An overview of training methodologies.

Re-stating the Problem

In part one of this series I talked about the shortage of leadership the church faces. For over 100 years, churches have looked to the Bible colleges and seminaries to train and provide their leaders. However, in spite of all the effort and money lavished on our institutions of learning, we still face a perpetual lack of people to fill leadership roles.

Not only do we face a shortage of leaders, the quality of the output of the colleges and seminaries is open to question. In my own experience, I’ve often been surprised, if not shocked, at graduates from the institutions who don’t seem to have a good grasp of basic Bible knowledge, let alone principles and foundational doctrine.

Part of the problem is that most of the graduates from our institutions of learning are young. They simply haven’t had enough time to mature and gather the life experience they need to be leaders. Some are still in the process of figuring out who they are and their own beliefs and convictions. It’s unreasonable to expect someone who doesn’t yet know himself and is unsure of his own faith to be able to ground others in the faith.

But the problem goes deeper. In his book, Organic Leadership, Neil Cole remarks, “I remember the shock of one day realizing that my master of divinity degree, which cost me five years and fifty thousand dollars, was of no value at all in the world. It had value only behind the walls of the institution.” (Neil Cole, Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are, Baker Books, p. 34) Cole goes on to point out that since a seminary education does not equip people to earn a living outside of the church or the religious education system, they are trapped by that system. They are almost forced to find a living within the church even if they are not suited for the role. The result is predictably poor leadership, poor scholarship and anemic churches.

A friend of mine in the ministry has said basically the same thing. He agrees that the colleges and seminaries don’t prepare people for the real world (he has a masters degree from seminary). His observation is that a typical graduate will ruin one or two churches before concluding that the ministry is not for him. Since he doesn’t have the skills or knowledge to get a decent job elsewhere, he winds up selling insurance.

The situation can be infinitely worse in areas where there is high, endemic unemployment. It is all too easy for people to start thinking of the church in terms of a career and a paycheck rather than a calling and a ministry. A missionary professor wrote, “In general we find a large proportion of seminary students are poorly motivated, having little interest in theology for its own sake, or in learning practical techniques for ministering the Word of God. This must be because their primary interest is in qualifying for a position, not in learning how to serve.” (J.G. Meadowcroft, Theological Seminary, Gujranwala, Pakistan, Theological Education By Extension, p. 2)

He goes on to say, “One of the curses of the church has always been clericalism. This “professional” attitude towards Christian service, in which the pastor expects, and is dependent upon, a living from the church, is a direct result of seminary training taken early in life as preparation for a career. Hence many clergy are more pre-occupied with preserving their rights than with serving their people.” (Meadowcroft, p. 3)

To illustrate the point he writes, “Some time ago I was in a certain city and met a young pastor who graduated a few years ago from seminary. As a student he was fairly mature and intelligent, and I had some hopes for his ministry. Since being ordained he has worked hard in his spare time to further his university studies. I asked him what serious Bible study he had undertaken since he left seminary. His reply, which quite staggered me, was that he found it impossible to study theology without a teacher. Here was a man, appointed to teach others, who did not know how to study from books, or use a commentary or concordance. I believe that the primary reason, however, was that he was not really interested in the subject he was paid to teach. Motivation was completely lacking.” (Meadowcroft, p. 5)

He writes that the basic issue with our attempts to train is, “We may believe that we can make a leader of him by putting him through the course and laying hands on him afterwards. This assumes that the virtue of leadership is in the course, not in the man. It is this notion that is generally held by those who choose seminary candidates. By some kind of metamorphosis a young fellow who has no qualities of leadership is expected to emerge from the chrysalis of the seminary as a “leader of the community”. And so he also considers himself to be. The fact, however, is that nothing will make a man a leader if he does not possess the attributes already.” (Meadowcroft, p. 5-6, emphasis in the original)

In light of all this it seems to me that we have things backwards. Instead of training the immature and inexperienced in hopes that they will develop a call to serve, we ought to be looking to mature and capable people who are already making their way in the world and are now, as a result of their life’s experiences, feeling the call to serve. I think it is far better to train people who already know what life is all about and who already have a means of livelihood, than those who are unsure of God’s call on their lives but are looking for a means to secure a living.

You might think that my assessment of the Bible college/Seminary system is overly harsh. While it is true that I do criticize the system, my major beef is that the church has made the system necessary. Since the church has not made a serious effort to address the problem of training and equipping its own people, there was little choice but to turn to the colleges. Please understand, I do not question the motives of the teachers, professors and administrators in our institutions of learning. They have tried valiantly to fill a huge gap. We could argue that the situation would be far worse than it is without the colleges.

