Some thoughts sparked by the book by Ken Ham & Britt Beamer

I. The Observable Trend

Ham begins his book with the observation that the church buildings of Europe are mostly empty and that those in the U.S. are not far behind. Many buildings are being re-purposed or torn down. While this may be disturbing, it is hardly news. The trend has been well documented for decades. For example, Thomas C. Reeves presents an in-depth analysis of the decline of the ‘Main-line’ denominations in the United States in his book The Empty Church, The Suicide of Liberal Christianity (The Free Press, 1996).

As Ham rightly points out, however, the trend is not restricted to the ‘liberals.’ Churches from all traditions are being affected. This includes the Churches of Christ, and other Restoration Movement churches which have often thought themselves immune from the influences which bedevil other traditions. In fact, the authors of the book The Worldly Church, A Call For Biblical Renewal (C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, Michael R. Weed, ACU Press, 1991) make the case that the Churches of Christ are especially vulnerable to the spirit of our age. It is a warning which we should take seriously.

The surprise is not that church attendance is going down, it is the age at which people begin to disengage from church. We are often told that secular colleges are to blame for the majority of children from Christian homes turning their backs on the faith. The colleges and universities are not without fault. But, after extensive surveying, Ham and Beemer concluded that two thirds of the children attending church and Sunday school are already lost to the church before completing High School. Many begin to disengage as early as Junior High. This may be the most important insight in the book. It is clear that in order to retain our young people we must work on the problem long before they leave home to attend college.

While the focus of Ham’s book is on the young (what some call the Millennial generation, birth years 1982-2003) and why they leave church, it is worth noting that the problem is not confined to the young. According to Mike Regele and Mark Schulz (Death of the Church, Zondervan Publishing House, 1995) an increasing percentage of the Baby Boom generation (birth years 1943-1960) and the generation which follows them (the Survivors, birth years 1961-1981) are also leaving the church. Nor, if things remain as they are, is there much chance of young people returning to church once they have children of their own – in spite of what they told Ham and Beemer. If there were, then the average congregation would have a large percentage of families with young children. Instead, congregations all over America are rapidly turning gray.

II. Diagnosis

The key question to ask is why are people, whether young or older, leaving church? Though there may be some generational differences the over-all reasons are probably very similar.

On the basis of his surveys Ham concludes that people disengage from church for two basic reasons:

1) They believe the Bible is irrelevant.
2) They believe the church is irrelevant.

While this is true, as far as it goes, I believe Ham misses the broader significance of what he is observing. Without understanding the true complexity of the situation, the solutions Ham proposes will not be as effective as they might. We live in a period of transition. We face not one but many, simultaneous waves of change. The period of cultural stability which we consider normative is gone for good, and it is not yet apparent what new shape our world will assume.

a) The empty buildings are not evidence of a dying church so much as they are a witness to the death of ‘Christendom.’ The truth is that many, if not most, of the cathedrals and church buildings of Europe were more an expression of culture than faith as defined in the New Testament. In the framework of Christendom one became part of the church by accident of birth rather than personal conviction. One attended church because that was the socially acceptable and expected thing to do. (On the question of whether Christianity is dying in Great Britain, two essays by C.S. Lewis are well worth reading. They are The Decline of Religion and Revival Or Decay?. Both are in God in the Dock, Edited by Walter Hooper, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970)

Also, while people went through certain outward forms and traditions of religion, there was little impact in terms of transformed lives. Why? Because the framework of Christendom owed at least as much to the Greek philosophers as it did to the Bible. Not only did Augustine and others bring Greek rhetoric into the church, they also brought in Greek philosophy, particularly the ideas of Plato. Augustine’s syncretistic mix of biblical and Platonic worldviews held almost universal sway in the Western church until Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ contribution to the teachings and beliefs of the church was to modify some of Plato’s ideas with those of Aristotle. Switching from one Greek philosopher to another did nothing to change the underlying system. Nancy R. Pearcey, in her book Total Truth, Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway Books, 2004-2005), points out that dualism is one of the chief characteristics of Greek philosophy. The Greeks drew a sharp distinction between what they called the ‘Forms’ which were good, and ‘Matter’ which was evil. This dualism found expression in Christendom in its division between the ‘Sacred’ and the ‘Secular’. The Reformation did little or nothing to change this outlook. It pervades our society to this day.

Though the United States specifically rejected the concept of a state religion, it inherited the idea of Christendom, along with its citizens, from Europe. Until fairly recently American culture has very much been shaped and influenced by the Christendom concept. This is reflected in the furor over whether the U.S. is, or ever was, a ‘Christian nation.’

With the collapse of the Christendom paradigm or framework, where citizens were ‘Christian’ by definition, the church was an extension of the state and the church regulated society, is it any wonder that people now consider the church irrelevant? If there is a dividing line between secular and sacred, and we live in a secular society, the church simply does not have anything to say which applies to people’s everyday life.

b) Another major change is the rejection of Modernism. In part, this is a reaction to an over-emphasis on reason. This over-emphasis downplayed everything outside the realm of reason such as emotion and intuition. Truth was determined by logic and what the mind could comprehend. As a result we lost the sense of the transcendence of God and the indwelling of the Spirit. Christianity became formulaic. This is reflected in the perception of many that Christianity consists of keeping a list of rules rather than a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. Instead of reason, the emphasis is on experience and feeling. There are some who have gone so far as to question the validity of reason itself. As a corollary, the concept of absolute truth is also suspect. Truth is relative to the experience of the individual. In other words, we create our own reality.

In this climate the Bible is no longer looked upon as a universal standard. If people find it inconvenient or distasteful they reject it as being irrelevant.

Another consequence of the over-emphasis on reason was a direct and concerted attack on the Bible. If everything must be explained in terms of the mind and natural causes, then it follows that much of Scripture, particularly the parts which deal with miracles and the supernatural, must be rejected. Similarly, predictive prophecy is impossible. This warped framework led to the discovery of all kinds of supposed discrepancies, inconsistencies and other errors in God’s Word. It is ironic that while Postmodernists have rejected the mindset which spawned the hyper-critical and unjustified attacks on the Bible they still, to a large extent, blindly accept the conclusions of that mindset. In other words, not only do many consider the Bible irrelevant, they assume that it is full of error and not trustworthy.

c) Another challenge of our time is Multiculturalism. There was a time when there was a broad consensus about how things ought to be. Even those who did not live by them generally agreed with the moral principles of Scripture. There was a common moral framework based, in large part, on the Bible. Whether one believed it or not, knowledge of the highlights of the Bible and of salvation history suffused our culture.

This is no longer true. In spite of being a best-seller the Bible is, by and large, an unknown book. Morality is determined by consensus rather than by the external authority of Scripture. As Ham rightly points out, our society has become thoroughly pagan (p. 90). Self-interest is the determining factor in deciding what is right.

But there is more. Along with the collapse of Christendom we have lost the over-arching meta-narrative which held the culture together. Not only is the Christian story no longer the dominant one, there are now many other competing stories. We are bombarded on all sides with alternative traditions. Though people have always had the choice of whether to believe in Christ or not, it is now much easier for them to choose something else. Christ demands radical change. When self is the center, people will opt for a tradition which tells them what they want to hear.

d) The Information Revolution is at least as, and probably more, disruptive than the Industrial Revolution was. This has several implications:

1. As the work landscape changes, people are being uprooted from all that is familiar. They can no longer count on spending their career in one company or even in the same industry. This uncertainty and instability can cause them to question other things which they have taken for granted – including their faith.
2. People have greater access than ever to information. Liberal interpretations or outright attacks on Scripture and the Christian faith are only a few mouse-clicks away. The same goes for information about other faith traditions or religions. Pornography and other things which destroy faith and morality are readily available at little monetary cost or social risk.
3. Virtual communities on the Internet are increasingly replacing the social functions of the church. Chat rooms, blogs, Face Book, Twitter and the like are how friends keep up with one another. Dating sites are where people find potential mates. Texting substitutes for conversation.

e) On top of all this is the normal change brought about by what Regele and Schulz call the Generational Cycle. Part of the reason for the decline of traditional, ‘main-line’ churches is that from 1961-2003 we were in that part of the cycle which emphasizes the spiritual life of the individual over building up the institutional church. Now, from 2004 forward, we are at the beginning of the next ‘Crisis Era.’ Already there are some interesting parallels between our time and the last Crisis Era – World War II. Though we are entering an outward looking phase of the cycle which historically benefits the institutional church, there is no guarantee that this phase will follow the same form as previous cycles. Churches cannot merely keep doing what they have always done in the knowledge that everything will turn out okay in the end.

It is not any one of these movements, but all of them together which make this a time, not only of change but, of disruptive change. Our world is in transition. Whether we like it or not, many of the assumptions by which we have regulated our lives no longer apply. The church must learn to cope and thrive in the midst of uncertainty.

III. The Remedy

What can the church do retain the people who already attend and to attract those outside of Christ? Ham suggests two remedies:

1) Defend the Word.

The first remedy Ham suggests is to teach Bible apologetics. This is a very valid point. It is important for Christians to realize that there are answers to the doubts, objections and questions which people raise about the Bible. We would do well to teach our people the historical, geographical and archaeological evidences of biblical accuracy. We should teach people about the transmission of the Bible texts and the development of the canon.

In addition, we need to teach the principles of interpretation. Many of the attacks which are leveled at the Scriptures stem from false or inconsistent methods of reading the texts. We need to point out the biases and agendas of the detractors. The burden of proof is on those who claim the Bible is inaccurate, not the other way around.

We also need to uphold the concept of authorial intent. While there may be many applications, there is only one primary meaning.

But while the Bible is true – and I mean true in an objective sense as well as the subjective sense in that it is true and applicable to individual human nature and psychology – we must be careful in how we present its truth. Since, in our Postmodern, post-Christendom age the Bible no longer enjoys a position of unquestioned authority, a dogmatic approach to teaching is unlikely to be effective. Instead of presenting truth in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion we must allow people room to arrive there on their own. While it is certainly legitimate to point out what Scripture says, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about things which are not directly stated in the Word. While we must not soften or compromise the gospel we must also not go beyond what is written (See 1 Corinthians 4:1-7).

This is a trap which Ham falls into. Though he points out that the Bible has lost its position of authority in society (p. 87-88) he still uses the dogmatic approach. For example, he goes on ad nauseam about the absolute necessity of teaching the doctrine of a young-earth. Yet, as far as I know, there is no direct statement in Scripture which says that the earth is young. It is something which is inferred. To dogmatically state, as Ham does over and over, something which Scripture does not, has the potential to undermine faith rather than build it up. The reason is that our Postmodern society decides what is true, in part, based on the perceived character of the person who delivers the message rather than objective criteria. If we say that the Word is true (as it is) yet one of our dogmatic pronouncements about what is not directly stated is proven false, it will raise questions about the truth of everything else we have said about the Word.

2) Live the Word.

Though Ham puts more emphasis on apologetics, he is correct in saying that living out our faith is more important (p. 136). There is little point in believing the truth unless the truth makes a difference in how we live our lives. Ham rightly points out (p. 121-122) that the accusation which is most often made against the church, and Christians in general, is that of hypocrisy. In other words, that they do not live by the ideals and standards which they claim are right and which they try to bind on others. Unfortunately, there is often truth to the accusation. There are at least three consequences to the failure to live according to the standards and principles of Scripture:

a) It invites the ridicule and scorn of unbelievers. As Paul wrote to the Romans, “you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”” (Romans 2:21-24 NIV) The church will never have a credible witness to the world until and unless Christians display transformed lives.

b) It makes it incredibly difficult for young people in the church to choose to live faithful and righteous lives. It’s hard to swim against the tide. At the very time in their lives when young people are trying to discover who they are, what they believe and the values by which they will live their lives; at the time when they most need acceptance and a sense of belonging they are, all too often, confronted with the choice of either following their peers who claim to be Christians yet whose lives reflect anything but, or living according to Scriptural principles. The choice is made all the more difficult when adults proclaim by their own behavior that worldly ways of thinking, worldly attitudes, worldly dress and worldly speech are the norm. Christians also sometimes make the mistake of thinking that they are demonstrating love when they accept ungodly lifestyle choices in others who profess to be Christians. However, such toleration often sends the signal that lifestyle doesn’t matter.

c) It undermines the authority of Scripture and faith. Postmodernist thought has weakened the concept that Scripture is true and authoritative in its own right. At least subconsciously, people tend to decide what is true by observing those who are important to them. If Christians will not live according to biblical principles, then those who observe will conclude that the principles are not true. If they were true, Christians would behave as if they were true. And, if the principles and standards of the Bible are not true, then it casts doubt on the truth of the historical claims as well. At the least, it causes many to conclude that even if the Bible is true, it is irrelevant in daily living.

It is important, however, that we not confuse ‘living the Word’ with merely living according to a set of guidelines or conforming to a standard of conduct. It is easy to publish rules and miss the whole point. Conduct does not a Christian make. Christians are supposed to have died with Christ to sin and have been resurrected to live a new life (Romans 6). The old creature is dead and a new creature has risen in its place. Godly conduct is a natural byproduct of the new creature. Dogs behave like dogs because that is the nature of dogs. Christlike behavior which conforms to biblical standards is, by definition, the nature of Christians. If the nature of someone who calls himself a Christian does not display the nature of Christ, then it is legitimate to question whether the change from the old creature to the new ever took place. To ask for conformity to the nature of Christ apart from the death of the old nature is legalism.

In addition to the remedies Ham suggests, we need to:

3) Live as ekklesia. One of the reasons people have come to the conclusion that church is irrelevant is that they have the wrong concept of the church. Even though Ham quite correctly notes that the church is “not a physical structure” (p.125) but “a group of individuals” and the “Body of Christ” (p. 129), he consistently muddies the waters by calling buildings, churches. As long as our concept of the church is rooted in the material, we can never expect it to answer spiritual needs.

Not only have we prostituted the meaning of the word ‘church’ by using it to refer to physical structures, we have also turned it into a verb. We speak of the ‘unchurched.’ Ham quotes Barna using the phrase “had been churched” (p. 19). Presumably, to ‘church’ somebody would be to get them to join the organization. Ham also uses the phrase “doing church” (p.127, 128) as though the church is some physical activity like ‘doing the dishes.’

It is high time we recaptured the concept that the church is the assembly or community of the ‘called out ones.’ As Christians we have been called out of the world. We are to be different than our surrounding culture. We are to be in the world but not of it (John 17:14-16). We need to realize that church is not someplace we go, it is not something we do – it is something we are.

