminary model of leader training has a systemic problem: By it’s very nature, a Bible college or seminary places a priority on academic attainment. If you pass enough classes of the right kind, you will, in due season, be issued a piece of paper which confers a degree upon you. This is often accompanied by ordination which declares that you are qualified to minister in the church. Leaving aside the issue of where the authority to ordain should reside, there are at least three problems with this approach. The first is that the courses offered may have little relevance to the spiritual disciplines of ministry. As an extreme example, I have heard that it is possible to obtain an MDiv (Master of Divinity) without taking a single Bible course! How could such a degree possibly equip anyone to teach and expound the Scriptures?

The second problem is even more serious. I have long suspected that there is little or no correlation between academic qualifications and effective spiritual leadership. In other words, much of leadership cannot be learned in the classroom. Conversely, a person who is gifted in spiritual leadership might not be equipped to succeed in academia. I read somewhere that roughly half of the founders of the mega-churches do not have seminary training. While I certainly do not agree with the mega-church model, shouldn’t that statistic tell us something about using a seminary degree as a predictor of ministry success? I recently watched a video of Malcolm Gladwell speaking at the 2008 New Yorker Conference. In his speech he talked about what he calls The Mismatch Problem. A mismatch occurs, he said, “…when the criteria we use… to assess someone’s ability to do a job is radically out of step with the actual demands of the job itself.” I would argue that we have such a mismatch when we use a Bible college degree as a selection requirement in picking our leaders. We all want knowledgeable and competent leaders. It might seem logical that requiring a degree would help ensure that our leaders are competent. But Gladwell points out an unpleasant corollary. By increasing the requirements we demand of candidates, we also narrow the field. There are fewer people from whom to select. The attempt to raise standards by requiring a degree may actually cause us to pass over the very people who would be best for the job.

The third problem, and this may be the biggest of all, is that while a degree may be an indicator that a person has a measure of knowledge in a particular academic discipline, it says nothing about character. The possession or lack of a degree will never tell you whether a given individual is full of pride or whether he is full of the wisdom which comes from above (James 3:17). A degree does not confer on anyone the servant spirit and humility which are the prime qualifications for ministry.

Sour grapes?

Some might wonder how much of my prejudice against Bible colleges is a result of my own lack of academic credentials? It’s a fair question. Am I against Bible colleges as a defense mechanism? Well, yes, at times I am sensitive about my lack of degrees. I’ve been hurt more than once by people who couldn’t see past my lack of formal credentials to what I knew or could do.

In another sense, though, my criticisms of the Bible college system has nothing to do with my own lack of a sheepskin. Quite the contrary for, in many ways, the academic life really appeals to me. A few years ago, my wife and I toured the campus of the Christian liberal-arts university where my daughter planned to get her degree. (No, she didn’t enroll in the school of divinity! Her major is writing.) As I looked around I realized that it would be very easy for me to fit right in. In fact, I would enjoy it. There’s a part of me which would revel in the learning environment and taking classes. I would enjoy teaching Bible subjects on a college level even more. I think I could be quite good at it. I’ve been asked more than once, by people who have taken my classes at church, whether I’d ever considered teaching at a Bible college.

My lack of a sheepskin has closed that door, so there’s really no use talking about it. But, I have to admit that it would be tempting if an offer ever did come my way. As a matter of principle, though, I would probably have to decline. While the motives for establishing the colleges were good, I suspect that, at this point in church history, the colleges may be doing more harm than good to the cause of furthering the New Testament church model.

What’s the solution?

“Okay, PresbyterJon,” you may be saying to yourself. “Now that you’ve told us all about how horrible the current state of affairs is, what do we do about it? What’s your grand solution to the training problem? What’s your alternative to the Bible college? Time to put up, or shut up!”

I freely confess to you that, at this point, I do not have a completely viable alternative. I can see the vague outlines of how things ought to be, but there are many questions which have not yet been answered. My father and I have actually done quite a bit of brainstorming about an alternative. We came up with a concept of several congregations cooperating together to provide training. The basic idea goes something like this: Leaders in each congregation teach classes in their areas of competency. The classes are taught on-line, or using other distance teaching techniques, so students can remain in their local congregations. The training of each student is overseen by the leadership of the local congregation to which he belongs. There are four academic tracks, one for each of the positions of church leadership mentioned in the New Testament – Evangelist, Elder, Deacon and Teacher. The local congregation evaluates competency and makes the decision whether or not to ordain. Though the goal is to train leaders, the courses are open to anyone in the congregation who wishes to take them. In this way, not only are leaders trained, but the general level of Bible literacy in the congregation is raised. (This is only a bare outline of the concept. The actual proposal is far more detailed.)

But, while the basic idea has some merit, I have to admit I am not entirely comfortable with it – even though I am one of the major architects. Aside from a suspicion that our plan is weighted far too heavily toward book knowledge, I have a gut feeling that we’ve overlooked something basic and fundamental. But what? That is the question.

Characteristics of a training program

Even though I am not totally happy with the training program proposal I helped create, and even though I am not entirely sure how to solve the training problem, I think I can say what some of the characteristics of leadership training should be:

1) It must emphasize character over academic attainment. A sheepskin doth not a leader make. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “…Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” (1 Corinthians 8:1 NIV) It is not academic credentials, but time spent with Jesus which empowers leaders (See Acts 4:13).
2) It must put a priority on practical application. Training must be taken out of the realm of theory. It must affect, and apply to, life. Note the connection between teaching and lifestyle in what Paul writes, “Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:16-17 NIV)
3) It must be centered in the local congregation rather than an outside institution. The New Testament assigns the task of training to the leaders of the church rather to some other entity (See Ephesians 4:11-13).
4) It must empower new leaders. Perhaps one of the greatest temptations leaders face is to retain power. But we will never be successful in developing the kind of leadership the church needs until we learn to relinquish. John the Baptist well understood this principle when he said of Jesus, “He must become greater; I must become less.” (John 3:30 NIV) Jesus, Himself, practiced the same principle when He told the disciples, “…I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7 NIV) The disciples could never have developed as leaders if Jesus had not empowered them. Here’s how I envision this principle working in practice: Existing leaders consciously work themselves out of the job. They relinquish more and more of their responsibilities to the people they train. During this period of time, the congregation has also been growing (a part of training is preaching to the the lost). When a congregation reaches about 125 or so, it makes plans to replicate itself. By that time the new leadership which has been trained is capable of either leading the new congregation which is formed, or the old one should their trainers/mentors decide to go with the new group. Then, the process of training additional leaders continues in both the old and the new congregations until replication can take place again.

An act of faith

Labeling this essay “Part 1” is an act of faith. Though I do not presently have the answers to the questions I’ve raised; though I, myself, am still groping toward a solution to the training problem, I have confidence that there is a solution. I can visualize the end result, but I don’t yet know how to make it happen. I can tell you one thing though, I’m going to keep on questioning and exploring in order to find a solution.

It is critical that we do find a solution to the leadership training and development problem. Perhaps there will be a “Part 2” and “Part 3” to this series as I’m granted further insight.

One of the things which made Jesus’ teaching so effective was His use of the ordinary. He was able to use the common and usual to illustrate profound spiritual truths. The truths had always been there, but nobody had thought of them quite that way before. Or, to put it another way, Jesus gave new meaning to ordinary things. Who could ever look at a flower or a sparrow in quite the same way after hearing Jesus talk about them?