Here’s the problem as I see it: We need a way to train mature, experienced and motivated men for leadership, who are already making a living outside the church. Some would argue that the colleges and seminaries could train such men just as easily as the young, callow and unemployed. In theory, this might be true. In fact, however, it isn’t happening. Certainly not on the scale the church needs. As a practical matter those who have the greatest potential, already have career and family obligations which often prevent them from attending a college or seminary.

How, then, can we provide necessary training without totally disrupting the lives of the people we want to become leaders in the church? Our solution must not require people to move from their homes. It must not disrupt their careers and occupations. It must not place an undue burden on their family life. It must not be a financial burden. Most importantly, it must not remove people from their home congregations. After all, we are attempting to prepare people to serve in their home congregations, not to lose them to other places.

Distance Learning

In a commendable attempt to answer some of these problems, the seminaries are starting to provide some of their curriculum via distance learning techniques. The thought is that if students are unable to go to the seminary, perhaps it might be possible to bring the seminary to the student.

A form of distance learning which has been around for a long time is the correspondence course. The instructor sends lesson material to the student. The student reads it and/or does the exercise or experiment called for in the lesson. Then, he takes a test or writes the required report and sends it back to the instructor. Student and instructor never meet and, most likely, never even speak to one another. The training is entirely impersonal. And, it is entirely linear – the same course fits all. There is little or no variation for individual learning styles or individual strengths or weaknesses. Those who need more review or examples in order to grasp a concept don’t get it, while those who get it quickly are forced to plow through redundant material.

The advent of the Internet has enabled some changes to the basic concept of the correspondence course. A student can read a text or other course material on his own time. Then, he can log onto a secure website and take a test. If he has questions, he can email, chat online with, or even text his instructor. While less impersonal than a classic correspondence course, this method still shares the same weaknesses. It is difficult to make it fit the individual needs of the students.

Web-based training has the potential, at least in theory, to overcome some of the limitations of the correspondence course. Online instruction can be interactive in the sense that the lesson can tailor itself somewhat to the individual needs of student. For example, if the student demonstrates a good grasp of certain principles, the lesson program can skip over material which would be redundant for him. Similarly, if the student is having trouble with a particular concept, the lesson program can provide him with additional or supplemental material.

Well-designed Web-based training can also be interactive in the sense that it allows students to communicate and collaborate with each other. While no replacement for the interactions which take place in a “real” classroom, it can break the isolation inherent in not actually being with other people.

While distance learning techniques do have the virtue of not requiring students to travel to where the professors are, they still have some major problems. One is the impersonal nature of it. It is hard to develop a true mentoring relationship with someone you have never seen, let alone met. And mentoring may be one of the most important components of training church leaders.

A second problem is the expense. It is not trivial to prepare the courses. From my own experience, I know that it is not easy to put together even a worthwhile correspondence course. Preparing interactive, online courses with many branches can be much harder. I’ve read estimates that it takes anywhere from 100 to 600 hours of development time for each instruction-hour. I’ve never really tracked it, but I tell people that it takes me about 10 hours, on average, to prepare a sermon or a traditional 45 minute lesson. (I’m talking about expository sermons and adult Bible lessons.) If that guesstimate is anywhere near accurate, it would take at least 10 times the effort to produce a worthwhile online version covering the same material.

I don’t have any personal experience in preparing online courses, but if the above figures are true, it does not surprise me that most of the seminaries I’ve looked at provide only a small portion of their courses online. It also does not surprise me that the courses they do offer online cost the student almost as much as the traditional courses.

The cost of preparing online courses can probably be cut – perhaps even by an order of magnitude – by using one of the several free or open-source “Virtual Learning Environment” systems which are available. These systems provide a ready-made framework and the tools needed to prepare a course. This spares the instructor from having to build the transport and presentation mechanisms in addition to the course content. Regardless of the quality of the environment, however, it still takes a lot of hard work to structure and adapt the content. There is no doubt in my mind that it takes several iterations – with feedback from real students – to develop a truly excellent online course.

The issue of feedback points to another limitation of correspondence or online courses. They are best suited for conveying facts. It is much harder to design something to teach principles where the answers are not necessarily true/false or multiple-choice. Sometimes real-time feedback and interaction with other people is necessary to learn how to think and derive principles. In other words, online courses may not be the best method for teaching the application of wisdom rather than conveying knowledge.

Virtual Classroom, Teleconferencing

A natural development from the online course which the Internet makes possible is the virtual classroom. The wide availability of inexpensive or free teleconferencing services now makes it possible for teachers and students to meet in virtual settings. The students and their teacher may be in totally different locations, or even time-zones, and still interact with one another in real time.