To his credit, Ham suggests that we study each passage in the New Testament which speaks of the church in order to discover what the church is supposed to be (p. 129). If we ponder on some of the metaphors which are used for the church such as body, family and household we will begin to understand that, all too often, we do not experience the kind of interaction and fellowship (koinonia) that God intended to take place within the church. It is significant that the first Christians “…devoted themselves… to the fellowship…” (koinonia) (Acts 2:42 NIV). When we learn to truly live as ekklesia and devote ourselves to koinonia, then our young people will no longer have to turn to the world for friendship, companionship and fellowship. When their social, as well as their spiritual needs are met within the body, they will have no incentive to leave. Again, to his credit, Ham mentions this aspect of the church on page 131, though he does not specifically include it in his remedies.

4) Perhaps most important of all, we need to live as covenant people. As Christians; as the people of God, we are to have a radically different worldview than those outside of Christ. Paul writes, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” (Romans 12:2 NIV) We must no longer think as the world does. We must act and react differently than those who are outside of Christ. The standard of the world is self-interest. We are called to crucify self and to follow Christ. Our true citizenship is not here but in heaven (Philippians 3:20). Though living in the world, we are strangers and aliens (1 Peter 2:11).

Not only must we reject the viewpoint and values of the world, we must also repudiate the concept of Christendom. At the core of the Greek philosophy which shaped Christendom is a distorted and false view of God. To the Greek mind, God is distant, austere, impersonal and deterministic. Such doctrines as total depravity and radical predestination are outgrowths of this view.

In its place we must return to the Hebrew (biblical) worldview in which God is near and intimately concerned with our individual lives and wellbeing. God has voluntarily limited His power in order to allow us the freedom to make moral choices. He dwells among His people in a loving, covenant relationship and by His grace empowers them to keep the covenant (Titus 2:11-14).

When we learn to live as covenant people, we will be filled with joy and hope. And, when people see the hope that is within us, they will want to know the reason for it (1 Peter 3:15).

In a sense, when we talk about the remedy to people leaving the church, we are looking at things the wrong way around. We make it sound as though it is up to us and our clever strategies to save the church. However, Christ made it clear that nothing will ever prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). It is Christ who will prosper and build the church, not us. The real question is not whether the church will prevail, but whether the church we are a part of is really His. It is not whether Christ will fall in with our plans, but whether we will follow His. I suggest that the most important thing we can do is to study the New Testament in order to discover what God’s ideal for the church is and model our congregations after that plan. The most effective thing we can do to further the church is to be fully dedicated to Christ and totally obedient to what He has revealed in the Scriptures. We may sow and water, but it is He who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-7).

IV. Two Helpful Metaphors

As we adjust to the death of Christendom and look toward an as yet uncertain future there are two biblical metaphors which can help us through the transition.

1) Remnant

On page 87, Ham uses the word ‘remnant’, but does not develop it. The Bible uses the concept of the remnant to paint a very powerful picture of those who remain faithful in spite of the collapse of faith in the broader culture. Jezebel may be on the throne, actively killing off the prophets; to all appearances it may seem that faith is extinguished, yet God has reserved 7,000 for Himself who have not bowed down to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). The land may be invaded and the old order overturned, yet a remnant of God’s people still remains (2 Kings 19:30-32).

What is particularly significant in this picture of the remnant is that it is from the remnant that renewal and restoration comes. For example, read the book of Haggai and Zechariah, chapter 8.

The problem with the metaphor of remnant is that it assumes a culture and community of faith as the norm. That being the case, it is more relevant to the church rather than to society as a whole. The world has invaded the church. God will use the faithful remnant which survives, to restore, revitalize and reclaim it.

2) Exile

While the metaphor of a remnant pictures hostile forces invading the community of faith, the Bible uses another metaphor which turns the imagery around. In the metaphor of exile, instead of aliens intruding into the homeland of the faithful, it is the faithful who are living in enemy or alien territory. In this view we are a displaced people.

Both the writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Peter point out that Christians are citizens of a different country. They do not belong to this world. In this sense, the death of Christendom is a good thing. While society as a whole embraced some sort of theism and a set of ethics and morals which roughly coincided with those of Christianity, it was easy to get comfortable in our foreign lodgings. Now that the church has been marginalized; now that Christianity is out of favor (true followers of Christ almost always have been, even within Christendom) the lines are clearer.

The truth is that we do not belong here. We are strangers and aliens in a foreign land (1 Peter 2:11). We are at war with the basic principles of this world (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Colossians 2:8). We’ve been sent here on a mission. We are a bridgehead into enemy territory. We need not fear the enemy. As long as we remember our true citizenship, they have every reason to fear that we, in Christ’s strength, will overturn their way of life.

V. Additional Resources

As I tried to say earlier, the most important thing we can do to help our congregations be effective, is to model them after the church in the New Testament. The best book I know of on the subject is Radical Restoration, A Call for Pure and Simple Christianity (F. LaGard Smith, Cotswold Publishing, 2001). It is particularly meaningful to me because the author writes from within the same spiritual heritage as I share – that of the Restoration Movement.

Three more books written from that perspective which I have found helpful are:

Discovering Our Roots: The Ancestry of Churches of Christ (C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, ACU Press, 1988)

The Worldy Church, A Call For Biblical Renewal, Second Edition (C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, Michael R. Weed, ACU Press, 1991)

The Cruciform Church, Becoming a Cross-Shaped People in a Secular World, Second Edition (C. Leonard Allen, ACU Press, 1990)

Two other books about recapturing the biblical model which are worth reading are:

The Open Church, How to Bring Back the Exciting Life of the First Century Church (James H. Rutz, The SeedSowers, 1992)

The Problem of WineSkins, Church Structure in a Technological Age (Howard A. Snyder, Inter-Varsity Press, 1975)

The most helpful book in understanding the waves of change which we are encountering is:

Death of the Church (Mike Regele with Mark Schulz, Zondervan Publishing House, 1995)

A sequel to the above book which discusses how to navigate through radical change is:

Crossing The Bridge, Church Leadership in a Time of Change (Alan Roxburgh with Mike Regele, Percept Group, Inc., 2000)

On effectiveness in overcoming sin.

To be perfectly candid about it, I’ve never had any use for 12-step programs. There – I said it! A lot of you are probably ready to nail my hide to wall for saying it, but it’s the truth. Since honesty is one of the basic principles of the 12-step concept, you’re just going to have to deal with it.

The thing which really ‘sticks in my craw’ is this business about a “Power greater than ourselves.” To my way of thinking it reduces God to some impersonal force instead of the living Person who created us, loves us and is intensely concerned about our well-being. What I find particularly offensive, however, is references to God as we understand Him. To me this sounds very much like an attempt to make God conform to our preconceived notions rather than accepting God for who He really is. If God exists at all, He is who He is regardless of anybody’s concept about Him. It is our responsibility to discover who He is rather than reduce Him to fit our criteria. I realize that the wording is an attempt to avoid sectarianism and to reach a wider public than would be possible through an accurate portrayal of who God is. But it still bothers me.

“What’s your hangup?”, you ask, “The program obviously works!” Well of course the program works! God is so gracious and compassionate that He responds to any move someone makes toward Him however flawed his or her understanding of who He is may be. “Come near to God and he will come near to you…” (James 4:8 NIV) The problem is that if a person does not eventually come to a knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, the eternal consequences will be the same as if he had died of his alcoholism or addiction without acknowledging any kind of ‘Higher Power’ at all. I’m afraid that what many 12-step programs do is cure one affliction without adequately addressing the far more serious problem of sin. It’s sort of like shampooing the stains out of the living-room carpet only to have the house burn down.

Now it so happens that a relative of one of members of the congregation where I served is an acute alcoholic. It seems like this person has been through just about every program and system under the sun. Over the past year it appeared that perhaps some genuine progress was being made. Unfortunately, the dry spell ended a few weeks back with a colossal bender which landed this person in lockup.

The member talked to the Elders about the situation and requested our prayers for the relative. Sometime during the conversation I mentioned something about not understanding the phenomenon of alcoholism and other addictions. The following Lord’s Day, the member reminded me of what I’d said and asked if I’d be willing to read a book on the subject. That’s how I wound up lugging a copy of the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book (Third Edition) home with me. I was quite reluctant to read it. There are a good many other topics I’d rather read about and this reading assignment came at a particularly busy and stressful time for me. Also, the subject of alcoholism is not particularly edifying or one to lift burdens. But, since it was obviously important to the member who loaned me the book, I plowed through it. In some ways it was a disturbing read.

Why is the church ineffective?

One of the things which disturbed me was the repeated testimony of people who said that church had not been able help them overcome their alcoholism. It seems to me that if any place could help someone overcome a sin of this nature, or any other sin for that matter, it ought to be the church. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul gives a list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Significantly, drunkards are included in the list. In verse 11 Paul extends the prod by explicitly stating that that’s what some in the church in Corinth had been. However, Paul goes on to say, “…But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (NIV)

If the church used to be effective in transforming and reclaiming drunkards but is no longer, something must account for the difference. Now I learned a long time ago that when something (such as a computer, for instance) starts behaving differently than it did before, the very first thing to ask is, “What changed?” I think it’s valid to ask the same question in this case. What has changed? Is human nature different than it was in the first century? Hardly. Have the properties of alcohol or the nature of alcoholism changed since Paul’s day? I highly doubt it. I submit to you that it isn’t human nature or alcohol which has changed, but the nature and character of the church. The church is ineffective because it is fundamentally different than it was at the beginning. If our congregations were like those in apostolic times then they would be effective in helping people confront their sins and overcome their addictions.

How the church used to be

You don’t believe me that the church is very different than it was in the beginning? See how well the following statements taken from A.A.’s The Twelve Traditions fit the congregations you know: (taken from pages 564 through 568 of the Big Book)

“Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.”

“Each group should be autonomous…”

“Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim… An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business.”

“Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.”

“Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire.”

“Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. …true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness.”

“Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity… There is never need to praise ourselves.”

“…we are actually to practice a genuine humility.”

Now compare the above statements with Scripture:

“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Ephesians 4:11-12 NIV)

“Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” (Acts 14:23 NIV)

“Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 3:17-20 NIV)

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:44-45 NIV)

“If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” (1 Corinthians 9:17-18 NIV)

“What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe – as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.” (1 Corinthians 3:5-7 NIV)

“…When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV)

“To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3 NIV)

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:3-4 NIV)

Do you begin to see what I’m getting at? But there’s more.

Healing through caring for the lost

Frankly, after a while the stories in the Big Book just sort of blended into a undistinguished fog in my mind. Aside from the fact that some were better written than others, the testimonies all began to sound the same. There were a couple of things, though, which really stood out. One was the extent that the recovered alcoholics went out of their way in order to help others overcome alcoholism. What particularly impressed me was their insistence that reaching out to others is an essential component in their own recovery. I can’t help but think of the similar behavior which is recorded in Acts 8:4, “Those who had been scattered [by the persecution they experienced in Jerusalem] preached the word wherever they went.” (NIV) What a sad commentary that in our day and age we have, all too often, relegated evangelism to paid professionals! Instead of taking personal responsibility for taking the good news of freedom from the bondage of sin to others, we leave it to the church as an institution. Could it be that one reason the faith of so many of us is weak, is that we don’t exercise our faith by helping others find Christ? Could it be that the reason so many of us have such struggles overcoming our own sin is that we don’t bear one another’s burdens as we should?

A family sticks together

The other thing which really struck me is how so many described A.A. as family. It was in A.A. that they felt connected to like-minded people. It was there that they found acceptance. It was there that they were able to share their sorrows, struggles, triumphs and joys. It was there that they found fellowship.

But wait a minute. Isn’t the church supposed to be a family? After all, Christians are described as “children of God” (Romans 8:16, Philippians 2:15, etc.). As members of God’s “household” (Philippians 2:19) why have we forgotten that in a household or family there is not only a relationship between child and parent but also between children? Why do we act as though we are an only child? It is tragic that members of the family which should have the strongest bonds of all have to look elsewhere for fellowship.

Am I suggesting that the church ought to become like A.A.? Not at all. However I am suggesting that the reason A.A. is effective is that it, whether deliberately or inadvertently, adopted many of the principles and characteristics which made the early church effective. It’s high time that we got back into our New Testaments to discover those principles and characteristics and put them into practice.

We read this description of the first Christians: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42 NIV) Among the churches with which I am familiar, there’s room for a lot of improvement in all four of those areas. But especially in the area of fellowship. Fellowship is far more than a few minutes of superficial chit-chat before or after the church service. It means spending time with one another. It means becoming vulnerable to one another. It means being available. It means showing hospitality. It means taking an active and genuine interest in each other. It means putting the welfare of our spiritual family members ahead of our own. It means going out of our way to help each other. It means befriending each other. And, when we learn to act as a family; when the church rediscovers its roots, the need for A.A. and the other 12-step programs will go away.

Developing a well-rounded congregation.

As I sat in the pew and observed the rest of the congregation I wondered, yet again, what the point of it all was. On the surface, the congregation was dynamic and vibrant. There was lots of enthusiasm and optimism. The music was contemporary and the services were upbeat and well conducted. There were lots of ministries. The congregation was enjoying numeric growth. But, if you took the average person in the pew and stood him next to a pagan randomly snagged off the street, how could you tell the difference? My cynical eye couldn’t detect much difference in dress or behavior. The speech and attitudes of both seemed about the same. Worst of all, their thought patterns and world-view seemed very similar.

No doubt I was allowing my disillusionment with that particular congregation to indulge in hyperbole and color my view. But the basic observation was valid. What made the observation particularly ironic and painful to me was that the congregation had, at least historically, made a point of conforming to the pattern of the New Testament church. Yet, in spite of the claim, the results seemed very different. There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of transformation taking place. I couldn’t help but think that something had gone drastically wrong.

My experiences with that and other congregations have prompted me to do some thinking about the kind of church which is pleasing to the Lord. It’s been my observation that even congregations which are strong in one area are usually lacking in another. Is it even possible to “get it right”? Are trade-offs inevitable? Let me draw an analogy from the discipline of engineering.

Inevitable trade-offs?

Picture a triangle. Label one corner ‘fast,’ a second one ‘good,’ and the third, ‘inexpensive.’ This classic triangle describes the constraints not only of products but, also, the processes used to design and manufacture them. Each product and process will lie somewhere within the triangle. The three qualities are mutually exclusive. The closer a product or process is to one of the corners, the further away it will be from the others. A particular product or process may be optimized for two of the qualities, but not all three. For example, if a product is inexpensive, it may also be of high quality but not fast. If it is fast and of high quality, it will not be inexpensive. Similarly, if a crash program is initiated in order to implement something quickly, either it will be inefficient or it will be expensive.