Sometimes we become so used to our environment that we lose sight of the lessons we can learn from the ordinary. It’s only when we are confronted with a different set of circumstances that we realize just how blessed we’ve been. The following tales are adapted from some journal entries I made while on a mission trip.

Consider the source

“Water is one of those things we in the West often take for granted. Just turn on the appropriate tap depending on whether you want hot or cold. If you want a drink, take it right from the tap. As with most things out here, the water situation requires a shift in thinking. Unless you’re a local, drinking right from the tap is unthinkable, and risky even if you are. Fortunately, bottled water is plentiful and reasonably priced. Presumably, bottled water wouldn’t be so commonly available if a great many people didn’t see the need for it. But the concept seems to go only so far. We were at the airline office the other day to confirm our tickets. While waiting for our number to be called, I noticed that there was a water cooler in the middle of the room. I thought it was rather considerate of the airline to provide safe drinking water for its customers. What made me do a double-take, however, was the communal glass on top of the water bottle. Nobody seemed to think it was any big deal. Lots of people used the glass, seemingly as the usual and normal thing to do. Now, maybe I’m missing something here, but doesn’t using a communal glass, sort of negate the benefit of drinking bottled water? Especially, the same glass as people about whom you know nothing? Who knows what sort of diseases the person who drank right before you might have?”

In the Old Testament, God calls Himself, a ‘fountain of living water.’ (See Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13) Jesus also spoke of ‘living water’ when He promised the Holy Spirit to His disciples (John 7:38-39). If ever there was a source of pure water, surely that is it. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that we not only have to consider the purity of the water, but also the container from which we drink. How many spiritual diseases have I picked up because I’ve drunk from a container encrusted with bad habits, unsanctified cultural bias or unscriptural tradition?

Do I even consider the source from which I drink? The Apostle Peter warns that there will be false teachers even in the church (2 Peter 2:1). It’s interesting that Peter goes on to say that these people are “springs without water.” (2 Peter 2:17 NIV) If I’m not careful about checking out the source, instead of a refreshing drink of living water, I can easily swallow deadly poison.

In contrast, knowing the source gives confidence about the purity of the teaching. Paul wrote to Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14-15 NIV)

A free gift

“Back home, if a faucet drips we usually get the thing fixed fairly rapidly. Out here I have seen faucets left running full bore onto the floor, for hours – to no purpose that I could see. One would think that in an area which experiences water shortages that there would be a public consciousness about such waste. But more than that, and even lacking such a consciousness, what I can’t understand is why such waste wouldn’t make a drastic difference in the water bill. In a poor household you’d think that every effort would be made to shave the utility bills down to a bare minimum. Perhaps they pay a flat rate no matter how much water is consumed?”

However, when I think about it, the running faucet illustrates God’s generosity. There is no shortage or lack with Him. He pours out His blessings on us without measure. God is lavish with His gifts. He pours them upon us. “…God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit…” (Romans 5:5 NIV) In the context, the pouring out of God’s love involves Christ’s death on our behalf. How could anyone be more generous than that? The Apostle John describes this love as ‘lavish.’ “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!…” (1 John 3:1 NIV)

James mentions another aspect of God’s generosity. “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5 NIV) What I especially appreciate about that verse is that God not only gives wisdom, He doesn’t begrudge it. He doesn’t accuse or find fault. He generously and lavishly gives what we need.

But what about the water bill? While Christ does tell us to ‘count the cost’ before deciding to follow Him (see Luke 14:26-33), he doesn’t make us pay for salvation itself. There’s nothing we can do to earn it or even deserve it (Ephesians 2:8-9). It’s Jesus who paid the price. “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” (Revelation 22:17 NIV)

Tepid water

Then, there’s the matter of water temperature…

“Mr. C. pointed out that water pipes aren’t insulated out here. Since water heaters are often located some distance from the place you want the hot water, this means you have to run the water for quite a while before it gets hot. Not only does this waste water, it also requires more of whatever fuel you use to heat the water.”

In the summer you have the opposite problem. Because of the long, unprotected water lines, you have to let the faucet run a while in order to get cool water. Combined with water shortages (there are lots of times when there is no water at all) this can make for some very uncomfortable bathing.

It’s interesting that Christ uses the metaphor of tepid water to describe us at times. He had this to say to the church in Laodicea: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16 NIV)

Hmm… The next time I can’t get the temperature right in the shower, maybe it would be good to ask myself what the temperature of my spiritual life is. Am I just coasting along, going with the flow, trying to get by with a minimum of effort, or am I really ‘on fire’ for God? Can Jesus stomach what I’m doing, or is He ready to ‘spew’?

The prayer of a righteous man…

(James 5:16)

I don’t suppose that any Christian would dispute that prayer is important. Yet, in the West, we sometimes view prayer with a certain measure of skepticism or unbelief. The whole concept of prayer, particularly intercessory prayer, runs a bit counter to the rationalism which has shaped so much of our culture. Many are more than a little uncomfortable with passages such as James 5:14-18. This is an area where we can learn from the faith of fellow believers in other cultures. However, when the Bible’s teaching on prayer has not been fully understood, or it’s layered on top of pagan concepts, it can result in some interesting situations…

“We’re often asked to pray over people. After the assembly where we spoke the other night a lady brought a bottle of warm water to me. At first I thought she meant it for me to drink during the common meal which was about to be served. Though appreciating the sentiment, I wasn’t about to oblige as the water was obviously not of commercial origin. Fortunately, the lady explained her real intent before I made too big a fool of myself by refusing something meant for my enjoyment. She explained that her children were sick. She wanted me to pray for them and, in addition, to bless the water which she would then give them to drink. No doubt the blessed water would effect a cure. Well, I did pray for the children but I did not bless the water. Since I am not at home enough in the local language to pray in it, I prayed in English. I really don’t know whether this poor woman, who was in all sincerity trying to do what was best for her children, thought the water had been blessed or not. I’m sure she didn’t understand a word of the prayer, so very well may have left with the impression that I had complied with her wishes. It was another of those situations, which seem to come my way quite often, which leaves you feeling rather foolish and uncomfortable and wondering what you should have done differently. Among other things, I found myself left with a theological conundrum: Granting the woman’s presuppositions regarding blessings, (which, by the way, I don’t) would a blessing counteract the effects of tainted water? Supposing the water to be tainted, to what extent am I an accessory to the crime of giving it to her children to drink? I don’t have answers, and I doubt that there are answers in situations like this. About all you can do, is do the best you can under the pressure of the moment. God have mercy!”

Pure water

“Though there are times when there are water shortages out here, there are also times when there is entirely too much water. A few days ago, we had torrential rains. Now I really don’t know whether the drainage is inadequate, the drains were blocked, or a combination of the two. But the next morning when we got near the place we needed to be, there was raw sewage running down the street. It was flowing up out of a manhole and covered the entire width of the street. There was no alternative but to walk through it to get there. Lovely. We not only had to walk through it, we got to smell the effluent the whole time we were there. Doubly lovely. As a matter of fact, we’ve had to walk through sewage several times to get to where we were going. You know, it’s really not surprising that people get sick out here. What’s amazing is that anybody is well.”