Aside from allowing students to remain in their own locations, virtual classrooms have two major advantages over other online courses. The first is rapport and immediacy. The students can develop a relationship with their instructor. They can get to know him or her, and the other students as people. They can ask questions and share their concerns immediately. They can also interact with other students. The instructor can stimulate discussion among the students. He or she can mentor the students in ways that are not possible with the typical online course. To put it another way, the technique can bring back some of the intimacy of the classroom without the drawback of having to be physically in the same location.

The other major advantage of the virtual classroom over online courses is that an instructor can use basically the same course material as he or she would in a real classroom. It isn’t necessary to write specialized software in order to present the course. No longer is it necessary to try to program the things which good teachers automatically and instinctively do based on the feedback students provide during a particular lesson. Adjustments, digressions and amplifications happen naturally as students and instructor interact with each other.

Theological Education by Extension (TEE)

Theological Education by Extension, or TEE, is another way to take the seminary to the student. In the TEE methodology students remain at home and complete course workbooks at times of their own choosing. In this it resembles correspondence or online courses. However, there are also some important differences.

One of the differences is in the type of testing. Online courses generally test after each unit or lesson. The intent is to see whether a student grasps concepts and how to apply them. In contrast, TEE material often seems to emphasize content over concepts; information over principles. Every couple of paragraphs students have to answer questions about what they just read. Often these are fill-in-the-blank type questions which merely restate the text. While this approach may encourage rote repetition, it may not be as beneficial in teaching people how to think or apply what they learn in practical ways. I suspect that the TEE approach is probably most useful in areas of the world where rote learning is the norm rather than areas where students are encouraged to think for themselves and explore concepts on their own.

To be fair, the above criticism is a generalization. I have personally read several TEE workbooks which are as described. I find the approach irritating, not only for the simple-minded repetition, but because I find that breaking up the flow of the text with questions inhibits me. It does not fit my learning style. On the other hand, I have read some higher level TEE material which was excellent. The text was not broken up into tiny chunks and the questions encouraged thought rather than rote repetition.

Another difference from most online courses is that students enrolled in TEE programs are required to meet together with an instructor, generally once a month. Typically, the instructor travels to an area where several students are enrolled in the course. He or she spends a whole day with the students. They discuss the material they have studied over the previous month. The instructor is able to answer questions, clear up problems and may give supplementary classroom instruction and/or provide additional material to the students. Another benefit of these meetings is it gives the students a chance to get to know each other and interact. These contacts help break the feelings of isolation many students develop as they work on their own, and lay the groundwork for cooperation in later ministry.

Something else which makes TEE distinct from some of the other approaches mentioned above is that students are expected to take part in the practical work of their home congregations. From my perspective, this is one of the main strengths of this approach. There are many aspects of ministry and leadership which cannot be learned from a book or in a classroom. They are acquired and developed only by doing. Teaching, itself, is an example of one of these skills. Books can suggest certain approaches or techniques, but no one can learn to teach until he or she has actually tried to impart information or a skill to someone else. It takes practical experience to discover which techniques fit your own personality and to develop an effective teaching style of your own.

The TEE programs with which I am familiar provide three successive levels of training. The first level is appropriate for people who may have only a grammar school education. It is an introductory set of courses which provide a broad overview of the Bible, Christian life and ethics, and some basic doctrine. Upon completion students receive a certificate.

Next is a series of intermediate courses which build on the previous level. In them students learn the basics of Bible study and are introduced to specific Bible books. An introduction to sermon preparation may also be included. Upon completion students receive a diploma.

The third tier in the TEE program provides college level courses. In them students are exposed to more in-depth studies of various Bible books, biblical languages, church history and comparative religion. Students are granted a degree upon successful completion.

Church-Based Theological Education

While all of the methods discussed so far have a place, they share a common weakness. All of them depend on some entity, usually a Bible college or seminary, outside of the local congregation to provide the training. And, one of the points I’m trying to make in this series of essays is that the institutions of learning we have grown to depend upon to train our leaders are inadequate to the job. It is my conviction that the church will never have enough people to do the work of the church as it ought to be done unless it learns to develop and equip them itself.