There is something else worth mentioning about this. The attempt to optimize a particular attribute does not guarantee that the goal will be achieved. On the other hand, not to make the attempt to optimize almost guarantees that a product or process will fail in all three areas.

It’s also worth noting that the three attributes of quality, speed and inexpensive are somewhat relative – particularly when viewed historically. In other words, standards and perceptions have changed over time. Take, for example, a computer system. A system which today is regarded as rather slow is blindingly fast compared what was available only 10 years ago. At the same time, it is much less expensive and the quality is much higher. Yet, the fact remains that in the context of its own time a particular product or process cannot be optimized for all three characteristics simultaneously. Trade-offs are inevitable.

Does the same thing hold true for the church? Over the centuries there have been many attempts to make the church what it ought to be. (The difference between reformation and restoration and which movements fit into which category is beyond the scope of this essay.) With few exceptions (for example the Oxford Movement which looked to the early church ‘Fathers’ and Catholicism for inspiration) they have all looked to the Bible to discover the attributes which the church ought to have. What are the attributes the various movements emphasized? Here’s a partial list.

Bible Study – (Pietists, Restoration Movement)
Lifestyle – (Anabaptists)
Moral Purity – (Pietists, Holiness Movement)
Social Consciousness – (Christian Humanists, Methodists)
Observance of ‘sacraments’ (baptism, Lord’s Supper) – (Protestant Reformation, Puritans, Restoration Movement)
Doctrine – (Christian Humanists, Restoration Movement)
Evangelism – (Anabaptists, Puritans, Restoration Movement)
Covenant – (Puritans)
Form and Structure – (Congregationalism, Restoration Movement)
Church Discipline – (Puritans)
Unity – (Restoration Movement)
Work of the Holy Spirit – (Holiness Movement, Charismatic Movement)
Anticipation of Christ’s Return – (Puritans, Restoration Movement)

As already indicated, this is not a complete let alone an exhaustive list. No doubt the associations I have made between the attributes and movements can be criticized as well. I may well have missed one or more of a particular movement’s characteristics. The broader point I am trying to make is this: Some groups or movements emphasized one thing, others another. No one group or movement seems to have been strong in all areas.

Case in point: My own spiritual heritage is from the Restoration Movement of the early 19th century. The pioneers of the movement were the likes of Raccoon John Smith, Barton W. Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Some of the early leaders, Alexander Campbell in particular, were heavily influenced by the ‘common sense rationalism’ of John Locke and the ‘Age of Reason.’ One of the positive results of this was the application of some of the principles of the scientific method to the discipline of Bible study. This was a genuine advance. On the other hand, there was a tendency in the movement to look at the Scriptures in a very pragmatic and formulaic way. To a certain extent, Scripture was reduced to a series of ‘how to’ – almost mechanistic – prescriptions. It is no accident that Campbell’s most comprehensive book on doctrine is titled The Christian System. It became common to refer to the ‘plan’ or ‘steps’ of salvation and ‘the five acts of worship.’

A strength of the movement was its emphasis on restoring the form and structure of the early church. On the other hand, the influence of Reason led to minimizing the role and work of the Holy Spirit. Some went so far as to say that the Spirit works only through the revealed Word of the Scriptures. In other words, the movement tended to focus on the doctrinal part of Christianity while, in effect, downplaying the experiential side of it. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible for someone to know all the right teachings but not display a Christ-like character.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Charismatic Movement has emphasized the role and work of the Holy Spirit often to the exclusion of doctrine. Truth takes a backseat to experience. It is not uncommon for those in the movement to ascribe things to the Spirit which clearly contradict what the Spirit has already revealed in Scripture.

Christ’s priorities for the church

So then, where does the balance lie? When we take a look at the list of attributes given above, which ones are the most important? Clearly, different groups have different answers. We need to rephrase the question and ask which of the attributes are important to Christ.

In fact, all of them are. Every single one of them are either directly addressed or implied in Christ’s messages to the churches in Revelation, chapters 2 and 3. Let’s take a look:

Bible Study – 2:12 and 2:16 mention Christ’s “sharp, double-edged sword” which is symbolic of the Word. 3:3 instructs the Christians at Sardis to remember what they have received. The church at Philadelphia is commended for keeping Christ’s Word (3:8).

Lifestyle – In 2:23 Christ says that He will repay each person according to his deeds. He commends some in Sardis who “have not soiled their clothes” (3:4). The church at Laodicea is castigated because its deeds are lukewarm (3:15-16).

Moral Purity – Christ stresses the need for purity time and again. He commends the church at Ephesus for not tolerating wicked men (2:2). He threatens severe punishment to those in Thyatira who will not repent of immorality (2:21-23).

Social Consciousness – Christ commends the church at Thyatira for its service (2:19). The word which is translated ‘service’ is just a different form of the Greek word which we transliterate ‘Deacon.’ Assuming that the men who were appointed in Acts 6 were the first Deacons, and there is good reason to think so, that account demonstrates that service involves taking care of the poor and needy.

Observance of ‘sacraments’ (baptism, Lord’s Supper) – Christ says that the church at Sardis is dead (3:1). Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 that one of the causes of spiritual illness and death is the failure to partake of the Lord’s Supper as one ought.

Doctrine – At least twice Christ rebukes the churches for embracing or tolerating false teaching. See 2:14-16, 2:20-25. Christ counsels the church in Laodicea to buy “gold refined in the fire” (3:18). When we compare this to 1 Peter 1:7 we see that this refers to a genuine faith. In addition to whatever else it means, I take a genuine faith to be one which is based on truth – in other words, it is based on correct doctrine and teaching.

Evangelism – Christ refers to Antipas as a “faithful witness” in 2:13. This brings to mind what Christ told the disciples in Acts 1:8, “…you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (NIV) He also tells the church in Philadelphia that He has opened a door for them (3:8). Paul uses this same figure of speech to refer to evangelism in 1 Corinthians 16:9, 2 Corinthians 2:12 and Colossians 4:3.

Covenant – Christ promises the faithful in Pergamum “some of the hidden manna” (2:17). This calls to mind Jesus’ sermon on the Bread of Heaven in John 6:22-71 which is closely tied to the theme of Passover and the giving of the Law. In other words, there is a strong covenantal inference in manna. Another reference to covenant is in Jesus’ words to those in the church in Laodicia where He promises to “eat with him, and he with me” (3:20). This brings to mind what Jesus said when He instituted the Lord’s Supper, “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”” (Mark 14:22-25 NIV)

Form and Structure – Christ commended the church in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be apostles (2:2). He also condemned the church in Thyatira for tolerating a false prophetess. Since both Apostles and Prophets are, metaphorically speaking, in the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20), this speaks to the issue of structure and of church government. Not only is the teaching and fitness of such people to lead to be evaluated, structures and mechanisms must exist to test them, refute them and remove them.

Church Discipline – Confrontation of sin and the need for repentance is a repeated theme in these letters (2:5, 2:16, 2:21, 3:3, 3:19). In 3:19 Christ specifically links the concept of repentance to discipline or chastening.

Unity – Though the letters in Revelation 2 and 3 are addressed to individual churches, everyone is commanded to listen to what Jesus says (2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13 3:22). This demonstrates that the message is for all. All the churches are in it together regardless of their individual problems or individual commendations. They are all serving the same Christ and will share in the same rewards and promises.

Work of the Holy Spirit – Though it is Christ who addresses the churches, in each case we are instructed to listen to “what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13, 3:22). Obviously the message of Christ and that of the Spirit cannot be separated. The two go together. To ignore or diminish one is to downgrade the other as well.

Anticipation of Christ’s Return – Christ tells the faithful in Thyatira to hold on to what they have “until I come” (2:25). He tells the church in Philadelphia, “I am coming soon” (3:11). The other letters also contain allusions to Christ’s second coming.

If all of these things are important to Christ (and there are other things in these letters which I haven’t mentioned), why do we made such a hash of it? Why is a church which is strong in the areas of form and function lacking in unity and the anticipation of Christ’s return? How can a church have a tremendous social consciousness yet pay almost no attention to sound doctrine? How can a congregation major in the work of the Spirit yet be totally deficient in church discipline? What’s with a church which is strong on doctrine but can’t seem to carry that doctrine over into lifestyle?

Putting the First Thing first

Could it be that we’ve gotten the cart before the horse? What I mean is that the attributes I’ve been talking about are really symptoms of something much more fundamental. If we get that fundamental right, the attributes will be a natural result. Whenever we put emphasis on one or more of the attributes instead of on what the attributes are an outgrowth of, we run the risk of missing the point and getting out of balance. It’s like a preacher who spends all his time on technique and the process of communication but has nothing to say. He says nothing, but says it eloquently. He’s forgotten that the whole point of the exercise is to deliver a message.

If I’m correct that the attributes are an outgrowth of something more fundamental, what is it? I submit to you that it is Christ, Himself. The more we focus on Christ, both as individuals and as a church, the more we will develop the attributes and characteristics of Christ, the more we will desire the things which please Him and the more we will desire to fellowship with Him.

It seems to me that we have often gotten so wrapped up in secondary issues, important though they are, that we have forgotten to pay attention to what is most important. Paul told the Corinthians to follow his example to the extent that he followed the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Paul longed for the day when Christ would be formed in the Galatian Christians (Galatians 4:19). He instructed the Christians at Ephesus to imitate God (Ephesians 5:1). But how do we know what God is like? By looking at Jesus (John 14:9). Paul instructed the Philippians to have the mind or the attitude of Christ (Philippians 2:5). He commended the Thessalonians for imitating the Lord (1 Thessalonians 1:6).

The more we become like Christ, the more what is important to Him will become what is important to us. When we have the same priorities as Christ, our congregations will have the same priorities as Christ. Our churches will reflect Christ. When the world looks at the church, it will see Christ instead of us. We won’t be like the engineer who has to deliberately optimize his machine for one attribute at the expense of another. By “fixing our eyes on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2) we can be strong in all areas.

To what extent should the church change in order to attract people?

A while back a fellow Elder resigned at the church I used to serve. True, one of the reasons was a long-term medical situation in his family which took a great deal of time and emotional energy. As a result he felt that he was unable to give enough attention to his responsibilities at church. But there was another reason as well. He was disappointed that the church had not been growing as fast as he thought it should.

Looking back, the seeds of his disappointment probably germinated a little over a year after we started the congregation. It was about that time we were told by some among the 30-somethings that the concepts with which we began the congregation sounded fine in principle, but weren’t working in practice. We had already puzzled and agonized over why people in that age group seemed so uncommitted and erratic in their involvement. So, it was interesting to hear the perspectives of some from that demographic.

One of the things which drew the most criticism was our speaker rotation. It was pointed out to us that some speakers are not as polished as others. They didn’t like some of our speaking styles. They felt uncomfortable bringing friends because of the inconsistency of style.

From the time we got the criticism, the light in my fellow Elder’s eyes began to die. From that day forward, in spite of my protests and urging, with the exception of a Communion meditation or two, he never addressed the congregation again. Though he never said it in so many words, it became clear that he was willing to abandon the rotation altogether and even hire a full-time ‘preacher.’ He made it clear that he didn’t think our speaking was of the sort to attract and hold new people; if we kept on with our current practice, the church wouldn’t grow as it should, numerically.

Customer orientation

This whole episode raises a very important question. To what extent should we accommodate others in order to get them in the doors? H. Dale Burke – the man who succeeded Chuck Swindoll at First Evangelical Free Church in Fullerton, California – has this to say in his book Less is More Leadership: “…ministry and the marketplace are not as different as you might think. The bottom line for both is service to survive – to please or perish. I have customers, and so do you. And if my customers don’t like the product that they’re getting, there are many other places they can go for the same product. And they are very quick to find a new spiritual outlet to meet their needs.” (Less is More Leadership, 8 Secrets to How to Lead & Still Have a Life, H. Dale Burke, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2004, p.29)

This concern, to please spiritual ‘customers,’ is not limited to Burke. On October 10, 2008 the Weekend Journal of the Wall Street Journal published an interesting article called The Mystery Worshipper. According to the article, a growing number of churches are hiring people to pose as first-time attenders to come and covertly assess everything from the toilets to the sermons. In keeping with the ‘customer’ motif, these people are actually referred to as “secret-shoppers.” The ‘shoppers’ issue the churches a grade and a report on the problems they saw. The church uses the report to make changes which will attract more people. The article quotes one pastor as saying, “My competition is Cracker Barrel restaurant down the street… If they go in there and are treated more like family than when they come to CrossPoint Church then it’s lights out for me.”

Now in one sense, I can see where the insights and impressions of an outsider could be very helpful. We all have our blind spots and need a reality check from time to time. But on another level I find this ‘customer’ orientation not only disturbing, but profoundly wrong-headed. Let’s take a closer look at Burke’s statement. How does it stack up against the principles of Scripture?

Please who?

“…please or perish.” Somehow I can’t help but contrast this philosophy to that of the Apostle Paul. In writing to the Galatians he says, “…If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (1:10 NIV) In light of this statement is it possible that Paul would consider anyone who adopts the ‘please or perish’ philosophy to NOT be a servant of Christ?! I think it is a real possibility. Any time we find ourselves starting to get concerned about pleasing people, we’d better start getting concerned about whether we are still pleasing Christ.

Nor was Paul’s statement to the Christians in Galatia some sort of aberration. Look at what he wrote to another group of Christians: “…with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.” (1 Thessalonians 2:2-4 NIV)

From this it is clear that the gospel Paul preached was not pleasing to men. But pleasing men was not the standard or the criterion Paul used to determine what he would say or how he would say it. His was an entirely different standard. His concern was to please God. If people didn’t like it, too bad. He was not about to change his God-given message just because it wasn’t popular.

The Gospel a product?

“…there are many other places they can go for the same product.” Oh, really?! I guess it depends on what sort of product you’re peddling.

I have two objections. The first is to equate the gospel to a product. Frankly, it strikes me as prostituting the gospel. How so? Well, what comes to your mind when someone talks about buying or selling love? And what is the gospel but an expression of God’s love? “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8 NIV)

The gospel is not a product. It is not some sort of commodity which can be bought or sold in the marketplace. On the contrary, “…it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16 NIV)

My second objection is the assumption that everybody is proclaiming the same message. Yes, I am perfectly aware that in our postmodern world people claim that there are no absolutes and all faiths are merely different paths to God. But that is simply not true. The fact is that all messages do not lead to God. What you believe really does make a difference.