There’s a parallel between the situation with the sewage and a lot of the spiritual information and teaching that’s given these days. People sometimes wonder why I’m so persnickety about doctrine. After all, there’s a lot of truth in what we hear from radio preachers and what we read on various websites. So what if a little is wrong? What’s the harm? Well, I suppose that the same could be said about the sewage I walked through. It was probably about 98 percent water. It’s not the water that I object to, it’s that other 2 percent. It takes very little to taint or pollute the whole. In terms of total volume, by far the greatest portion of the sewage was composed of something good and wholesome. But mix in that tiny percentage of pollutant and it was transformed into something vile and deadly. In the same way we should evaluate what we hear and read not only by the amount of truth it contains, but by the falsehood that is in it. “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 NIV)

Scripture gives us two reasons why we need to concern ourselves with the purity of the message we accept. Peter expresses the positive side of it in 1st Peter 2:2, “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation…” (NIV) We grow when we feed on the pure and wholesome.

On the other hand merely coming into contact with some teaching places us in mortal danger. Jude writes, “…to others show mercy, mixed with fear–hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” (Jude 23 NIV) We need to handle some teaching with the same precautions and care as we would the clothing of the victims of cholera or other highly contagious diseases – or which has come into contact with sewage!

In what sense are our assemblies a service?

Something has really been bothering me lately. Some of those who know me would retort that it doesn’t take much to bother me. Be that as it may, the pain has gotten bad enough that I need to try to clear my head by writing about this particular topic. What, you ask, am I blathering about? It’s that phrase, ‘church service.’

Definition needed

On the one hand, the phrase ‘church service’ is so common and wide-spread that I feel almost foolish trying to define it. We all know what is meant. When we use the term, we are referring to the time(s) the church gets together in order to worship God, partake of the Communion and listen to the Word explained. We use the phrase, in particular, for the meetings which take place on Sunday.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, I’m not at all sure what we mean by ‘church service.’ It’s not the ‘church’ part of the phrase that has me bothered. We all know (or ought to know) that the church is not a building, but the people whom God has called out of the world to Himself. But what I don’t understand is in what sense our meetings are associated with ‘service.’

Service to God?

Feel free to correct me but, as far as I know, the Bible never calls a meeting of the church a service. So, what do we mean when we call our assemblies a ‘service’? Are we really serving God when we assemble and, if so, in what sense? I have a horrible suspicion that, subconsciously, many of us have the idea that our meetings are some sort of meritorious work which will earn us God’s favor. If that’s the concept behind calling our meetings a service, then some serious re-thinking is in order. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about the people who thought that they could get into God’s good graces by their deeds of righteousness? Remember the parable of the two men who went to the Temple to pray? (Luke 18:9-14) The guy who thought he had it made because of his fasting and praying was not the one whom God accepted.

Even more dangerous than trying to win God’s favor is the notion that we are doing God some sort of favor by showing up and going through the motions on Sunday. Unless I’ve missed something pretty basic, God has desires but no needs. Even if He had needs, we certainly couldn’t supply them. “I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.” (Psalm 50:9-12 NIV)

It is when we lose sight of the transcendence of God; it is when we forget how high and mighty and holy He is that we begin to elevate ourselves and forget that it is only through Christ that we have any standing at all. We might even do the right things, but they won’t glorify God. And if we are not glorifying God through the religious activities we are involved in, it won’t be long before we start to skimp on those too. Soon we’ll just be going through meaningless motions. It was precisely for this attitude, and the actions which it led to, that God rebuked the Israelites in the Old Testament. ““A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the LORD Almighty. “It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name. But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ You place defiled food on my altar. But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table is contemptible. When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the LORD Almighty. “Now implore God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”-says the LORD Almighty. “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.”” (Malachi 1:6-10 NIV)

Instead of rituals, God wants our hearts and our wills. If He’s got those, then the appropriate actions will follow. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6 NIV)

Perhaps things will be less confusing if, instead of calling our meetings ‘church services,’ we refer to them as ‘worship services.’ What’s the connection between worship and service? The two are mentioned together in numerous places, but seem to be separate things. I think it is fair to say that if we serve God we will also worship, but is worship a ‘service’? It may be. Hebrews 8:2-3 indicates that offering “gifts and sacrifices” is a part of service. And, Hebrews 13:15 calls praise to God a sacrifice. So, I suppose, it is legitimate to call our meetings ‘worship services’ – provided, of course, that we really are worshiping from the heart and not merely going through the motions.

Service to the saints?

Can we in any sense call our meetings ‘services’ because in them we are serving God’s people? Some translations have Paul saying in Romans 1:9 that he serves God by preaching the gospel. But the word ‘preaching’ is not actually in the text. It is supplied by the translators. Since Paul is writing to Christians and he goes on in verse 15 to say that he wants to preach the gospel to them, I suppose that we can say that speaking to the church is a service. But it seems a stretch to call the meeting itself a service.

Similarly, some translations indicate that Elders serve by overseeing the flock (1 Peter 5:2). But again, the word ‘serve’ is an interpretation by the translators. Other translations say that Elders exercise oversight. And, in any case, there is no direct linkage between the service of oversight and the church meetings. Again, it seems a stretch to call the meeting of the church a service. At best, it’s a time when leaders serve.

Service to one another?

Well, is it appropriate to call our meetings ‘services’ because during them we serve one another? After all, we are told to, “…serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13 NIV) We’re told to “carry each other’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2 NIV) We’re told to “…encourage one another and build each other up…” (1 Thessalonians 5:11 NIV)

But this raises another question. If the reason we call our meetings ‘services’ is because the purpose for meeting is to serve one another, do we actually provide the opportunity for people to do so? Not like we should! Consider the typical scenario: We come in and sit down. We listen to someone pray, we sing some songs, partake of the Communion, listen to a sermon, listen to announcements, listen to another prayer, grab a cup of coffee and, then, go home. Whom have we served, besides ourselves? Whose burden have we helped shoulder? Whom have we encouraged? Whom have we built up? Have we even had the opportunity to serve one another?

Restructuring needed

As I think about all this it seems to me that the connection between worship and service is the best reason to call our meetings ‘services.’ But I would like that to change! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our meetings really were a time when everyone could, and did, minister to each other?

In order for that to happen, we’ve got to make some changes in the way we do things. We’ve got to create an atmosphere and church culture which not only encourages, but makes mutual ministry possible. I submit that the typical assembly, instead of enabling service, tends to hinder it. I don’t pretend to have the answers. I don’t pretend to know what to throw out and what to put in its place so that each part of the church body does minister and serve one another. Perhaps part of the solution is to quit relying so much on the sermon and open up our assemblies to sharing and participation. We’ve seen some wonderful things happen when we’ve tried it. I don’t have the answers, but it’s sure something I’m going to keep thinking about and try to implement!

Concerning foundational truths.

It used to be that just about every English speaking person in Great Britain and the U.S. had a pretty good idea of what is in the Bible. Even if they lived their lives along totally different lines, they still had a general knowledge of Bible stories, commands, ethics and principles. So, when Wodehouse wrote, “I had been dreaming that some bounder was driving spikes through my head – not just ordinary spikes, as used by Jael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones.” (Code of the Woosters) Or, that so and so was, “A bit like Balaam’s ass… If you recall, it too dug in its feet and refused to play ball.” (Much Obliged Jeeves) Or, when Mark Twain observed a comb which “…had come down from Esau and Samson, and had been accumulating hair ever since…” (Roughing It) it was a safe bet that everybody understood what they were getting at. It ain’t that way any more.