What prevents the church from developing and equipping its own people for ministry? There are at least three things:

1) Time. There are only so many hours in the day. Most church leaders I know already have a schedule filled to overflowing. The thought of carving out significant blocks of time to train others is daunting. Yet, I have to ask what most leaders spend their precious time doing. Much of it is consumed in the mechanics of running the organization. They run from one business meeting to another. They are “busy putting out brush fires.” I sometimes wonder whether church leaders have forgotten what they’re there for. They need to remember that one of their primary responsibilities is to equip (Ephesians 4:11-13). Once they get their priorities sorted, they will make the time to train and equip. Like the Apostles they will delegate lessor tasks to others (Acts 6:3-4). And, the beauty of it is that once they have started equipping others to take on responsibilities, there won’t be as much pressure on their own time. Others will be able to take on the administrative details while the leaders focus on equipping still others for ministry and “works of service.”

2) Feelings of inadequacy. I suspect that many church leaders feel incompetent to train others – particularly if they, themselves, don’t have advanced degrees. Part of this feeling of inadequacy is that, all too often, we’ve bought into the idea of credentialism: If you don’t have a piece of paper issued by some authority, you are incompetent. If you aren’t accredited, you have no right to train others. This was one of the things which upset the Pharisees and Sadducees about Jesus and the Apostles (John 7:15, Acts 4:13). What leaders need to realize that it is not a sheepskin which is important, but how much time they’ve spent with Jesus. They may not have the shiniest and most expensive diploma, but surely they can pass on what they, themselves, have learned from the Master? And, one of the best ways to master a subject is to try to teach it. A leader may feel inadequate and incompetent, but the more he teaches the more mastery he will gain. One of the ways we learn is by doing. Start doing what you can with your current skill-set in the sure knowledge that the Lord will equip you to handle any task He sets you.

3) Pride and insecurity. Unfortunately, one of the reasons leaders are reluctant to train others is they look at them as a threat to their own position. What if they turn out to be a better speaker or teacher than me? What if people start liking them more than me? I might lose control of my church!

It is time we realized, once and for all, that it is not “my” church. It is not “your” church. It is not “our” church. The church is the Lord’s and His only. If Christ truly is the Lord and Head of the church, then we don’t have to worry about who is greatest, who is the more talented and who gets the most accolades. We can leave all such matters to Lord in the assurance that our commendation and reward comes from Him alone. It is not our place to worry about position and honor. Our only responsibility is to obey – and let the chips fall where they may.

It is also time we got hold of the biblical concept of multiple leadership. God never intended local congregations to have only one “Pastor” or “Minister.” It was never His intent for only one or two people to do all the teaching and speaking. In contrast, in the New Testament we see a model of mutual ministry shared among many. We see congregations overseen and shepherded by multiple Elders. We see edification given by all.

In this context, what can we do about teaching, training and equipping the multiple leaders churches need within the church itself? In recent years a new model has been emerging. I mean “new” in the sense that it is something which is quite foreign to Western educational practice. In another sense it is not “new” at all, because it is the model practiced by the first Christians. For lack of a better title it is “Church-Based Theological Education.”

This type of instruction or training has some distinguishing characteristics.

1) It is not centered on an institution of learning such as a seminary. Rather it is an extension of the church.

2) It is not merely church-housed. There are many churches which provide facilities for an institution of theological training. However, aside from the location, there is little to distinguish them from normal Bible colleges or seminaries. Their presence has little impact on the church and the leaders of the local church may have minimal involvement in the training given. Most of the student body comes from outside the local congregation.

3) It is not separate from the functioning of the church. Instead it is an integral part of body life. While some instruction is given in classroom settings, much of the learning takes place in the context of actual ministry.

4) The pedagogical approach is different. Theological education as practiced in most seminaries relies heavily on formal instruction by lecture. Assessment is made through testing and the emphasis is on the acquisition of knowledge. In contrast, Church-Based Education revolves around mentoring. Instruction is dialogic, that is, it takes the form of discussion. Instructors prompt self-discovery by continually asking questions of the students. The emphasis is on practical application of principles rather than the mere acquisition of knowledge. (However, knowledge is not minimized!) The aim is character development.

What does such an approach look like in actual practice? How can we integrate ministry and instruction? What specific courses should be taught? Possible answers will have to wait for another essay.

In the meantime, you might find some of the following resources helpful:

Allen, Roland, Education In The Native Church, World Dominion Press, 1926

Cole, Neil, Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are, Baker Books, 2009

Reed, Jeff, Church-Based Theological Education: Creating A New Paradigm, BILD International, 1992

Reed, Jeff, The Churches of the First Century, BILD International, 2009

Rutt, Couglas L., Some Caveats For Theological Education By Extension, M750 Issues in International Theological Education, Professor Robert Newton, 1991

Wood, William B. and Tanner, Kimberly D., The Role of the Lecturer as Tutor: Doing What Effective Tutors Do in a Large Lecture Class, CBE-Life Sciences Edition, Vol. 11, 3-9, Spring 2012

Dealing with rejection.