Even assuming that Burke did not mean to imply that all roads lead to God, I take issue with his assertion that the ‘same product’ is available from ‘many other places.’ Oh, I suppose I agree that if someone is in search of a ‘feel good’ gospel; a gospel which caters to ‘felt needs;’ an anemic gospel which provides ‘cheap grace;’ a gospel which does not require counting the cost or crucifying self, there are plenty of places to find it. If that is the kind of ‘product’ Burke is peddling, then he is right to be concerned. But if that is the reason for his concern, he’s concerned about the wrong thing. Jesus said, “…wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13 NIV) If we’re keepers of a gate which everybody is flocking to, perhaps it would be a good idea to evaluate how wide that gate is. If our gate is identical to everybody else’s gate, perhaps we’d better check out who made it and where it leads to.

Jesus went on to say, “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:14 NIV) It’s been my observation that the small gate is becoming harder to find than ever. The billboards advertising the wide gate tend to hide it.

‘felt needs’ or ultimate Need?

“…they are very quick to find a new spiritual outlet to meet their needs.” I think this epitomizes the core of the problem. Since when has ‘meeting needs’ become the standard by which to judge a congregation? The task of the church has never been to cater to ‘felt needs’ but to proclaim the gospel – “…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 NIV) Whenever we start to focus on perceived ‘needs’ instead of on Christ, we become a secular church. The following quote expresses it well.

“…Instead of the pulpit, with its uniquely Christian task, setting the agenda of the “helping” ministries, the therapeutic and technical aspects of the “helping” ministries often set the agenda for the pulpit.

“How does this happen? Perhaps it results from our infatuation with numerical success. What the people really want, we tell ourselves, is family ministry, youth ministry, involvement ministries, and short-term solutions to anxiety and depression. And at one level they do. But instead of leading people to see the ultimate answer behind their immediate needs and then proclaiming the cross of Christ as the Answer of Answers, our preaching often falls victim to the illusion that secondary, penultimate, and “felt” needs are the truly fundamental needs that we must address…

“…to refuse to speak of sin, suffering, and the ambiguities of life in our Sunday worship is to evict from our midst the very cross of Christ… Without conviction of sin, failure, and finitude, there can be no meaningful sense of grace.

“…The gospel is the message of life in the form of death, power in the garb of weakness, and success in the guise of failure.

“These, however, are precisely the themes the secular church does not want to hear. Its passion, instead, is for life in the form of life, power in the form of power, and success in the form of success; as a result, it thrusts talk of death, weakness, and failure out of doors. Not surprisingly, then, it confuses immediate, penultimate questions with the ultimate question and its own temporal answers with the Final Answer found in the Crucified One…

“The church is not called simply to meet needs. It is called, rather, to meet the ultimate need. To do less than this is to forget both who and Whose we are and to fail in our calling altogether.” (The Worldly Church, A Call For Biblical Renewal, Second Edition, C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, Michael R. Weed, ACU Press, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas, 1991, pp. 46-48)

This, by the way, was the principle which cost Jesus most of His following. After the feeding of the 5,000, the people actually wanted to make Jesus their king. Here was a man, they thought, who would meet their “felt needs” – after all, food is one of the most basic needs. But when Jesus dared to address their ultimate need, rather than the perceived ‘need’ of the moment, the crowds left. It was a turning point in Christ’s ministry. From a human perspective Jesus failed. He was left with not many more than the 12 Apostles (See John 6:25-71). And, from that incident forward, the opposition to Christ began to really gain momentum.

From a divine perspective, however, Jesus’ refusal to cater to the “felt needs” of the people and His steadfast commitment to do the will of the Father, even though it was unpopular with the crowd, was what made redemption possible. There is no place for the cross in the ‘pleasing the customer’ mentality.

I’m afraid that about the only thing I can agree with in Burke’s statement is the emphasis on service. Not only are we who have leadership roles in the church called to serve (1 Peter 4:10), we also have an obligation to prepare others for ‘works of service’ (Ephesians 4:12). It is worth noting, however, that those ‘works of service’ are not defined by the “felt needs” of people but are predetermined by God (Ephesians 2:10).

What’s the assembly for? Evangelism?

Perhaps part of the reason so many churches have lost their way in the attempt to attract people is that they have either forgotten, or redefined, the purpose of the church assembly. For many decades church leaders have tried to harmonize two basically incompatible goals. On the one hand, they have tried to use the church assembly as a means to win those outside of Christ. In other words, the assembly has become a (and many times the primary) means of evangelism. This is why there has been such an emphasis on “bring your friends and acquaintances to church.” On the other hand, ministers recognize the responsibility to spiritually feed those who are already in Christ. The trouble is, it is very hard to do both at the same time.

These two goals, to win those outside of Christ, and to feed those already in Him, are at odds with each other. Messages designed to help Christians grow in the Lord simply do not apply to those outside of Christ. Messages designed to help those outside of Christ see their need of a Savior do not greatly benefit those who have already given themselves to Him. Recognizing the fundamental disconnect between these two goals, some authors of older books on preaching, suggest that the Sunday morning assembly be evangelistic while the Sunday night service be geared toward meeting the spiritual needs of Christians. This was, at best, a compromise. And now that the majority of congregations have abandoned evening services altogether, the attempt to reconcile the divide between the two emphases has become even more daunting. In an attempt to resolve the fundamental conflict between these two goals, many congregations have consciously chosen to orient their assemblies toward those outside of Christ and feed the flock in other venues such as small groups. They’ve deliberately made changes both to the format and content of the assembly in order to attract the ‘un-churched.’ They call it being ‘seeker sensitive.’ Tragically, that decision has, as mentioned above, all too often resulted in also doing away with the offense of the cross. (Notice, by the way, how it is now beyond the pale to describe the ‘un-churched’ or the ‘seeker’ according to their actual spiritual condition, that is, ‘unsaved’ or ‘lost’!)

When we started the congregation where I used to serve, we went the other way. We deliberately and consciously decided that the assemblies were going to be for Christians. That is the teaching of, and the example we see in, the New Testament. We certainly didn’t forbid anyone to come, but the main purpose of the assemblies was to remember Christ and build up and strengthen those already in Christ. They were not primarily intended for evangelism. Most of our evangelism was done at other times, in other venues.

But, oh, it is hard sometimes to not acknowledge the siren song of culture when someone tells us that she doesn’t feel comfortable inviting her friends. How do you tell her, without sounding like a sadist, that you hope her unsaved friends don’t feel comfortable in the assembly? Yes, we certainly want to show love to everyone who comes but, at the same time, if the unsaved are so comfortable among us that they see no need of change; if they never feel the conviction of sin and the need of crucifying self and surrendering to Christ, we’ve failed. This position may not be the most popular; it might not get as many bodies in the door, but I think that in time, and by God’s grace, it will build a far healthier congregation than those who have chosen a ‘consumer orientation.’

Does a consumer orientation even work in the long run?

Now the object is not to create artificial barriers. There’s nothing wrong in trying to make it easier for people to attend the church assemblies. There’s nothing wrong in trying to arrange our assemblies so that it’s as easy as possible for people to direct their attention toward God. There’s nothing sacred about the ‘order of service’ or what time we meet on the Lord’s Day. For example, what point is there in insisting that the assembly start at 8:00 in the morning if people work the graveyard shift and can’t get there before 9:00? What benefit is there in irritating people in unnecessary ways?

The problem occurs only when our yardstick becomes pragmatism (doing what seems to “work”) and expediency (doing what people want) instead of Biblical principle and precedent. In my opinion, for example, we cross the line when we provide a Saturday night assembly as a substitute for those held on the Lord’s Day.

So, we listened to the criticism and made what changes we could without betraying principle. But behold the irony: In spite of our efforts to accommodate the concerns of the 30-somethings, there was no change in their commitment level. We merely succeeded in annoying the faithful with no offsetting benefit. And thus shall it ever be when we try to appease those whose eyes are directed more toward self than toward Christ.

It’s my personal conviction that we are far better off asking people to conform to the ideals and culture of the congregation (provided, of course, that the congregation is solidly grounded in Scriptural principles) than to try to conform the congregation to the expectations of any demographic. The faithfulness of the newer converts seemed to back me up.

Well what about our speaking rotation?

As noted above, our speaker rotation drew some of the harshest criticism. Well, I happen to think that the speaking rotation was one of our strengths. I think it was a step toward recapturing the participatory nature of the assemblies of the early church. I think it is important for the congregation to hear God’s Word proclaimed from different angles and with different emphases. To my way of thinking, content is far more important than style. And who should have the final say on style, anyway? I know for a fact that the very style which one person thinks is the best, drives others nuts. One of the beauties of rotation is that if you don’t like a particular style; if you don’t like a particular speaker, you only have to wait a month or two for a change. And, as far as some being better speakers than others goes, how can anyone get good; how can anyone improve unless he has the opportunity to practice speaking? In my view if someone has an insight from the Word, we need to hear it regardless of how polished his speaking ability is. The larger question is, “Does he have something to say?” A corollary to it is, “Is he making progress?” If so, I say let him speak.

I realize that not hiring a ‘preacher’ to do the majority of the speaking bucks the trend. It’s almost unheard of. But I’m not interested in following trends. My concern is trying to fulfill God’s intent for the church. I firmly believe that the New Testament precedent is to have a number of speakers.

Since we weren’t going to go to a ‘one-man band,’ my fellow Elder strongly urged – almost to the point of rudeness – that we get some formal training in speaking. I’m all for improving. We need to do the best job we can of communicating. But, like in all things, there’s a balance. I sometimes wonder if we don’t lose something in the pursuit of professional polish. There’s something real and genuine in the efforts of the untrained amateur. To lose that would be a heavy price to pay for formal training. I’ve seen too many speakers who put on a different persona when they get behind the lectern. Personally, I’ll take the untrained presentation of someone who shares himself over the trained rhetorician who hides his real self behind slick technique. I’ll go for content over style any day. If we can have both, great! But if we have to choose one or the other, give me the content and what’s real every time.

One writer put it this way: “Remember, it’s mutual participation we are after at every possible level. Whether song leading, or bringing thoughts around the table, or teaching and preaching – open it up for all the men to take responsibility. And train them to do it well, beginning not with methods but with prayer and study of the Word. Center a man on God, and the methods will take care of themselves.

“But as the men grow, don’t teach them to preach. That’s right. Don’t teach them to preach. Teach them to share their study…their struggles in the Word…their experience in living it out…and their hearts as they reflect on what they’ve studied. Let’s not perpetuate an expectation for the same kind of sermons from those who continue to preach full-time. Let’s allow them to talk to us about our spiritual needs. To feed and nurture is not necessarily to prepare a sermon with three memorable points…” (Radical Restoration, A Call for Pure and Simple Christianity, F. LaGard Smith, Cotswold Publishing, 2001, p. 271)

I totally agree.

Are Christians ever justified in taking up arms or using deadly force?

Something which comes with the territory for Elders and others who have leadership roles in the church is that you get asked some tough questions. I’m told that there are a number of folk in the congregation where I served who are deeply troubled by some of the trends in our society. They are frightened by the rise of evil and the lawlessness they see. The topic apparently came up in one of the study groups and some wondered if we ought to purchase weapons to defend ourselves. A lady who was there emailed the Elders to get our take on the subject. The questions she asked boil down to this: “Under what circumstances, if any, should Christians use deadly force to defend themselves? Shouldn’t Christians depend on God to protect them?”

These are emotionally charged questions. It’s all too easy to give a knee-jerk response which is conditioned more by our culture, our fears and our experiences than by Scripture. To complicate matters, self-defense is a broad topic and there isn’t any one passage of Scripture which spells everything out for us in black and white. Instead, we have to weigh and apply several principles. To answer the questions, I’m going to approach the subject a little obliquely.

By the way, the issue of war and whether Christians can or should serve in the armed forces is way beyond the scope of this essay. That’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish!

Capital punishment

To get a handle on the subject of using deadly force I think we need to first ask whether God ever sanctions the taking of human life. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows that the answer is, ‘Yes.’ He not only sanctioned it, He often commanded it.

But here we must use caution. We can’t indiscriminately transfer everything in the Old Testament to the present. Just because God sanctioned, and even required, the taking of life in the Law of Moses does not necessarily mean that He does so now. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant. We live under the New. Is there, then, a principle which transcends the Law of Moses? Yes, I think there is. Genesis 9:5-6 says, “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (NIV)

From this I think it is pretty clear that God not only permits, but requires, the death of those who shed human blood. In other words, God commands capital punishment for murder or homicide. The capital punishment spelled out in the Mosaic Law for those who violated the command, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13 NIV) is really just a practical application of the general principle. The principle is universal because God gave it to Noah right after the flood. Also, it was never fulfilled or revoked by the passing away of the Old Covenant because it predates the Old Covenant. It is still in force. It is likely that Jesus alluded to God’s mandate of capital punishment when He said to Peter, “Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52 NIV) From the context it’s quite possible that Jesus’ comment has a much broader application than capital punishment, but I think it is safe to say that He upheld and endorsed the principal of capital punishment which God gave to Noah.

Whose responsibility?

This raises another question. If God sanctions capital punishment, who has the responsibility to carry it out? Speaking of a ruler or governing authority Paul writes, “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4 NIV) This teaching is echoed by Peter in 1st Peter 2:13.

From these passages I draw the conclusion that it is the state’s or government’s responsibility to carry out capital punishment. Some of the ramifications of this conclusion are:

1) Some would say that putting a murderer to death brings the government or state down to the same level as the murderer. Not so. On the contrary, the state or government is carrying out God’s command.

2) Some say that taking the life of a murderer violates the principle of the sanctity of life. Not at all. It is the murderer who has shown contempt for life. He is merely receiving the same value he has already placed upon it. Seeing the consequence for not placing a high value on life will encourage others to value it more.

3) No blood-guilt is incurred by obeying God’s directive to execute murderers. If asked by the state or governing authority a Christian could, in good conscience, take part in a firing squad or administer a lethal injection.

4) A Christian in law enforcement would be justified and would not incur blood-guilt by using deadly force, according to the guidelines given by the state or governing authority, against someone who has either killed or threatened the life of someone else.

Self-defense

If it is true that God sanctions capital punishment, and if it is true that the responsibility to carry it out lies with the state then, as already indicated, it follows that Christians acting on behalf of the state are acting within God’s will to take human life in those circumstances. But what does this have to do with the issue of self-defense?

A delegated authority

Though the state or government has the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens and also has the responsibility of putting to death those who have violated the sanctity of life, the fact is that the state cannot be everywhere at all times. It is not capable of protecting everyone. In recognition of this fact, many governments have explicitly delegated part of their authority to individual persons. The state gives a person the right to use deadly force in defending himself against anyone trying (or whom the defender assumes may be trying) to take his life. Similarly, a person has the delegated authority to use deadly force while defending others who are under attack.