Bible illiteracy

It’s been my observation that more and more people know less and less about the Bible. That’s really ironic since the Bible is still, supposedly, the best-selling book of all time. I can’t help wonder what people actually do with all those Bibles they’re purchasing. Apparently, something besides read them. Even kids who grow up in Christian homes and go to church regularly don’t seem to know much about the Bible. I’m finding that I have to teach a lot of things that I used to be able to take for granted. That speaks volumes, not only about spiritual breakdown in the home but, about what isn’t being emphasized and taught at church. There may be more Bibles sold in more translations than at any time in history; there may be more church buildings being built than ever; there may be an explosion in the number of mega-churches; biblical information may be more readily available to a larger number of people than ever before via the Internet but, somehow, it doesn’t seem to translate into Bible literacy.

Teacher illiteracy

Even worse than biblical illiteracy among the general populous, however, is that sometimes it isn’t much better among those who are supposed to be teachers. I’ve heard several whose knowledge was neither broad nor deep.

But what is really disturbing is those teachers who promote unsound doctrine. Some do so through conviction, but others blindly follow something they’ve heard without studying it out for themselves. I question whether some even know how to check things out before they pass them on. Whether somebody has a sheepskin from seminary or Bible college seems to have little bearing on the issue.

To a large extent, biblical illiteracy among teachers reflects a failure of leadership as a whole. If teachers are incompetent it is because we in leadership have, ourselves, failed to instruct in sound doctrine and to supervise what is taught. We simply have to do a better job of teaching and enforcing the basics: those key doctrines, principles and beliefs which constitute the core of the Christian faith. To give credit where it’s due, this is one issue which the “driven” people try to address. If you’re familiar with the baseball-diamond metaphor promoted by the mega-church whose name begins with an S, you already know that they try to get people to sign onto their core beliefs through what they call the 101 class.

Aside from playing fast and loose with Scripture, which seems to be one of the hallmarks of the “driven” philosophy, there are at least two shortcomings with the 101 approach. The first is that they try to cram it all into one marathon session. There is hardly time to even state what the core beliefs are, let alone consider and reflect upon them. There certainly isn’t much attempt to show how the core beliefs and values are derived from Scripture.

The second difficulty with the 101 approach is that it is largely a one-way, passive process. People are asked to sign a document, but are not asked to state what they, themselves, believe. Because there isn’t much, if any, two-way communication or discussion of what is presented, it is more than likely that the 101 process will not uncover areas of significant difference between what the church states and the people actually believe.

Defining core beliefs

But before we can look at a better model, we have to answer a critical question: “Just what are those foundational beliefs which it is essential for everyone agree on and hold fast to?” An even more fundamental question is, “From where should we derive our beliefs?”

These days the concepts of absolute truth, and even reason, are under attack. But it seems to me that Post Modern relativism suffers from a fatal flaw. If everything is relative, as the proponents of this philosophy would have us believe, then the philosophy of relativism is, itself, relative. If everyone makes their own truth, then relativism is proven false for those who do not accept it. If reason itself is invalid, then its invalidity cannot be demonstrated by reason. In other words, relativism is self-contradictory. There really are absolutes.

Now if an absolute exists, it follows that our core or foundational beliefs should be derived from that absolute. I submit that the absolute from which we should derive our core beliefs is the Bible. When you stop and think about it, the Bible is the only constant we have. Everything else, whether it be church tradition, popular consensus, culture or authoritarian edict, is subject to change. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35 NIV)

The Bible contains a great many doctrines and teachings. Which ones should we consider core or foundational? If you’ve ever tried your hand at writing a statement of faith, you know how tricky it can be to decide what beliefs are essential and non-negotiable, and where you can allow divergent views. Fortunately, the Bible itself tells us what the foundational beliefs are.

In chapter 5, verse 12, the writer of Hebrews chides his readers for their biblical illiteracy. “…though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!” (NIV) Then, in chapter 6, he goes on to explain what the elementary or foundational truths are. “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.” (Hebrews 6:1-3 NIV)

Nine foundational areas

In this passage there is one implied, and eight stated components of basic or foundational belief. They are as follows:

1) The Bible

Though the Bible is not mentioned explicitly in Hebrews 6:1-2, our beliefs about it are certainly implied in such phrases as “teachings about Christ” (6:1). It is the Bible which teaches us about Him. In fact, the entire book of Hebrews presupposes a knowledge and acceptance of the Scriptures. Our view of the Bible will not only have a direct impact on what we believe about Christ, but also on all other areas of belief.

2) Christ

If our beliefs about Christ, who He is, and what He came to do are incorrect, then our whole belief structure will be skewed.

3) Repentance

There’s a huge difference between remorse over being caught and repudiating the wrong which we’ve done.

4) Acts that lead to death

Our society has redefined sin as a ‘mistake’ or an ‘alternate lifestyle choice.’

5) Faith in God

Popular concepts of God seem to alternate between a capricious, perpetually angry tyrant who is waiting for any excuse to fry the people He doesn’t like and a kindly, senile old man who is really unaware of what’s going on and would merely smile and pat you on the head if He did know.

6) Baptisms

The debate over the role of water baptism is one of the most important of our time. Since it is so closely associated with salvation, a proper understanding of baptism in water is crucial. Similarly, there is much confusion about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

7) The laying on of hands

Personally, I would not have thought of placing the doctrine of the laying on of hands among the core or foundational beliefs. Since it is included, however, a proper understanding of it is essential.

8) The resurrection from the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the central fact of Christianity. Paul goes so far as to state, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:16-19 NIV) Yet, the resurrection of Christ is precisely what many (for example those in the so-called ‘Jesus Seminar’) do deny.

9) Eternal judgment

It’s amazing how many people out there either deny that there will be a judgment or that the consequences of it will be eternal.

Competency testing

Once a church determines what it believes in the nine foundational areas defined above, how can it make sure that everyone in leadership or a teaching role speaks with the same voice in those areas? If I had my way, every leadership candidate and every prospective teacher would be required to write a personal statement of faith which includes what they believe about these basic things. At the very least they should be interviewed and questioned about these 9 areas.

Think about it. One of the benefits of requiring everyone to write out what they believe before they could lead or teach, is that differences in doctrinal positions become obvious right away. It exposes areas where candidates are mistaken, or need more teaching.

Another benefit is that it forces candidates to think about what they believe. It’s amazing how having to write something out, exposes the weak areas in our thinking. Many a time, the process of trying to explain something to someone else has forced me to re-evaluate or re-think what I thought I knew.

It’s also a good way to test someone’s ability to communicate. All of the leadership roles in the New Testament church, with the exception of the Deacon, involve teaching. If a person is unable to clearly explain his own beliefs, is he really capable of teaching in the church?

There’s another benefit, too. A written statement of faith is a great accountability tool. If, after being appointed somebody starts teaching doctrines which are contrary to the position of the church, the written statement is documentary proof that he either lied about what he believes, or has changed his position.

Basics curriculum

The passage in Hebrews not only gives us a way to evaluate candidates for teachers, it tells us what basics we should be teaching. I don’t know about you, but I think it would be an excellent idea to develop a class covering the 9 areas which would be taught to the whole church. I think it would go a long ways toward helping us be like-minded. (See 1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2)

Presbyterjon’s foundational beliefs

“Alright,” you may be saying. “All this is well and good. But are you willing, so to speak, to put your money where your mouth is?” Okay, I will. What follows is a summary of what I believe in regard to the basics.

about the Bible

I believe that the Scriptures we know as the Old and New Testaments were revealed by inspiration to men who wrote down the divine message. I believe that the first copies of what we call the 66 books of the Bible (the autographs) are totally without error. They are totally true and to be believed. Scripture is not only still relevant and applicable in a moral and ethical sense, the texts are accurate in historical detail. Though minor textual problems exist, I believe that the texts of those first documents have been faithfully transmitted to us. With minor exceptions, the text of the Bible has been accurately preserved. While interpretations may differ, the text is trustworthy.

The teaching of the Scriptures is also consistent. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves. The God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New. The teachings of the Apostles agree in all points with that of Christ.

The Bible, and especially the New Testament, is our standard of faith and practice. Though we can learn much from the Old Testament, Christ has fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Therefore Christians are not bound by the rules and regulations found in the Law. Any message or practice which contradicts what God has already revealed in Scripture is not from God and is to be rejected.

about Christ

Who is the Christ? He is Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, he is an historical person who really lived. He is not some myth or allegory. I believe that Jesus is “God in the flesh.” He was born of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life. He was unjustly condemned to death by Pontius Pilate. He was crucified, buried and rose from the dead on the third day after his execution.

What is the Christ? The word Christ means “the anointed one.” In other words, God appointed Jesus to fulfill specific roles. One role which Jesus fills is that of the Prophet. To put it differently, Jesus is God’s spokesman. It is He who reveals God’s will to us. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to follow what Jesus says. I must also reject any message from any source which does not agree with what has been revealed through Jesus.

Another position which Jesus fills as the Christ is that of High Priest. One task of the High Priest is to offer sacrifices for sin. Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins. His sacrifice is perfect and sufficient. As a result, no further sacrifice is necessary. Jesus also fulfills the High Priest’s duty of representing us before God. He is our advocate. One of the implications of this is that I must present my requests to God (pray) through Jesus, or in His name.

A third role Jesus fills as Christ is King. God has given Jesus all authority as well as the divine name ‘Lord.’ Because Jesus is King and Lord, I must obey His commands. I am under His protection as well as His authority.

repentance

To repent literally means ‘to change one’s mind.’ In the context of the verse under consideration, it means to change one’s mind about the the things which lead to spiritual death. In other words, repentance means that if I had the chance to do things over, I would choose not to do the things which have condemned me spiritually. Repentance is far more than sorrow over getting caught. It is changing my attitude towards what is wrong. It is to repudiate my wrong. Without a true repentance, my relationship to God cannot be restored.

acts that lead to death

This is another way of saying, sin. Sin is anything which is contrary to God’s will. We are morally accountable for our sins. The penalty for violating God’s commands, which are wholly right and just, is eternal death – that is, eternal separation from God. In addition to incurring guilt, I become a debtor when I sin because I have not given God the service which is His due. Through the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus has paid sin’s debt for the whole world. In order to remove my guilt, I must die to sin, die to self and die with Christ in baptism.

faith in God

God is One. Though He is One, He exists as a three-fold Person. Within His being are the personalities of the Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. God is eternally extant. He has no beginning or end. God is absolutely holy, righteous and good. He is love. He is omnipotent and omnipresent.

God reveals Himself to mankind through three witnesses. The first witness is that of nature. The universe which He has created, displays His majesty and power. The evidence in nature for the existence of God is overwhelming. Those who deny His existence do so not because of lack of evidence, but for philosophical or moral reasons. Similarly, it is far more logical to believe that God created the universe and all of nature than to accept that the diversity of life arose from any kind of macro or emergent evolution.

The second way in which God reveals Himself is through the written word.

The third way which God reveals Himself is through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus embodies the character and being of God. If we want to know what God is like, we can find out by looking at Jesus.

about baptisms

1) Christian baptism. Baptism is administered to penitent believers. It refers to total immersion in water. Several things occur at the time of, and by means of, baptism.

Baptism is the point at which the spiritual ‘new birth’ is completed.
Baptism is the point at which our sinful nature is removed through a spiritual circumcision.
We become Christ’s, and ‘put on Christ’ at baptism.
Our sins are washed away in baptism.
We are given the pledge of a clean conscience at baptism.
We participate in Christ’s death at baptism.
We enter into covenant relationship with God at baptism.
Just as Christ rose from the tomb, we are raised to a new spiritual life from the waters of baptism.

Baptism is not an option. It is a command of Christ. It is necessary for salvation. There is nothing inherently spiritual or efficacious in the water or act of immersion itself (baptismal regeneration). Nor is baptism a work of merit which buys salvation. On the contrary, baptism is the catalyst for our faith which enables Christ to provide salvation. It is only after his baptism that a penitent believer can legitimately call himself a Christian.

2) Baptism of the Holy Spirit. On two different occasions God sent a special manifestation of the Spirit. These manifestations were characterized by the recipients speaking in foreign languages unknown to them and other paranormal phenomena. The first occurrence was on the day of Pentecost. The second was at the house of Cornelius. Both of these baptisms occurred in special circumstances and demonstrated God’s approval and acceptance of the previously unthinkable. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something which is usual or normal. Every Christian has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but it cannot be characterized as a baptism.

the laying on of hands

1) During the apostolic age, special gifts of the Holy Spirit (such as the gifts of healing, prophecy or speaking in tongues) were given to individual Christians through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. These gifts were important for the growth and maturing of the church before the completion of the New Testament writings. Now that the we have the New Testament, the gifts have been discontinued. Also, the gifts can no longer be imparted because the Apostles are no longer here to do so.

2) Leaders in the church are appointed (ordained) by Evangelists or Elders laying their hands on and consecrating the candidate.

3) Another practice which might be considered ‘laying on of hands’ is the Elders of the church anointing a sick person with oil. If the sick person requests it, the Elders are to anoint him with oil and pray on his behalf. When such prayers are offered in faith, illnesses will be cured and the sins, if any, which caused the illness will be forgiven.

the resurrection of the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is a foretaste or firstfruits of God’s promise that one day all the dead will rise again. Both the righteous and unrighteous will rise. They will be given new bodies which will no longer be subject to physical death and decay. The doctrine of the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. If the dead do not rise, Christ has not risen either. If Christ has not risen, then our faith is useless and futile. Without the resurrection, there is also no forgiveness of sin.

eternal judgment

Both the living and the dead will face God’s righteous judgment. Each of us will have to give account for what we have done. None of us will be justified by our own actions, for all of us have sinned. It is only those of us who have accepted the sacrifice which Christ has made on our behalf who will be found righteous. What we do in this life, and whether we accept Christ, has eternal consequences. Those who are condemned at the judgment will leave the presence of God and go to eternal punishment. Eternal punishment does not mean annihilation in the sense of being snuffed out of existence. It is an active separation from God and anything good. In contrast to this, those who are in Christ will live eternally with Him. God is preparing a new heaven and new earth in which those whom Christ has redeemed will live forever.