The rules governing self-defense or the defense of others vary from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, in the U.S. some states stipulate that a person under attack must first attempt to retreat or flee before using deadly force against his attacker. In recent years, several states have enacted laws which embody the so-called ‘Castle Doctrine.’ These laws acknowledge that someone who is under attack in his own home (metaphorically, his castle) does not have to retreat before defending himself. [Note: Those states which do not have the requirement to retreat already implicitly acknowledge the ‘Castle Doctrine’.]

Regardless of the specific guidelines, the important point is this: Governments have, within narrow bounds, delegated their God-given responsibility to requite the taking of life to ordinary people. Within those boundaries, a Christian may use deadly force without incurring guilt.

We need to remember, however, that what the government allows is not the ultimate standard. There are some other principles of Scripture which apply.

Proportionate response

One scriptural principle which restricts the use of deadly force is that of proportion. The Old Covenant Law of “…life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21 NIV) makes this clear. Our response must not be more dire than the situation calls for. It is inappropriate for anyone to take life in a situation where life is not threatened. So, to make the point with an absurd and extreme example, it would be totally out of place to shoot a small child for tossing a snowball at you. The most you could possibly be justified in doing would be to toss back, with the same force, a snowball of the same size and hardness.

Jesus implicitly recognized the right of a householder to protect his own home (the ‘Castle Doctrine’) when He said, “…If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” (Luke 12:39 NIV) But even there, the principle of proportionate response still applies. Exodus 22:2 states: “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;” (NIV) Yet, the very next phrase says, “but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:3 NIV) In other words, under the Law a householder is not held responsible for killing an intruder at night, but is held responsible for killing him after the sun comes up. Presumably the reason is that in the dark it is more difficult, if not impossible, to judge the intent of someone and it is also harder to land blows accurately. When it is light, however, it is easier to judge intent and it is possible to see whether an intruder is armed. If I understand this passage properly, it seems to be saying that property is not worth taking life over. This agrees with the New Testament teaching that life is more important than possessions (See Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36-37, Luke 12:15).

Revenge

Another principle of Scripture which applies to the use of deadly force is that revenge belongs to God. This principle is stated in both the Old and New Testaments (Leviticus 19:18, Romans 12:19). While a Christian has the right to use deadly force to defend himself or others from deadly peril, we do not have the right to revenge ourselves. The right to defend is precisely that, it is not a license to attack or exact retribution. Retribution is the Lord’s responsibility.

Revolution

A related issue which vexes many Christians is whether it is appropriate to take up arms against a corrupt or oppressive government. There are many, for example, who hold the position that the American Revolution was ordained and blessed by God and that Christians were fully justified in taking up arms against Great Britain. These folk argue that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to establish a ‘Christian Nation’ for the purpose of taking the gospel to the far reaches of the world.

Now, a discussion about the concept of a ‘Christian Nation’ is far beyond the scope of this essay. I’ll just mention that I find the whole notion an oxymoron. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Founding Fathers derived their philosophy more from John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau than they did the Bible. Be that as it may, I find it curious that the same people who extol the American Revolution will censure the French Revolution which took place just a few years later and drew from the same philosophical well. Those among them who hold the Historicist view of the book of Revelation identify the French Revolution with the “foul and loathsome sore” (NKJ) of Revelation 16:2. About the only positive thing they have to say about it is in regard to its role in bringing down the Papacy.

Why the difference in how the two revolutions are regarded? Presumably it is because the Americans purposefully enshrined many biblical principles in their laws and body politic while the French made a deliberate attempt to erase all vestiges of organized religion from their nation and even went to the extreme, at one point, of banning the Bible. But this is an ends-means argument. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul demolished the argument that evil means are justified in order to obtain a good result when he wrote, “…Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1-2 NIV. See also Romans 3:5-8.) Just because God brought much good out of the American Revolution does not, in any way, justify it or make it right for Christians to have participated in it.

If we leave the ends-means argument aside, is there a biblical mandate for participating in revolution? I can’t find any. Now, I freely admit that I am glad the American Revolution took place. I am, in my own fashion, a patriot. But I cannot justify the American Revolution from the Bible. Whenever someone tries to do so, I hear Samuel’s statement to King Saul start to play in my mind, “For rebellion is like the sin of divination (or witchcraft – NKJ), and arrogance like the evil of idolatry…” (1 Samuel 15:23 NIV)

One of the themes of 1st Peter is submission to governmental authorities. It’s worth noting that the government Peter instructed the people to whom he was writing to submit to, was far worse than the government against whom the Americans rebelled.

The Apostle Paul also instructs submission to the government. He goes so far as to say, “…he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:2 NIV) He goes on to instruct the Christians at Rome to pay their taxes. (See the whole section in Romans 13:1-7.)

Let’s explore that just a little more. Paul writes to the Philippians that because of his imprisonment, the gospel had become known throughout the imperial or praetorian guard. (See Philippians 1:12-13.) According to church tradition (and there is no reason to doubt it) Paul was executed in Rome for his faith in Christ. It was the praetorian guard which carried out political executions (which according to the Roman government, Paul’s would have been). Chances are that Paul personally knew, and had taught the gospel to, the man who beheaded him. In a sense, Paul instructed the Christians in Rome, through their taxes, to pay the salary of his executioner.

There is no getting around it. Both Peter and Paul instructed Christians to be loyal and submissive to the government – even if it is a bad or oppressive one. I just don’t see how anyone can use the Bible to justify fomenting or participating in revolution. The early Christians couldn’t either. When the Jewish people revolted against Rome (66-73 A.D.) the Christians among them obeyed Jesus’ command and withdrew from Jerusalem. The refusal of Christians to side with their fellow Jews against Rome was so strongly resented that the division it caused continues to this day.

Oh, and by the way, what about the justification for the American Revolution against the British that it was to create a nation to be a beacon which would shed the light of Christianity on a benighted world? Well, who was it that spearheaded the abolition of the slave trade? The Brits. Hmm. Who led the way in establishing the Bible Societies? The Brits. Double Hmm. Who was it that was largely responsible for the great missionary movements of the 18th and 19th Centuries? The Brits. Triple Hmm. Who were people like William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Mary Slessor and Roland Allen? Brits. Quadruple Hmm.

Now don’t get me wrong. There’s no doubt that Americans have played a large role in the missionary movements and have made important contributions to world evangelism. But the missionary justification for the Revolution really loses its luster when viewed against actual history. There is nothing ‘Manifest’ about U.S. history, nor was it ‘Destined.’

Civil disobedience

Does being loyal and submissive to government mean obeying no matter what? No. A Christian’s first loyalty is always to God and Christ. There is a reason we call Christ, ‘Lord.’ If a government tells us to do something which is contrary to God’s will then, in order to be loyal to Christ, we will respectfully disobey the government. This, by the way, is why many, if not most, governments view Christians as potentially subversive. Our loyalty to the government is conditional upon the government not requiring us to do what is wrong. (For example, see Acts 4:18-20.)

We must be very careful, however, that our disobedience really is an expression of our obedience to Christ rather than a political protest. In this we must, as in all things, follow the example of our Lord. “He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.” (Isaiah 42:2 NIV) While Jesus exposed and strongly opposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of the day, He avoided political controversy as much as possible. When His opponents tried to trap Him into making a seditious statement, He deftly turned the tables while upholding the authority of the state. “…Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21 NIV) The teaching is clear: If we can give to Caesar without compromising what is God’s, then we are to comply with what Caesar wants.

Abortion

What about situations which are not totally clear-cut, in the sense that there is no direct command in Scripture which seems to apply? In the case of abortion, at least in the U.S., there seem to be conflicting principles at work. On the one hand, from a biblical perspective, abortion is the unjustified taking of life. In other words, to put it bluntly, abortion is murder. Under the principles already discussed, a Christian has the right (some would say, has the obligation) to defend against murder. On the other hand, the government says that abortion is a right. Therefore, from a legal perspective, abortion is not murder and the defense rules do not apply.

So what is a Christian to do? Here are a few thoughts that might help clear the air.

1) In the U.S. at least, the decision to have an abortion is entirely voluntary. The question of whether to give asylum or grant sanctuary does not arise.

2) Under the principles of defense, it is the mother who ought to die for the intent or act of taking her child’s life. But, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that killing the mother will certainly not help or protect her unborn child. And, after the abortion has taken place, the penalty for taking life is no longer in our jurisdiction as individuals – if it ever was.

3) If a mother is truly ignorant that she is taking the life of her child, then she needs the same compassion and teaching that we would extend to anyone else who commits sin unwittingly.

4) Offing doctors who perform abortions or blowing up clinics won’t save the lives of any unborn children and only causes others to heap scorn on Christians and revile Christianity.

5) In most countries where abortion is allowed, Christians are just as much citizens as anyone else. We are free to use our rights as citizens to change the laws and peacefully remove ungodly, corrupt or immoral leaders, politicians and bureaucrats from office.

6) If we are so unfortunate as to live under regimes which force women to have abortions, we can offer help and asylum to those who are under threat.

7) Above all, we can set the world an example. First, by making sure our own home life demonstrates Christ’s love and compassion to each family member, born or unborn. Our homes should be islands of joy and peace in this violent and chaotic world. Secondly, by demonstrating that all life has value by caring for the unloved, despised or disadvantaged. This may include being willing to adopt unwanted children or giving so that others can take them in.

Persecution

The issue of taking up arms is particularly pertinent in regard to another area. How should Christians respond to persecution? Is it appropriate for us to defend ourselves against persecutors? In many places around the world, these are not theoretical questions, but something which must be faced in real life.

I think it is appropriate to first ask why the persecution is taking place. There is a fascinating question in 1st Peter 3:13. “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” (NIV) What makes this question fascinating is the textual variation which some other translations follow. For example the ESV says, “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” But even that does not capture what Peter is asking. A more literal translation would be, “Who is going to harm you if you are Zealots in doing good?”

The Zealots were super-patriots, political extremists and radical terrorists. It was they who precipitated the Roman war against the Jews in A.D. 66. Is Peter implying that the reason some Christians were suffering was because they had gotten mixed up in sedition or rebellion? I think it’s possible.

So, the first question we need to ask when faced with persecution is whether it really is persecution because of our faith. Or, are we suffering merely because we’ve yanked the authority’s chain?

In the next verse, Peter addresses the other end of the pendulum – the tendency to see threats where none exist. He does this by quoting part of Isaiah 8:12. The first part of Isaiah 8:12 reads, “Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy…” (NIV)

In other words, we need a sense of balance. On the one hand don’t call it persecution if we’re guilty of rebellion, and on the other don’t jump at every shadow. Make sure it’s a real case of persecution before reacting. Make sure it really is Christ in us that the opponents are objecting to. Once we have really made Christ our Lord, then whether we used to be toadies of the government, like Matthew the tax collector, or rabid terrorists like Simon the Zealot, we can face true persecution with the peace and confidence that Christ gives.

Okay, so what should we do when faced with genuine persecution? Peter’s answer is to follow the example of Christ. How did He respond to persecution? “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23 NIV) Our defense should be made with gentle and respectful words rather than with loaded weapons (1 Peter 3:15).

[Well, what about the situation in Esther? There the Jews defended themselves against persecution. Special case. For starters, the king was tricked into passing an irrevocable law against the Jewish people. Because the law could not be revoked, the Jews were later given authority by the state to defend themselves. It’s not parallel to the persecution which takes place against Christians today. It is worth noting that in the New Testament we never read of any Christian taking up weapons to defend against persecution.]

General principles of Christian conduct

Unfortunately, life rarely follows a script. If we’re going to try to find specific instructions in Scripture for every eventuality and circumstance, we going to be disappointed. There will always be a different situation or complicating factor. What should we do when faced with a situation for which we don’t have a clear example?

There are two general principles which should guide all of our behavior as Christians regardless of circumstance. Peter gives the general rules in 1st Peter 2:11-12.

Rule 1: Abstain from sinful desires.

Rule 2: Act honorably.

These two guidelines will help us do the right thing in every situation. If we follow them consistently, we will be able to live our lives with a clear conscience and no accusation against us will stick.

This man’s conclusions

When all is said and done, I can’t speak for anybody but myself. Even if I could, it would be inappropriate for me to try to legislate your behavior when faced with a life-threatening situation. You are going to have to decide for yourself what the Lord would have you do. As Paul said in another context, “…Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5 NIV) Here’s where I am:

I don’t own a gun and have no intention of getting one. Though I have always been fascinated by firearms, one reason I don’t want one around is that, knowing my own nature, it could become a temptation to use it in situations where it isn’t warranted. It could become a temptation to put faith in the weapon instead of relying on Christ.

Having said that, I also think that it would destroy me emotionally to take another life. Yet, if someone were to break into my house – particularly if it was obvious they intended harm, I would do my utmost to defend my family. If it was a choice between my family and the intruder, there is no question I would use deadly force against the intruder even though I would find it incredibly hard to live with myself afterwards. Intellectually, and theoretically I am convinced that I would not be guilty in so defending my loved ones. But my nature is such that I would probably always wonder if there hadn’t been another alternative.

Similarly, if I were to witness a murder in progress and had the means to prevent it, I would like to think that I would have the guts to take action against the attacker. Having never actually been in that circumstance, I don’t know how I would react in real life.

On the other hand, saving property or material things is not worth the taking of life. If I could prevent the theft or damage without using deadly force, fine. But I think it would be far better to let the thief or vandal get away than to put a higher value on something material, which will eventually be destroyed anyway, than on his eternal soul.

I’ve decided that I’m not going to worry about the government. The powers that be are ordained by God and I reckon He is certainly capable of making sure that they and their actions fit into the divine plan. Yes, I pray for our leaders as instructed in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. Yes, I will continue to be a good citizen by voting for upright people and good legislation. As for getting involved in politics – you might be called to do so, but that’s not where the Lord would have me spend my time. My calling is to the church. And revolution or rebellion is simply not an option on my menu. Government is not where the war for the hearts and souls of people will be won anyway. That war will be won or lost at the grassroots level.

If faced with persecution, my opinion is that we Christians should just take it. What have we to lose if someone threatens us with eternity? As Paul said, “…to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21 NIV) Brave words which I hope I never have to live up to! What is important is that Christ is glorified in us whether we live or die; that His Name is never sullied by any of our actions.

On the problem of speaking effectively.