Well, there’s a summary of what I believe about the basics. Where do you stand on these issues?

An alternate metaphor for creation.

No matter where you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate, I suspect that this entry will peeve the socks off of you. Here’s why: I am of the opinion that most of the debate; most of the arguments for and against; most of the evidence which is bandied about by both sides, is totally irrelevant. That statement, alone, is justification enough for people in both camps to want to crucify me. But there is method in my madness. Until you’ve had a chance to figure out what it is, please put your hammer and nails away.

Now, right off the bat, a bunch of people will jump to the conclusion that I think it is irrelevant whether we were created or merely evolved. I didn’t say that. Whether God exists and, if so, whether He created the universe and everything in it – including us – is a question of extreme importance. It’s not the question, but what is said about it, which I think is largely irrelevant.

A personal odyssey

While I was growing up, just about the only things I ever heard about evolution were derogatory statements about how stupid it was and how only fools would believe in such nonsense. I don’t remember ever being taught what evolution is or having a serious discussion about what might be wrong with it. It was just ridiculed. Therefore, it was quite a shock to learn in High School biology that evolution has a logic of its own. It is something which can be believed by intelligent people. It really does make sense – provided, of course, that you are willing to accept certain premises. At the time I was too uninformed to grasp the implications of some of those premises. Nor was I experienced enough to spot some of the logical fallacies and the faulty science which was presented. In later years, when I was sharp enough to spot such things, I discovered that evolutionists don’t have a corner on logical fallacy and bad science. Many creationists have the same problem.

I will say, though, that my High School teacher went out of his way to provide a balanced view of the whole subject. Partially as a result of my respect for the teacher and his even-handed approach, I went through a stretch of several years where I believed that God created the universe and got life started, but that He used the mechanism of evolution, particularly natural selection, to develop more complex forms of life.

Sometime during my early 20s the preacher at the congregation I was attending taught a series of lessons on evolution. Much to my surprise, he didn’t go into a bunch of scientific arguments to prove evolution wrong. Instead, he approached the whole subject from a philosophic and spiritual angle. He pointed out what the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary belief are, and what the end results of those philosophies are. Frankly, I don’t remember very many specifics of what he said. But that series of talks helped me realize that I could not ride the fence. There is a clear-cut choice to be made between two opposed and irreconcilable belief systems. The creation accounts in Genesis are actually representative of a particular philosophic outlook. Likewise, evolution theory is an outgrowth of another philosophic outlook. These philosophies or belief structures are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. You’ve got to pick one or the other. Though I still had doubts, I came down on the side of creation.

Several years later, as an intellectual exercise, I tried to set all my beliefs and prejudices aside, (as though that were possible) and take an unbiased look at the question of origins. In some ways I was reluctant to do so for fear of what I might find. As it happened, the results of this quest were very beneficial and greatly reinforced the decision I had made earlier in favor of creation.

My reasons for belief

There were several things which helped persuade me that we, and the entire universe, came into being through an act of divine creation. One was symbiotic relationships. The odds of one complex organism developing into its current form are staggering enough. The odds of two completely different, yet interdependent organisms doing so simultaneously is orders of magnitude more improbable. That there are not just one, but dozens, of these relationships in nature stretches incredulity to the breaking point. The most common symbiotic relationship, and one for which I can see no evolutionary benefit, let alone necessity, is the one between male and female. Both systems must not only work perfectly, but synchronize with the other, or the species dies.

Yet, improbable things do happen. I’m told there is mathematical proof that the highly improbable often does occur. Since anything much beyond basic math goes completely over my head, there is no way for me to check the proof. I’ll just have to accept it as accurate until somebody else demonstrates otherwise. Lest somebody trot out the lottery as an example of this occurring in every-day life, let me point out the fallacy in the illustration. It is true that regardless of the odds of any one person winning the lottery, somebody does win it. But to equate the probability of winning the lottery with the probability of something evolving is a false analogy. Assuming the integrity of the lottery commission, it is fore-ordained that someone will win. There is absolutely nothing which says that evolution will occur at all – unless you are willing to concede that evolution is predetermined. And, if something or Someone is there to predetermine it, there is no need for evolution at all. If something or Someone is capable and powerful enough to predetermine evolution, then there is no logical basis for excluding the possibility that that same something or Somebody created things as they are.

Reason 2

A lot of people like to ridicule the church of the Middle Ages, often unjustly, for holding back science. Yet there is one medieval belief which evolutionists doggedly hold on to even though it flies in the face of all observation and experimental evidence. It’s the belief in spontaneous generation. In order for something to evolve at all, the threshold between the non-living and living must first be crossed. That has always seemed an impossible hurdle to me. It’s interesting that in all the brouhaha about the experiments where some amino acids were formed by shooting electrical sparks into gas mixtures, most commentators failed to mention a few things. They neglected to point out that the experiments were made under very controlled conditions. Conditions which were very, very different than anything which ever existed on early Earth. They also neglected to mention that a few acids weren’t the only things produced by the experiments. They also produced deadly toxins which would kill all life. I won’t go so far as to accuse anyone of deliberate dishonesty, but it does smell of self-delusion.

Reason 3

For many years, I’ve suspected that life, instead of evolving, may actually be devolving. In other words, each succeeding generation is, on average, somewhat less capable and viable than the preceding one. Recently I came across something which not only bears this out, but strengthens my belief in creation. To illustrate, I’ve spent a good portion of my life dealing with audio. I’ve spent more hours than I care to think about behind a mixing console, editing and designing and operating sound systems. Along the way I’ve learned that editing and the tailoring of sound is a subtractive process. It mostly involves the destruction of information.

Yes, it is possible to manipulate sound, but only if it first exists. If it isn’t there to begin with, you can’t manipulate it. Similarly, once material is removed, there is no way to re-create it, even in theory, from what is left. There are many illustrations of this. I’ll give you but one example. That MP3 you’re listening to on your Ipod contains much less material than in the original. In order to fit it into a small file size, the audio is compressed. This is done by throwing away the (hopefully!) least important information. The process cannot be reversed. The information is gone and there is no way, even in theory, to predict what should have been there. This is why MP3s can never be restored to the full quality of the original. It’s also why its inadvisable to edit an MP3 and then store it again in the same format. Each time you do, you lose even more quality, which cannot be restored.

The same sort of thing happens in genetics. There are many ways to lose genetic information. In all the experiments which have been performed, no mechanism has ever been found that increases the amount genetic information. Where did the extra information, let’s say a horse has in comparison to a fly, come from? As far as I know, there isn’t even a natural process to repair or replace the defective information caused by mutations, let alone something which would generate the extra information required for more complex organisms to evolve from less complex ones. Clearly, something else is at work. I think it points to creation.

Reason 4

The thing which convinced me the most, however, is the fact that we human beings have a sense of right and wrong. I don’t see how moral sensibility, convictions, spiritual awareness and the concepts of ‘ought’ and ‘should’ could ever be produced through a process of evolution. It simply doesn’t make sense.

God’s dilemma

Now I’m sure that there are plenty of people who are more than willing to poke holes into every reason I’ve given for my belief in creation. They’ll point out that the data I’ve mentioned is, at best, ambiguous. I agree with you that there is no definitive and indisputable proof for creation, or even the existence of God. In fact, that is precisely one of the points I’m trying to make.

So then, if God really exists, why does He make us jump through all these intellectual hoops? Why doesn’t He show Himself to us openly? Why does He leave room for doubt? On occasion I myself, have wished that God would disclose Himself more openly. But think about it from His perspective for a minute. How can God disclose Himself to us without also destroying our choice of whether to believe or not? If the Bible is correct in saying that God desires our love, how can God receive it if He takes away the choice to reject Him? God wants our love freely given, not grudging acknowledgment of His existence.

Because God, if He exists, cannot manifest Himself to us without destroying our freedom to disbelieve, there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity in the data. How you interpret the data depends largely on the philosophical outlook you bring to it. For those whose philosophic outlook embraces the concept of God, the evidence for creation is overwhelming. For those whose philosophic construct excludes God, there is no alternative to evolution. Therefore the data must be interpreted to support that theory.

Digging myself in deeper

Along the way, I’ve noticed plenty of absurdities on both sides of the aisle. For example, I think there’s a fundamental contradiction at the heart of much of the environmental movement. Many of those in the movement are fervent evolutionists. That being the case, I have never understood why they get so upset at the loss of a species or three. If natural selection and the “survival of the fittest” really are the agents of evolution, it seems to me that if a species is eliminated, it only proves it wasn’t fit to survive anyway. The fact that people get upset about it says to me that something besides evolution is at work. They are protesting on the basis of moral conviction which, itself, cannot be a product of evolutionary processes.

Evolutionists also like to accuse creationists of taking a “God-of-the-gaps” position. In other words, the only reason we need God is because we can’t yet explain something. Given enough time (and research dollars!) however, all the mysteries of nature will eventually be explained. Once we understand the mechanisms involved, there will no longer be room for belief that God, if He exists at all, created anything. There are at least two fallacies with this argument. One is that it conveniently ignores the problem of how energy or matter came into being in the first place. Regardless of the mechanism by which everything has since been ordered and arranged, how did it come into being to begin with? Evolutionists have no convincing answer.

A second fallacy is to assume that because something could occur in a certain way, that it actually did, or does, occur that way. For example, it’s possible that I could enter these words by dictating them into speech recognition software. But just because it’s possible does not prove that’s how I’m doing it. Similarly, just because there may be a purely naturalistic means of obtaining a certain outcome does not, in itself, prove that the outcome was obtained by purely naturalistic means. Nor does the existence of a naturalistic process exclude the possibility that God exists or that He is involved in that process. On the contrary, if God invented nature, we ought to expect that much of what He does is through naturalistic means.

Creationists are not immune from absurdities either. For example, one of the arguments I’ve heard in support of the young-earth hypothesis is that the oceans aren’t salty enough. The argument goes that the oceans would contain much more salt than they do if the earth was older than several thousand years. While making this argument the creationists fall into the same trap as they accuse the evolutionists of living in – uniformitarianism. But how can you possibly know how salty the oceans ought to be based on current erosion rates, or the current size of the oceans, or the current rate of precipitation, or the current salt content of the earth, etc., etc.? You’re assuming that the rate of change has stayed relatively constant. But how can you know that? You can’t.

My biggest beef with those in the creationist camp, however, is that you are fighting the wrong battle. The creation/evolution debate is not primarily a scientific one. As I stated before, it’s really about philosophy, not science. The data will always be somewhat ambiguous. There will always be another scientific factoid which throws doubt on the proof you have just so confidently asserted. You will never be able to prove creation and, therefore, the existence of God as a scientific fact. If such a god could be proven he wouldn’t be worth believing in, anyway. If God exists He, by definition, must be beyond nature and, therefore, outside the space-time continuum we experience. He transcends nature and, therefore, transcends science. You will never see Him unless you look through the eyes of faith. If we have faith, then I agree, the universe is filled with evidence which points to God. But without at least an inclination toward faith, there will always be a way to explain the evidence away – until, that is, God breaks through His self-imposed curtain and every eye beholds Him. Only then will there be no need for faith. Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that there is value in pointing out scientific error and teaching correct science. There’s no doubt that many are helped to find Christ by your clearing away some of the misconceptions that are out there. But never forget that science, even good science, is not the answer. It’s a spiritual battle, not a scientific one. As a friend of mine pointed out, it’s not really so much about evidence as it is about morals. When you get right down to it, most people don’t refuse to believe because of the lack of evidence, but because they don’t want to submit to God’s authority. They want to do their own thing.

I haven’t actually done this, but let me pose a couple of theoretical questions which illustrate just how slippery ‘proof’ can be. For the sake of discussion, if I were to ask those in the evolution camp to describe how the universe would appear if creation were true, I expect they would answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Similarly, if I were to ask those in the creation camp to describe how the universe would appear if evolution were true, I would expect them to answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Same end state, same data, two vastly different different interpretations. How you get there depends on your philosophy, not science.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now that I’ve managed to thoroughly alienate everyone in both camps, do I have an alternative to suggest? Well, ahem, yes I do. Hang on to those hammers and nails a little bit longer.

While giving a talk on Genesis, several years ago, a speaker posed an interesting question. He asked something to the effect of, “If a couple of days after God created him, Adam took his chain saw and cut down a tree, how many rings would it have had?” The point of that fanciful question was that if the Genesis record is correct, then most of the plants and animals must have been created in a mature or adult state. That concept got me to thinking. If, at the time of creation, the plants and animals appeared older than they actually were, is it possible that the same applies to nature and the universe as a whole? If, as many think, the six creative days of Genesis refer to actual days rather than eras, it must be so.

But if the universe and the Earth, in particular, are as young as Genesis seems to indicate, why would God make them appear older than they are? When I ran the idea that the universe might look older than it is by a believing friend of mine, he rejected the notion out of hand. His reason for doing so is that God is honest. To make the universe appear a different age than it is, would be deceitful. I replied that God hasn’t deceived anyone. In His Word He’s told mankind precisely what He’s done. My friend wouldn’t buy it, even though he believes the Genesis account.

It wasn’t until just recently that my thoughts came together in some sort of coherent way. I think I now have a decent construct to explain what’s going on. First, I’ll try to describe my theory in quasi-scientific terms, then by using a metaphor.

A graph for all seasons

Since it’s a little hard to explain my concept just in words, I’ve drawn some diagrams to help you visualize what I’m talking about.

Consider a disk. This disk represents a slice of our experience at the present time. By ‘our experience’ I mean not only our individual existence, but also the state of the whole world, our universe and the whole of nature. It should be obvious that the physical laws which govern this slice of existence are uniform and consistent. If chemistry, physics, thermodynamics and the like were erratic, or were self-contradictory, the universe, and we along with it, could not exist.

Now think of the disk as being bound, or defined, by several constraints. One of them is time, another space, another matter, a fourth energy and so on. I don’t claim that these are the only constraints – there may well be other dimensions – but these are enough to illustrate the concept. For the purists among you, yes, I am aware that these dimensions, for example matter and energy, can be converted from one to another. Think of the rim of the disk as a visual representation the transforms.

What happens if we extrapolate the dimensions out into the future? The laws of physics indicate that eventually everything will reach the same, uniform temperature. All motion will cease. The universe will be in a state of equilibrium. In other words things will reach a stable, steady-state condition.