Whatever charisma may be, I don’t seem to have much of it. No, I’m not talking about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as the ability to perform miracles or speak in foreign languages without first studying them. (Though I don’t have that kind of charisma either!) I’m talking about whatever it is that some people have which automatically attracts others to them and makes them want to listen to what they have to say. The whole issue of what makes people want to listen has recently become important to me because I’ve been told (rather pointedly!) that there are some who don’t like my speaking style.

A personality thing

I’ve never understood the phenomenon, but there are some people who seem to have instant credibility. They walk into a room and the center of gravity shifts. They become a center of attraction even if nobody knows them. Their presence is so powerful that it casts a shadow over everyone else. The force of their personality is such that they are able, at least to a certain extent, create their own reality. For lack of a better term, I call this sort of attraction ‘animal magnetism.’ When in the vicinity of such beings, it’s hard for us ‘mere mortals’ to get a hearing, let alone a favorable response.

My father has this gift – at least to a certain degree. I’ve seen him garner a respectful hearing from both pauper and princess. I’ve witnessed a hard-boiled customs official break into a beatific smile, stop Dad’s car and invite him to tea. When on a missions trip it doesn’t seem to matter when speaking the local language that his accent leaves much to be desired, his syntax and grammar are skewed and his diction, suspect. He just raises his voice, pounds the lectern a little harder, bulls his way forward through the swamps of language, and the people lap it up. In contrast, though I’ve been told that both my accent and diction are better than his, I have to really work at getting the same kind of hearing. It’s tempting to whine that life isn’t fair.

Though that sort of natural magnetism is undoubtedly a blessing to those who possess it, it can also turn into a temptation to cut corners. I’ve observed more than one speaker who substituted the force of his personality for solid research or exegesis. Oh, there are times when all of us are forced to bluff our way through because we genuinely haven’t had the time or opportunity to prepare as we ought. In those situations it often seems that the Spirit gives an extra measure of grace and what we feared would turn into disaster proves to be when we are the most eloquent and persuasive. But when a preacher begins to count on that as a regular occurrence; when he gets used to mesmerizing others with his charm and personality rather than doing his homework, he’s succumbed to a form of spiritual pride.

Perils of Prince Charming

It’s not only speakers who get short-changed by relying on their magnetism: their audience does too. All too often people get so wrapped up with the speaker’s persona that they don’t pay sufficient attention to him or his message. Malcolm Gladwell describes this phenomenon in his book blink, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. He calls it the Warren Harding Error.

By most accounts, Harding was the worst President the United States has ever had. He freely admitted to his friends that the job was beyond him. He had few if any enemies because he didn’t take a stand on anything. His speeches contained little of substance. His administration was notoriously corrupt. Several of his appointees later served jail time. On a personal level he, at different times, had several mistresses (at least one during during his time in office) not to mention an unknown number of one night stands. Clinton was not the first to have illicit sex in the Oval Office. Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child. Heavy cigar smoke, spittoons, free-flowing whiskey and swearing were all hallmarks of the twice-weekly marathon poker games in which he indulged. Even those who feel that Harding has been judged unfairly concede his drinking, chewing and philandering.

Ironically, Harding was swept into office by a landslide in the popular vote. He got over 60% of the vote while his main rival received only about 30%. Assuming that the majority view of Harding among historians is correct, how could someone so weak, incompetent, uncommitted, undisciplined and morally corrupt garner so much public confidence? Gladwell suggests that it was because of Harding’s personal charm. He simply looked presidential. He was tall and handsome. He was unfailingly courteous and polite – giving the impression that he cared about those with whom he interacted. His voice was rich, deep and melodious. He sounded good. Though he didn’t have much to say, he said it in a way, and with a voice, which mesmerized his hearers.

Needless to say, trust which is given on the basis of personality, without substance to back it up, is a fleeting thing. The adoration of the crowd is fickle and it is doubtful that Harding could have retained the goodwill of the people very long. Though he actually died of a heart attack, it was reportedly caused by food poisoning. Harding’s wife was widely suspected of poisoning him to prevent his being implicated in the scandals which rocked his administration.

So, while ‘animal magnetism’ can definitely play a role in whether a person is an effective communicator, it is certainly not the only factor involved. What, then, is involved? Why do we listen to some people while we tune others out? Or, to make it more personal, why should anybody listen to me?

Elements in the ability to persuade

Elsewhere in these musings (see the entry titled On Rhetoric) I questioned the emphasis we put on sermons. I even question the one-way nature of many of our classes. Regardless of whether I’m right or not, because of cultural expectations we are stuck with sermons and other rhetorical methods for the foreseeable future. That being the case, according to the rhetoricians what makes an effective speaker? What enables him to persuade? Aristotle identified three things which are still considered valid. These three elements are taught to this day in classes on speaking and communication.

Ethos

The Greek word ‘ethos’ means ‘custom.’ When Aristotle wrote that ethos was one of the elements in persuasion he meant that the effectiveness of a speaker depends on how closely he conforms to the accepted values of those whom he addresses. In other words, is a speaker credible? Do we perceive him as trustworthy?

How do we judge whether someone is credible or worthy of our trust? One of the yardsticks we use to determine whether someone is credible, is character. We react according to what we know about the speaker or writer. We tend to listen to those who are honest and upright while we discount the words of the dishonest and devious. Actually, I should say that we make our judgment of whether someone is credible or trustworthy based on perceived character. For, we will respond to another based on our perception of their character regardless of whether our perception is accurate or not. Someone may be a crook and a congenital liar, but if we perceive him to be honest we will consider him more credible than someone who is innocent, honest, and without guile, yet is under a cloud of suspicion.

Another factor in credibility is whether we think a speaker or writer knows what he’s talking about. We will tune someone out even though he has a spotless character if we perceive that he is uninformed, hasn’t done his homework or is unsure of his facts. For example, I remember a brochure from the 1970s that one of young people in the youth group I led, once showed me. The intent of the brochure was to warn against the dangers of the rock music of the era. Though the intent was probably good, the basic premise – that the major record labels were in a conspiracy to corrupt youth – was, to put it mildly, suspect. But the real clincher which destroyed all credibility was this: The author purported to describe – complete with illustrations – how an album is made. It was blindingly obvious that this person had never set foot inside a recording studio and knew nothing about the process. If he couldn’t be bothered to find out the facts about a very well-known, widely publicized and easily researched process, why should I believe his assertions about secret deliberations in the boardrooms of the record labels? I would argue that this sort of blatant nonsense actually does more harm than good. A person who was exposed to it, and rejected it for the nonsense that it is, might very well become skeptical about legitimate warnings. It doesn’t build credibility when we manufacture ‘facts’ to support our theories. It doesn’t build credibility to ‘cry wolf’ unless there really is a wolf out there.

A third factor in deeming a speaker or writer credible is the perception of his attitude toward his audience. In other words, does a speaker or writer feel goodwill toward his audience? We tend to listen to those whom we perceive have our best interests in mind. On the other hand, we will discount the message if we think the speaker or writer wants to use us to further his own agenda, boost his own ego, patronizes us or talks down to us.

Pathos

A second element in persuasion is ‘pathos.’ The root meaning of this word is ‘suffering.’ We derive the word ‘sympathy’ from it which means to ‘feel along with.’ In the context of effective speaking or writing, pathos refers to an appeal to emotion.

Emotion can be an extremely powerful force. It can, and often does, override logic and knowledge. C.S. Lewis gives the illustration in his book The Four Loves of a woman who freely acknowledges that she will be utterly miserable married to the man who has captured her affections. She knows that they are headed for tragedy. But in spite of that knowledge; in spite of all reason and counsel from those who love her and have her best interests at heart, she walks open-eyed into disaster.

How can a speaker or writer harness the power of emotion to persuade his audience? It seems to me that he can do it in one of two ways: Either he can demonstrate that he sympathizes with his audience, or he can stir up the sympathy of the audience for himself or for a third party. It’s an elusive thing, but if he can stir emotions in a positive direction, a speaker or writer will have a much better chance of getting people to do what he asks them to do. On the other hand, woe betide the speaker or writer who manages to stir up people’s emotions against himself!

Logos

Aristotle called the third element of persuasion ‘logos,’ that is, the ‘word.’ This is same term which is used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word…” In the context of speaking and writing it refers to an appeal to the intellect through logic or reason.

While Christianity certainly involves the emotions (for example, see Ephesians 6:6 and 1 Peter 1:22), it is also a very reasonable faith. We do not have to set our brains to one side in order to follow Christ. Quite the contrary. The Christian faith satisfies the intellect as no other faith or philosophy can. Every other system of which I am aware contains fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies at the very core. Only Christianity is internally consistent and supplies the answers to our deepest questions.

Since intellect and rational argument have a large place in Christianity, it follows that those of us who speak or write as Christians will use logic and reason in trying to persuade. Our effectiveness will depend, in part, on whether what we say is logical and our reasoning is sound. Our influence will diminish in proportion to our guilt in uttering logical fallacies and non-sequiturs.

Dynamic delivery

To Aristotle’s three elements I would add a fourth. Effectiveness in speaking depends, in part, on how dynamic a speaker is. This involves such things as varying the rate, pitch and loudness of his voice, eye contact with the audience, gestures, posture and movement. However, unlike Aristotle’s elements which seem to be constants in every age and society, the importance of being dynamic varies depending on the culture and where we are in the generational cycle. (At least in America.)

Take, for example, one of the most famous sermons of all time, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards. One place he delivered it was at Enfield, Connecticut on July 8, 1741. Judging by conventional wisdom, Edwards violated every principle of effective delivery. He read his sermon, apparently without looking at his audience. He read it in a calm, quiet voice which seems inappropriate for the subject matter. Yet, the response was so overwhelming that some accounts say that he was unable to complete the sermon because of the crying and wailing of droves of repentant people calling on God for mercy.

The key to this apparent contradiction is that Edwards delivered his sermon during the Great Awakening. This was a point in time where people were entering what Mike Regele and Mark Shulz call the ‘experiencing faith’ phase of the generational cycle. At the beginning of 2009 we are at a different part of the cycle – we are just entering the ‘doing faith’ phase – and the response to Edward’s sermon is very different. I remember my daughter describing the reaction of the kids in her High School English class after they had read it. One response was puzzlement. The whole concept of sin and the consequences of it were foreign to their way of thinking. Perhaps the biggest reaction, however, was irritation and anger. What right did Edwards have to judge them? They missed the entire point which is, that God longs to extend mercy and forgiveness to those who will repent.

The point I am trying to make is that the impact of a dynamic delivery will vary depending on where we are in history. To be effective, we must vary our delivery according to the perceptions and needs of the time in which we live. I suspect that a dynamic delivery is probably much more important right now than it will be 20 years from now.

Examples from the Scriptures

How do the elements of persuasion which Aristotle wrote about hold up in the light of Scripture? Though the Apostles were not trained in Greek rhetoric (for example, see Paul’s comment in 2 Corinthians 11:6), they used all three of Aristotle’s elements in their speaking and writing.

John

How did John use the appeal of ethos? In 3rd John, verse 12, he made a direct appeal based on his known character: “…and you know that our testimony is true.” (NIV) He did the same thing while referring to himself in the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 24:21 NIV)

John also made repeated appeals based on his knowledge. In his writings, he uses the phrase, “we know” over and over. Even more importantly, John argues on the basis of his personal, first-hand knowledge of Christ. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1 NIV)

John also expressed his goodwill towards those whom he was addressing. For example, he starts his second letter this way, “To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth…” (2 John 1 NIV)

John also made use of pathos. For example, he used an emotional appeal for us to lay down our lives, and to help those in need. Since Christ laid down His life for us, we ought to be willing to do the same for others (See 1 John 3:16-18).

John’s writings are also strongly supported by logos. In fact, John began the Gospel which bears his name with an exposition of Christ as the Logos, who enlightens and gives life to men.

Peter

One of the best known examples of a persuasive speech by the Apostle Peter is the one he delivered on Pentecost, which is described in Acts, chapter 2. Most of his sermon is based on an appeal to reason (logos). For example, in verse 15 he used deductive reasoning (reasoning from a general principle to a certain conclusion) to prove that he and the others who had received the outpouring of the Spirit were not drunk. He also quoted Old Testament Scripture to prove his contention that Jesus is the Messiah.

Yet, interspersed in the logical appeal is ethos as well. He established a rapport with the audience by calling them ‘brothers’ in verse 29. He established credibility by citing his, and the other Apostle’s, first-hand knowledge of the resurrection (verse 32).

Peter finished his sermon with an appeal based on pathos. “You are guilty of killing God’s Christ.”

What was the result? “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”” (Acts 2:37 NIV)

Paul

Perhaps of all the New Testament writers, Paul comes most often to mind for his use of ethos. He was not shy in citing his credentials. Though not a trained speaker, he had knowledge (2 Corinthians 11:6). He stated over and over the fact that he was an Apostle (For example, see 2 Corinthians 12:12, Galatians 2:8). He was an eyewitness of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 1:9, 15:1-8). He cited the work which he had done (1 Corinthians 15:10). He even used his earthly qualifications and attainments as an anti-argument! (See Philippians 3:1-7)

Paul is even more well known for his use of the logos appeal. For example, a major portion of the letters to the Romans and Galatians is based on tightly reasoned, logical argument. In the first 3 chapters of Romans, Paul used inductive reasoning (using specific examples to derive a general principle) to demonstrate that no one is righteous, but that are all under sin. But in chapter 6, he used deductive reasoning (deriving a specific conclusion from a general principle) to show that those who have died to sin by being baptized into the death of Christ, are no longer slaves of sin (See verses 5-7). Paul not only used reason, he also appealed directly to the reason of his audience. “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” (1 Corinthians 10:15 NIV)

Though Paul is best known for his use of ethos and logos, he also made some amazing appeals to pathos. For example, in writing to the Thessalonians, Paul described his relationship to them as both mother and father (See 1 Thessalonians 2:7, 11).

No doubt, it was this skillful weaving of ethos, pathos and logos which made Paul one of the most persuasive writers of all time.

Jesus

The ultimate example, of course is Jesus. He too, used the three elements of persuasion.

He argued from ethos when He made such statements as, “…Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going…” (John 8:14 NIV), “…You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23 NIV) and, “Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (John 8:45-46 NIV)

Another expression of ethos is that Jesus taught with authority (Mark 1:22). In addition to authority, however, Jesus showed goodwill toward those He addressed. One famous example is the prelude to the feeding of the 5 thousand: “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” (Mark 6:34 NIV)

Jesus’ teaching was also full of pathos. Consider just one of many possible examples: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28 NIV)

Jesus also appealed to the intellect in His teaching. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used deductive reasoning to show the necessity of providing a good example (See Matthew 5:14-16). In the same sermon He also used inductive reasoning to show that God will take care of those who serve Him (See Matthew 6:28-33, 7:9-11). These are just 2 of the many examples of the logos appeal in Jesus’ teaching.

What about dynamic delivery? Not much is said about the delivery style of the Apostles, or Jesus. There are a few hints, though. “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice…” (John 7:37 NIV) “Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd…” (Acts 2:14 NIV) “Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described…” (Acts 12:17 NIV) “Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said…” (Acts 13:16 NIV) From these and other hints I think it is safe to say that Jesus and the Apostles knew how to use their voices and body language to reinforce their message. On the other hand, it is obvious that they never overdid it. Form never overshadowed the message.

A self-evaluation

Since both Jesus and the Apostles used all three of the elements of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos, I think that we who claim to speak and write on behalf of Christ would do well to examine how we use them. That being the case, how do my messages stack up? How well do I employ the elements of persuasion?

How well do I do in the ethos department? For starters, I do have a good reputation. Whatever else people may think about me, I’m sure that everyone who knows me would agree that I’m honest, trustworthy and dependable. One of the nicest compliments I have ever received was, “When you get up to speak, you show humility.” The compliment meant all the more to me because it came from one of my children.

Do I know what I’m talking about? Even my detractors concede that I do. One of them went so far as to tell me that I find insights in Scripture beyond his ability. Though he criticizes my speaking he has appreciated my teaching. Of all the speakers and teachers at the congregation, I probably spend more time in study or research than anyone. When people ask questions in class, I am generally able to answer and, if challenged, have the sources to back up what I say. When I don’t know, I say so then, go and find the answer and present it next time.

How well do I project that I have the well-being of those I’m speaking to in mind? Here, I may have a little difficulty. I am a fairly introverted and private person. It’s not always easy for me to express emotion. Sometimes, I’m afraid, it probably comes across as being aloof. Yes, I care. At times it’s fair to say that I care very deeply – but I’m not sure that people always pick up on it.

What about the element of logos? Does my speaking appeal to the intellect? Do I use logic and reason? Oh, yes! Reason and logical explanation is one of my strong points. Deductive and inductive logic both play a part in my speaking. I’m known for using charts and maps and explaining the historical background. I go out of my way to explain context, and draw logical conclusions from the text under discussion. I try to go into the who, what, when, where, why and how of things. If anything, I’m sometimes guilty of going into things too deeply. Sometimes I get too philosophical. Though nobody has called me on being illogical, I may not always put things in simple enough terms for everyone to understand.

What about pathos? Do I engage people’s emotions when I speak? Of the three elements of persuasion, this is the one where I am probably weakest. Since I don’t particularly appreciate it when someone tries to play on my emotions, I’m not very good at doing it to others. Among other things, this makes it difficult for me to think of illustrations which really grip people and drive home the points I’m trying to make. It’s ironic, because in some of the course material I’ve developed, I talk about the power of Jesus’ illustrations – how the parables and stories are so memorable and applicable because of His use of ordinary things to which everyone can relate. I understand some of the theory, but find it incredibly hard to put it into practice. It’s an area where I consciously struggle to improve.

So, granted I need improvement in the area of pathos, but considering that I rate high in ethos and logos, why the complaints about my speaking? Most of it boils down to the pesky business of delivery. Part of it is my voice. I am blessed (or cursed, depending upon your point of view!) with a very soft voice. Without reinforcement it would be almost impossible for people in the last row to hear me. In recordings, my voice is noticeably at a lower volume than other people’s voices. I suspect that people subconsciously interpret my soft voice and lower volume to mean that what I have to say isn’t as important.

Another factor may be my rate of delivery. People have complimented me on my ability to read Scripture because I read with lots of expression and meaning. But when I speak, I tend to speak more slowly. A large part of the reason is that if I go faster, I tend to get ahead of my thoughts or lose my place in my notes. It’s an area where I’m trying to improve.

Speaking of notes, I’ve also been criticized for having my nose in them too much – particularly at the start of a sermon. It’s true that, whenever possible, I fully manuscript my messages. One reason I do so is that it helps me figure out how to say things. It also helps me catch all sorts of problems in logic or flow. But when I deliver a message, I don’t stick slavishly to the written manuscript, nor do I read most of it – though I often do read passages of Scripture from my notes rather than take the time to turn there in my Bible. However, the criticism probably is valid that I depend too much on my notes at the beginning of sermons. I’m told it comes across like I am unsure of my material. I’m still trying to find the balance. I don’t want to memorize as that often is just as mechanical as reading.

Probably the biggest problem is that I am not a very dynamic speaker. I am certainly not a pulpit pounder. That kind of thing just isn’t me. And whatever anyone says, I am not about to learn a bunch of artificial gestures. Yes, I could probably be more expressive, but it’s got to come from within. In the long run I think that genuineness will prove to be far more effective than any amount of mimicking someone else’s technique.

A lot of this probably comes down to experience. How can anyone get good at anything without doing it? Until a couple of years ago, I had very little experience in public speaking. Practice makes perfect. I’m sure things will improve with time.

Writing all this out has helped me identify specific areas I need to work on. Yet, I couldn’t help but think about another area which impacts effective communication. This is not to excuse or justify any of my own shortcomings, but what does it say about the recipient when good content is depreciated because the delivery isn’t as polished as it might be? Didn’t Jesus have something to say about types of soil? (See Matthew 13:1-23) Something to think about!

Poverty and the Christian response to it.

Going on a missions trip can be exciting, terrifying, joy-filled, disturbing, deeply satisfying, frustrating, faith-building, challenging, exhilarating, exhausting, motivating, enervating, boring, frantic, fulfilling, humbling, mind-blowing, numbing, meaningful, life-threatening, an exercise in patience and fun. The work can be incredibly hard and the hours long. It can challenge your faith and draw you incredibly close to the Lord. The positives usually far outweigh the negatives. It’s a time of spiritual growth and being stretched. You come back forever changed. But, there is one aspect of mission trips I dread and detest with a passion. Almost daily, sometimes several times a day, people request financial or material aid. And, most of the time, I have to turn them down.

From my perspective I am a lower-middle class, ordinary ‘Joe’ with limited (sometimes very limited!) personal resources. Most of the money I have with me on a missions trip is not mine – I am merely the steward of other people’s funds which have been entrusted to me to accomplish a very specific task or project. Even if I did not have to give an accounting, if I gave to everyone who asked I wouldn’t have enough left to complete the tasks or projects I went on the trip to accomplish. I might not even have enough to get back home!

From the perspective of the people who ask for help, however, I am an incredibly wealthy person who can tap into pots of money whenever I like. The reason I don’t give is not because I don’t have it, it’s because I don’t want to. The concept of designated funds doesn’t fly too well. The perception that I’m tight-fisted isn’t helped at all by the fact that the very nature of a short-term trip forces one to spend in ways that you wouldn’t if you lived there. For example, it costs a lot of money to rent a room at a hostel (though far less than staying in a hotel). Eating in restaurants starts to add up after a few days. Having your clothes laundered commercially isn’t cheap either. But what choice is there? I would prefer to pay the people I’m going over to serve for the facilities and services I need but, if they are unable to provide them, I have to hire them elsewhere.

It also doesn’t help that time is limited. There are only X number of days to accomplish whatever it is that you went there to do. If you lived there you could afford to take a little more time and figure out how to do things as inexpensively as possible. But you don’t live there and you haven’t got the time. So, sometimes you end up throwing more money at a problem than you would under other circumstances.

The locals witness all this and marvel at your profligacy. Looking through the filter of their need blinds them to the larger picture. They cannot see the, sometimes great, sacrifices which you’ve made to bring them whatever help you could. There are times when the physical and material overshadow the worth of the spiritual blessings you’ve brought.

Each person who encounters genuine need and poverty has to learn to cope with it somehow. So far, I haven’t done a very good job of coping. I come away feeling guilty, embarrassed, angry and helpless. It would be easy to become callous. Since even if I gave everything I have it would only be a drop in the ocean of need, it’s tempting not to give anything at all. Is there a solution to poverty? If so, what is it?

A world without poverty?

Imagine, for a moment, a world without poverty. What would it look like? George MacDonald shares his vision of such a world in his book The Curate’s Awakening. He replaces the profit incentive with the motive of service. The idea is that anyone who has goods or services will joyfully give to anyone who needs them, secure in the knowledge that his own needs will also be met in the same way. Needless to say, this would only work if everyone was almost wholly Christ-like. MacDonald also does not address the issues of capital investment or the production of goods. We need something a little more real-world. Something which is less simplistic and Utopian and makes allowances for fallen human nature.

Let’s start with land reform. To level the playing field (pun intended), in my ideal state all land belongs to a central authority. Before you write me off as an expletive deleted, for spouting MarLenism propaganda (MarLenism is a deliberate misspelling, by the way!), consider the following: Every family except those in the ruling class is given an equal holding of land. As long as they abide by the laws of the state, the land grant is perpetual. There is no lease to expire and nobody can run anyone else off his allotted portion. Though the land does not belong to the family which lives on it, they may do anything they like with it except sub-divide it or sell it. This includes farming, ranching, mining, forestry and the establishment of light industry. To ensure ecologically sound practices, everyone must farm organically and also let the land lie fallow every seven years.

The land grants are inherited on the principle of primogeniture. In other words, upon the death of the head of the household, the entire parcel goes to the eldest son. If there are no sons, the land goes to the oldest daughter, but does not become part of her husband’s homestead. In this way the land is held together in economically viable tracts and nobody can permanently accumulate more than one holding. It is also an inducement for younger sons to enter trade, start a business or go into service industries. If there is no one to inherit, the central authority will assign the holding to a different family.

Though the land, itself, may not be sold, it may be leased out. In addition, if a family does not wish to work the land themselves, they may sell anticipated future harvests or produce to someone outside the family who does want to work the land. The family may repurchase the rights at any time on a prorated basis.

Our hypothetical, poverty-less society is administered by a hereditary caste. Before you dismiss this notion out of hand take another look at history. Hereditary ruling classes have often done at least as well as elected officials – and having one avoids the expense, false campaign promises and general waste and expense of holding elections. In contrast to the general populous, families in the administrative class are not given any land grants. They receive only a townhouse and a garden plot. This prevents them from adding too much economic clout to their political power. Another difference is that in contrast to land grants, townhouses may be sold. The sale of a townhouse is permanent. This is another corrective. Chances are that others in the ruling class won’t allow someone who is too incompetent to hold on to his own house much say in the administration of the state.

How shall we fund this state of ours? There are three major sources of revenue. One source is use taxes. What could be more fair than paying for the services you use? A second source of revenue is a poll tax. A small, but equal, amount of money is collected from every person 20 or more years old. This emphasizes everyone’s equality before the law. A third revenue source is a flat income tax of 10 percent. As there are no exemptions or allowances, this tax is easy to compute.

Now, let’s design a safety net. Those seeking additional job security over piece work or day labor may enter into labor contracts. (In other words, they can hire themselves out as indentured servants.) These contracts are regulated by law to avoid exploitation. The laborer gets security, room, board and other necessities, and a nest-egg at the conclusion of his contract in 7 years. In return the employer gets service at half the going labor rate.

Every third year the income tax is specifically earmarked not only for the maintenance of those in the administrative caste, since they have no income producing land, but also to restock dole houses where the disadvantaged or those in crisis can receive commodities free of charge. Those without sufficient income are free to harvest what they want from fallow fields, orchards and vineyards. By law, farmers are required to leave the corners of their fields for the less advantaged to harvest. Anyone can help himself to a meal of fruit or grain from anyone’s land at any time.

By law, private loans are interest-free. Rather than a source of income for the one making it, a loan is regarded as a means to help someone through a financial tight spot.

What’s to prevent a few shrewd and resourceful people from continually buying up options, and therefore, in effect, permanently displacing families from their homesteads? What’s to prevent someone to permanently enslave another through debt? Our hypothetical society has two reset mechanisms. The first is an automatic bankruptcy clause which takes effect every 7 years. Debts are automatically canceled. As a result, debtors are protected from creditors and assets are unencumbered.

The second reset occurs every 50 years. In that year, all land reverts to the original grantee or his heir. In other words, every couple of generations, every family gets an opportunity to start over. No matter how badly somebody has messed up, he gets another shot at making a go of things. Whether he chooses to remain on the land and work it, or immediately sells the future produce for instant income is a separate issue.

By now, most of you have probably already figured out that the economic system I’ve just outlined is identical to what is in the Law of Moses. Sure, I’ve disguised it a bit but, aside from the explanations I inferred for the various features, I took the economic system straight out of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

There are a couple of statements in Deuteronomy 15 which have always intrigued me. In verse 4, Moses writes, “…there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,” (NIV) Yet, in verse 11, he continues, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” (NIV)

The point is this: If even God could not devise a system which would eliminate poverty, who are we to think that we can? No matter what programs we initiate; no matter what services we provide; no matter how much we give, we will never succeed in eliminating poverty. Unfortunately, what Jesus said is true, “You will always have the poor among you…” (John 12:8 NIV)

The causes of poverty

What causes poverty anyway? If I read him aright, Ronald J. Sider in his book Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger traces the roots of modern poverty largely to colonialism. As he and others are fond of pointing out, the Western colonizers overthrew sophisticated cultures in the lands they controlled or conquered.

No doubt the colonial period did have its share of injustice and economic horrors, particularly in places like the Belgian Congo and parts of Central and South America. There is no question that some of the effects remain to this day. But to lay the blame for present-day poverty at the feet of colonialism is simplistic to the point of being almost intellectually dishonest. Sure there were sophisticated cultures in existence before the colonizers arrived. But they were hardly benign utopias where poverty was unknown. Anybody who has read Kipling, let alone the scholarly histories, knows that! Read Kipling’s The Naulahka, which I recommend to all aspiring missionaries to South Asia, for an entertaining introduction to the culture clash between East and West.

Sider, and others like him, also seem to conveniently forget that the United States was once a collection of colonies, too. If colonialism is the cause of present poverty, then how come the United States is one of the richest nations on earth where the majority of people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in human history? Clearly, there are other factors at work. Particularly when one realizes that other places which experienced colonialism are blessed with as many, if not more, natural resources as the United States. What has held them back?

If poverty cannot be laid at the door of colonialism, then what is to blame? There isn’t just one cause, but many. For example, lack of initiative is a cause. This is a problem which persists from way back in the Apostle Paul’s day. He wrote to the Thessalonians: “…If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV) We often take this as a directive not to support those who refuse to participate in productive labor, but it can just as well be taken as a statement of fact. The reason some are poor is that they refuse to do anything about it. They want the benefits of labor without accepting the responsibility to labor.