This, of course, assumes that nature is a closed system. But what if it is not? It is always perilous to predict the future of any system which is open to influence from the outside, on the basis of its current state. If there is something, or Someone, outside of the system there is no way to predict from within the system itself if, or how, what is on the outside will affect the system – unless the outside entity informs those on the inside what it is going to do. In his book, Miracles, A Preliminary Study, C.S. Lewis provides a useful illustration of this concept. He points out that the laws of physics accurately predict the trajectory of a set of billiard balls. But the actual motion of a ball will be very different from what was expected if, while it is in motion, someone interferes by poking it with a cue. The laws of physics predict what will happen if there is no interference. They cannot predict whether there will be any outside interference and, if so, what that interference will be.

Now if God exists and He has created nature He is, necessarily, outside of nature. In the absence of divine revelation there is no way to predict, from within nature, whether and how God will interfere with nature. Fortunately, we are not totally in the dark. Assuming that the Bible is what it claims to be – a divine revelation – we do know how God will interfere with the natural course of events. Nature will never reach steady state. A day is coming when God will call a halt to everything. Nature as we know it will cease to exist. The predictions of physics about the end-state of nature are wildly misleading, even though the laws are perfectly consistent and accurately describe current physical reality.

What do the physical laws tell us about origins? Following the laws backwards in time, they indicate that all of nature originated from a singular time and place. Scientists call this point in space-time by different names. Some refer to it as the singularity. Others call it the big bang. (For purposes of this discussion, whether the dimension lines come to a sharp point as shown in the diagram, or whether they form a smooth curve as claimed by Richard Dawkins, really doesn’t matter.)

But we again have the problem that physics cannot tell whether and how something, or Someone, outside of nature may have interfered in the past. It takes divine revelation to disclose it. Assuming that such interference has occurred, then just as the laws of physics point to a very misleading conclusion about the end of nature, they also do not give an accurate picture of its beginning. Divine revelation tells us that nature never was at singularity as predicted by the laws. Instead, nature as we know it came into being by a creative act. There is no contradiction. There is no inconsistency. In order for nature to function as it does, the laws must be as they are. It couldn’t be otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nature had its origin in a singularity. We can learn very little about the actual age of the universe or our earth by looking at present conditions.

A gaming metaphor

Let me give you another illustration which might make things a little clearer.

Look at this ‘screenshot’ from a hypothetical role-playing game. A character, let’s call him Gus, lives in, and travels through, a virtual world. From his perspective the mountain in the background is many miles away. The comparatively small hills in the foreground have eroded to their current state through countless thousands, or millions of years. The road he’s walking on was built by means of a government public works program and took a decade to complete. The ruins he’s passing are the remains of a previous civilization which was destroyed 500 years ago.

Gus has freedom of action. He can make decisions and react to his environment. He interacts with other characters, and they with him.

There are several important points to note about this game: a) The game program and the rules which define the game are consistent and well-ordered. If they were not, either the computer would ‘hang’ in some undefined state or behave in some unpredictable (and therefore, unplayable) way. b) Though Gus and the other characters are autonomous in the sense that they can ‘reason’ and make their own decisions, their conduct is constrained by the limits of the program which defines their environment and what actions are ‘legal.’ In other words they cannot, by definition, do anything which violates the programming of the game. c) The state of the virtual environment in which Gus and the other characters find themselves indicates little, or nothing, about the history of the game itself. d) The rules which govern the environment and how the characters behave, do not predict accurately either how the game began or how it will end. e) The game is not a closed system. It is subject to interference by any number of outside influences. f) By observing their environment the characters in the game might be able to infer the existence of a programmer and a few of his characteristics but, in the absence of communication from the programmer, it is impossible for the characters to ever know him.

Now think about the parallels between this virtual environment and our own experience. a) Nature is governed and controlled by consistent and predictable laws. If it were not, we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it. b) We possess free will and, within broad limits, are autonomous. Yet we, too, are constrained by the limits of our environment. Nature is very unforgiving when we try to violate those limits. c) From Gus’ perspective those hills have been there for thousands or millions of years. In reality, however, the programmer built them into the program only last month. Similarly, to Gus the hills look many miles away. From the programmer’s perspective they are only a few pixels distant. Gus cannot even imagine the dimensions in which the programmer lives. If God exists, He is beyond our ability to imagine, let alone comprehend. Our environment may be to us as the virtual hills are to Gus. d) The rules of the game might indicate thousands of years of virtual ‘history,’ going clear back to the formation of the environment itself. It may also project various endings of the environment. In reality, however, someone booted the computer up half an hour ago. Similarly, the actual end might be very different than the projected endings to the game. For example, there is no way for any character in the game to know that five minutes from now someone will hit the computer’s off switch. Similarly, we cannot say anything definite about either the beginning or the end state of nature merely by observing the current state of affairs. In the absence of revelation, there is no way for us to know anything about its true origins or ending. e) The course of the game might be altered drastically by external input from keyboard or mouse. The characters within the game have no way of knowing when or if such interference will occur. Similarly, if nature is not a closed system, we have no assurance that there will not be interference from the outside. f) We’re like the characters in the game. We may be able to infer the existence of a Creator from what we observe about our environment (Romans 1:20 says that His power and divinity are clearly recognizable) but, unless God chooses to reveal Himself, there is no way for us to really know Him.

Do you think my metaphor is far-fetched? Have you ever heard of the a-life movement? (Sometimes also spelled, alife.) It stands for ‘artificial life.’ There really are a bunch of people out there who are trying to write computer programs which not only simulate life, but produce life. A while back I was browsing the shelves at the local library looking for a book on Java programming. In the process I ran across Creation: Life And How To Make It by Steve Grand. It was a fascinating, yet somewhat disturbing read. Though I disagree with the man that we humans will ever be able to truly create life, he was able to program critters which did show some of the characteristics of living things. (The program is called Creatures.) One of the interesting issues which was highlighted by the program was the right of the creator to also kill or destroy the critters he created. That’s a very important insight which I only obliquely implied in my game metaphor.

Solomon wrote that there’s nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). I was feeling pretty smug about my metaphor and how it makes my concept of creation easy to explain. I was congratulating myself for coming up with such a brilliant idea. Well, not too long ago, I was reading an anthology of Science Fiction short stories. One of them was about a programmer who created a virtual environment. The characters in the environment are alive and gradually develop the technology to make computers. They end up programming a virtual environment with, you guessed it, characters who are alive and able to develop their own technology. The author states in the introduction, that the story bothered him for a long time. He didn’t say so, but I gather it was because it suggests that we, ourselves, may be the product of Someone else’s design. Unfortunately, I didn’t make note of the title of the story, or the author. It may have been Poul Anderson. In any case, there went my claim to an original idea.

All ends well that ends (a summary of this long-winded ramble)

I began this essay by saying that I think much of what is said in the Creation/Evolution debate is irrelevant. The reason I think so is that I do not believe that origins can be correctly derived from observing the present state of things. If God exists, and He created nature, then the beginning must have been very different than projecting physical laws backward in time would indicate. We’re not in a closed system. Therefore, without divine revelation neither the past nor the future is predictable with any certainty. If that is so, then much of the debate is over non-issues. In the long run, arguing about science won’t prove anything. But, then, Paul said it long before I did in 1st Timothy 6:20.

Well, there you have it, folks. Now, if you must, go ahead and break out those hammers and nails.