A related cause is life-style choices. In her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich relates her attempt to survive on minimum-wage jobs. No doubt there are many cases of genuine hardship, just as she states. No doubt she is right that there are many honest, hard-working people who don’t make wages adequate to live on. Yet, as I read the book I was struck by how many cases there were where the people involved were merely reaping the consequences of ungodly choices they had made earlier, or of holding on to costly bad habits or vices. We reap what we sow.

Another cause of poverty is exploitation. For example, James writes of those who defraud laborers by withholding their pay and other forms of coercion (See James 5:1-6).

Still another cause of poverty is our inability to handle wealth. In order to understand this we need to remember God’s intention for us. Ultimately, God’s intent is to make us like Christ. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…” (Romans 8:28-29 NIV) In light of this, God may very well keep material blessings from us if they would prevent us from becoming Christlike. The potential for material prosperity to turn people away from God was something He warned the Israelites about before they entered Canaan. “When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God… You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.”” (Deuteronomy 8:10-14, 17 NIV)

Another cause of poverty is natural disaster and the random chance which seems to be an inherent part of this fallen creation. “…The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net, or birds are taken in a snare, so men are trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly upon them.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12 NIV)

And, let us never forget that the devil has his hand in the distribution of wealth, or the lack thereof. For example, remember what happened to poor old Job. The devil is out to destroy us and he’ll use whatever it takes, whether it be poverty or wealth, to accomplish that goal.

When you stop and think about it, the causes of involuntary poverty can be summed up in one word: SIN! Whether it is caused by sloth, exploitation, pride, demonic influence or a fallen natural universe, involuntary poverty can always be traced to the fact that people have chosen to disobey God’s instructions.

How bad is it?

Just how bad is poverty, anyway? How wide-spread is it? Sider paints a grim picture of over 1.3 billion people, or roughly one in 5, living in absolute poverty. 750 million of these are malnourished – 151 million of them, children under the age of 5. He writes that 900 million people are illiterate, 1 billion do not have access to elementary health care and 1.6 billion do not have safe drinking water. Further, he notes that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

Truly, that is a grim picture. I do not question Sider’s statistics. Further, I agree with him that we should be concerned about our less advantaged neighbors in the world and do what we can to alleviate their suffering. Having said that, Sider largely missed one of the most important revolutions in the history of mankind. The edition of his book to which I’ve been referring was published in 1990. That was approximately the year when the forces of globalization reached critical mass. This led to the adoption of capitalism and explosive economic growth in much of the world during the 1990s. This growth has continued into the 21st century.

In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman writes, “…for all the churning that global capitalism brings to a society, the spread of capitalism has raised living standards higher, faster and for more people than at any time in history. It has also brought more poor people into the middle classes more quickly than at any time in human history. So while the gap between rich and poor is getting wider – as the winners in today’s globalization system really take off and separate themselves from everyone else – the floor under the poor has been rising steadily in many parts of the world. In other words, while relative poverty may be growing in many countries, absolute poverty is actually falling in many countries. According to the 1997 United Nations Human Development report, poverty has fallen more in the past fifty years than in the previous five hundred. Developing countries have progressed as fast in the past thirty years as the industrialized world did in the previous century. Since 1960, infant mortality rates, malnutrition and illiteracy are all significantly down, while access to safe water is way up. In relatively short periods of time, countries that have been the most open to globalization, like Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Chile and Sweden, have achieved standards of living comparable to those in America and Japan, while the ranks of the middle class in countries like Thailand, Brazil, India and Korea have swelled, due partly to globalization.”

My own experience, limited though it is, bears this out. Take for example the urban slum I knew as a boy. The same people still live there and it’s still a slum, but mud huts have been replaced with multi-story brick houses. Floors which once were surfaced with a mixture of mud and cow dung are now concrete, tile or terrazzo. The sewer is no longer an open ditch. The houses now have running water, indoor plumbing and electricity. TVs are common. Motorcycles have started to replace bicycles. It seems like everybody has a cell phone. When I visited there not too long ago I was amazed at how many computers I saw. The children of illiterate and semi-illiterate parents are now attending college.

If there’s been so much progress, then why do I still get besieged by people asking for help? Though the picture may not be nearly so grim as when Sider wrote his book (and I haven’t read what he’s written more recently); though real progress has been made, the fact remains that poverty and real need has not been eliminated. There’s still a very long way to go.

The cure for poverty

What’s the solution to need and poverty? If globalization has had such an impact and been so effective in raising living standards, is it the answer to eliminating poverty? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Earlier I wrote that the cause of poverty can always be traced back to disobeying God’s instructions. Since poverty stems from spiritual causes, it can never be eliminated by a material solution. The root issue has to be dealt with.

Why then has globalization been so effective in alleviating the plight of so many? To explain this apparent contradiction, let me give you PresbyterJon’s theory of prosperity: “A people or a nation will prosper to the extent that it follows God’s principles.” That statement needs some immediate qualifiers:

1) There is no room in the theory for the “health and wealth” gospel. It is not, and never was, God’s intent to made us wealthy. It is His intent to make us like Christ. If it takes want and need to form us into Christ’s image, then those are the tools which God will use to accomplish the task. Furthermore, the theory, as stated, applies only to peoples and nations, not individuals. It is very likely that individuals will have to give up wealth and/or suffer persecution in order to follow Christ. Jesus’ command to “count the cost” (see Luke 14:26-33) is no mere metaphor.

2) Wealth and prosperity are not indicators of righteousness. Remember that the devil tempted Jesus by offering Him all the authority and splendor of the world’s kingdoms. I take that to include the wealth of the world’s kingdoms as well. Jesus never denied that the devil had the authority to give it. If the devil has the authority to grant wealth and prosperity, then we cannot automatically assume that those who enjoy them are blessed of the Lord.

Keeping those qualifiers firmly in mind, there does seem to be a correlation between living by God’s principles and prosperity. For example, continuing from the Deuteronomy passage I quoted above, Moses states an important condition: “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deuteronomy 15:4-5 NIV) In other words, if the nation kept the Mosaic Law, God promised prosperity.

Now those words were directed specifically to the nation of Israel. What God said to Israel does not necessarily apply to anybody else but, in this case, there does seem to be a general principle involved. For example the principle seems to be implied in the following Proverb: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34 NIV)

If I am correct that there is a correlation between following God’s principles and prosperity, then it helps explain why America has been so materially blessed as a nation and also why globalization has been instrumental in raising the standard of living for so many. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, let me state emphatically that I am not one of those who believes that the United States was founded as a ‘Christian Nation.’ In my view the whole concept of a ‘Christian Nation’ is an oxymoron. Also, though I am very grateful that the United States is an independent nation, I believe that the revolution against Great Britain was scripturally wrong. “For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry…” (1 Samuel 15:23 NIV) In my view, God has not blessed America because it rebelled against Great Britain, but in spite of it.

If the founding of the nation resulted from sin, then why has it been so blessed? The Ayatollahs and others of their ilk would say that America has been blessed from below and not from above. I do not believe that. I say that God has blessed America above almost all others because, in spite of its dubious origins, it has followed God’s principles to a greater degree than most other nations. Whatever its national and individual failings, and there are many, America has historically held on to much of the moral ethic and many of the ideals found in Scripture.

What do I mean by the moral ethic of Scripture? I mean such things as the principle that all are equal before the law. Included in the ethic is keeping one’s word, honesty in business, looking out for the interests of others, giving a fair return for services rendered and rendering fair service for wages received. It includes a concern for justice, a recognition of duty towards others and a repudiation of bribes and corruption. It involves the idea that we are here not just for ourselves but to serve one another. Even such institutions as the Bureau of Standards are reflections of the ethic.

Though the majority of Americans are not, and never in history have been, Christians, for the most part they have still accepted the ethic of Scripture. They have often failed to live up to it, yet still agree that it is good and right. I believe that it is because America has upheld the ethic to a greater degree than most other countries that it has also been blessed to a greater degree than most other countries.

This also explains why globalization has succeeded in raising living standards. For, in order for a nation to participate in the globalization system, it has to adopt parts of the ethic. For example, investors are not willing to risk their capital unless they have a reasonable assurance that the people with whom they are dealing are honest. They want assurance that a contract will not be nullified by a competitor’s bribe. They require transparency in order to make informed decisions. They demand honest books so they can evaluate risk more accurately. They want equitable laws so that disputes can be settled justly. To the extent a nation adopts the ethic, to that extent its material blessings increase and poverty diminishes.

But this also highlights one of the limitations of globalization. The benefits which have come from globalization are a byproduct of the ethic. Therefore, globalization, by itself, can never eliminate poverty. The ethic is, essentially, a spiritual thing. It is quite possible to adopt the externals of the ethic as a matter of pragmatism without embracing the ethic itself. In other words, instead of the behavior being driven by convictions of the heart it is adhered to because others require it. The ethic is accepted because it works, not because people agree that the ethic is intrinsically right. Until and unless we can get people to not only adopt, but accept the ethic from the heart, all of the attempts to eliminate poverty, including globalization, are merely dealing with symptoms, not the root cause.

I’m writing this at the beginning of 2009. Many are comparing the current financial crisis to the beginnings of the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Should the crisis worsen, it’s quite possible that many will conclude that globalization and free trade have failed, just as many in the 1930’s concluded that democracy and capitalism had failed. We should not be surprised if the ethic is repudiated along with the repudiation of globalization. (Tangent: The causes of the current crisis can be traced directly back to a failure to keep the ethic. But that’s another story!)

A principled, Christian response to poverty

So where does this leave us as Christians? Given that poverty is still with us, and always will be, what should our response be?

First, we need to recognize that poverty is not merely a question of redistribution. It is not merely a logistical problem of moving sufficient food to the areas which need it. It is not merely a question of providing jobs. It is not a problem of providing health care and clean water. The core of the problem is spiritual, not material.

In recent decades there has been a trend in mission work to put less emphasis on evangelism and concentrate instead on community uplift projects. This is a terrible mistake. In the final analysis we have not done any good if we have fed people’s bodies but failed to give them the ‘bread of life.’ “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36 NIV) It is likely that even the material gains will be short-lived if those we try to help do not embrace the ethic of the Scriptures.

Second, though our priority must be preaching the gospel, we must never make listening to the gospel a condition of providing help. Christians are often accused of offering material aid as bribes in order to win converts. Though the accusations are often false, the concern is valid. Giving aid to entice people to hear the Word is to cheapen both them and the gospel. It is to treat people as mercenaries. The following quote from Paul is taken out of context, yet fits: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” (Romans 14:17 NIV) Helping the poor should be a natural outgrowth and expression of our faith in Christ, not a gimmick to further our agenda.

Third, we must learn to help in ways which do not undermine the churches. When we provide aid to people in countries less fortunate than our own, we all too often bypass the local church with our programs and projects. When we do this we set ourselves above the leaders of the local body. We undercut their authority and the concept of family and unity within the church. If a program or project does not have the blessing and enthusiastic participation of the local church is it worth doing? It is significant that when Paul collected aid for the suffering believers in Judea, he did not bypass the local church but gave the offering to the Elders of the church in Jerusalem.

Fourth, we need to give priority to fellow believers. “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:10 NIV) It is easy to cause resentment when we provide more aid to those outside the church than to those within it.

Fifth, we need to recognize that competence in the Word does not equal competence in providing real material help. There is much we can learn from those outside the church. A while back my father and I were reminiscing about some of the projects in which we had been involved in the attempt to raise living standards. We could not think of a single success. Obviously we missed a thing or two along the way. If we’re serious about developing programs and systems to help the poor, we need to study and learn from those who already have a proven track record.

Sixth, we must learn to put the priorities and aspirations of the people we are trying to serve above our own. Partially as a result of our limited understanding of the cultures in which we are trying to work; partially as a result of our Western ‘can do’ attitude; partially as a result of our standards of accountability (which are often incomprehensible to people in other cultures), it is easy to impose our ideas and our solutions on those we are trying to help. Because we are the ones with the resources it is easy to unwittingly run roughshod over their emotions, thoughts and wisdom.

Seventh, we must help and give in such a way that it does not create dependence. It is all too common, in my experience, for those in need to request foreign assistance as a first resort. We need to encourage people to take a realistic look at their own resources before asking for help. The intent is to provide a helping hand, not a hand-out. The intent is to lift them out of poverty, not confirm them in it.

A personal response to poverty

Those are high sounding principles, but they don’t answer the question of what we can do on an individual level. How can we, as individuals help those poorer than ourselves?

Before we can give, we must have something to give. How can we give when so often it seems that we ourselves are just getting by? The obvious answer is by downsizing and/or simplifying our lives. I’m not going to offer any suggestions here – but I’m sure that each of us can think of things that we don’t really need. I’m sure we all can think of ways we could live more simply.

The real question is what should we do with the resources we’ve freed up? One reason I write these essays is to help clarify my own thinking. I began this one by telling about the dilemma I face while on mission trips. How can I accomplish what I’ve been sent to do and at the same time be of real help to those who ask me for material or financial help?

I still don’t have the answers. I probably don’t even understand the problem nearly as well as I ought. But as a result of trying to come to grips with the issue, here’s what I think I’ll try on the next trip: Next time, I think I’ll take some money with me which is specifically intended for benevolence. But I don’t want to bear the burden alone, nor do I want to act outside the authority of the local church. When someone asks me for help I’m going to ask whether he or she has brought the need before the church. If the church feels that it is a legitimate need – particularly if it is one which they feel they also ought to address – then, provided I still have some funds available for the purpose, I will contribute toward meeting that need. But I will do so through the church instead of directly. Hopefully, this will have several benefits.

For one thing, it’s more than likely that the locals will know the situation far better than I. They will know the real facts. Following their lead will help keep me from making mistakes.

More importantly, I hope that this approach will raise the consciousness of the local churches to their responsibility to look after their own. This, in turn, could foster the concept of the church as an interdependent family.

I hope this approach will also get people thinking about the resources they already have. Just maybe the next time a need comes up the first knee-jerk reaction won’t be to look for outside assistance. It will help the church realize that they truly are independent, not merely a mission outpost, and can take action on their own initiative.

I’m also hoping that acting in this way will result in a sense of greater harmony and fellowship between the local churches and myself. By acting through the church; by acting as part of the body instead of an independent outsider; it should reinforce the truth that in Christ we are one. It will demonstrate that I respect their authority.

Yes, I realize that what I’ve presented here is far from a complete answer to what we should do about poverty. I haven’t said anything about how we can help when we can’t personally be present. I don’t have those answers. But who knows? Maybe the small start I’ve suggested to solving for my own personal dilemma will spark other ideas down road.

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.