They asked me to resign. I’ve been thrown out of the eldership by the very people whom I helped ordain. And it hurts. It hurts really bad.

“What is the kerfuffle all about?”, you ask. “Why did they toss you out?” Sorry, but I’m not one to air the church’s dirty laundry before the whole world. This essay is not an exposé, rather a discussion of how we should deal with disappointment, rejection and betrayal. And therein lies a problem. I regard what happened to me not only as a personal slap in the face but, more importantly, a betrayal of the fundamental principles we had when we began the congregation. It’s the death of a cherished dream. The ones who “did it to me” don’t see it that way at all. In their view, the radical change in direction they chose was in the best interests of the congregation. From their perspective I’m the stumbling block and they don’t understand why I have the convictions I do.

They’re someone else’s servants

In situations like this I need to keep reminding myself that, ultimately, no one answers to me. It is not my congregation, but the Lord’s. In another context Paul wrote, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls…” (Romans 14:4 NIV)

I am passionate about the church. When I see someone do something which I believe is not in the best interests of the church, it not only saddens me, there is a part of me which wants to react like Nehemiah did when the people of his day didn’t take God’s word to heart. (Read Nehemiah, chapter 13, sometime!) But that is not my place. It is up to the Lord to prove the worth of each person’s work, and it is up to Him to reward or punish accordingly. Paul writes, “…But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15 NIV) Paradoxically, there are times when the best thing I can do for the congregation is to just let go and realize that God is the quality inspector – not me.

Forgive

Remembering that the Lord is the One who judges is a passive response to rejection and betrayal. But He requires much more from us. He also wants us to forgive. One of the tough things about forgiveness, at least for me, is that it is not supposed to be conditional. By that I mean we are supposed to forgive regardless of whether the persons who have hurt us show any remorse or not. It’s my responsibility to forgive whether or not they apologize or ask for forgiveness. Oh, that is hard! But Jesus made it plain that my own relationship to God depends on whether I forgive those who have wronged me. He said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15 NIV)

Something which sometimes makes it really hard for us to forgive those who have wronged us is that forgiveness does not erase consequences. For example, God forgave David for his sin with Bathsheba but that didn’t bring Uriah and his fellow soldiers back to life, nor did it remove the family troubles which came to David as a result of that sin. In my situation forgiveness will not erase the damage which has already been done to the church, nor will it prevent the fallout which is surely coming down-road.

But that is not my responsibility. What the Lord requires of me is to forgive – and leave the consequences up to Him.

Pray

Jesus made it plain that we are to not only forgive those who wrong us, we are to pray for them. “…Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28 NIV)

This is something else which is really hard for me to do. Rather than pray for the well-being of those who’ve done me dirt I want vindication! Like David I cry out, “Awake, and rise to my defense! Contend for me, my God and Lord. Vindicate me in your righteousness, O LORD my God; do not let them gloat over me. Do not let them think, “Aha, just what we wanted!” or say, “We have swallowed him up.” May all who gloat over my distress be put to shame and confusion; may all who exalt themselves over me be clothed with shame and disgrace. May those who delight in my vindication shout for joy and gladness; may they always say, “The LORD be exalted, who delights in the well-being of his servant.”” (Psalm 35:23 NIV)

While David wanted vindication, he also had the wisdom to know that it came from God. It’s something I need to remember as well. Yes, I want to be proved right. Yes, it would bring a morbid satisfaction if the things I fear will happen to the congregation actually come to pass. But vindication comes from God. I am not to lift my hand against those who have harmed me, and I am not to actively bring about the negative things I think are in store for them and the congregation. Instead it is my responsibility to pray for them and the good of the congregation. It would only compound the tragedy if even more people are hurt or turned away from the Lord. Therefore it is my duty to pray that no one will be hurt. Vindication, if it ever comes, will be from the Lord. ““See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc; no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.” (Isaiah 54:16-17 NIV)

Give thanks

Probably one of the most difficult commands to obey in all of Scripture is 1 Thessalonians 5:18, “give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” (NIV) The command is all the more remarkable because it was written to a group of Christians who were going through severe suffering (1 Thessalonians 1:6). It can be extremely difficult, at least for me, to be thankful for anything when I’m suffering – particular the kind of spiritual and mental anguish I’ve experienced in the situation I’ve been going through. Yet, regardless of my circumstances, it is God’s will for me to give thanks.

Why? A full discussion of the reasons why God wants us to be thankful is beyond the scope of this essay. The short answer is that thankfulness is both an inoculation against, and the antidote to, bitterness. The truth is that we cannot have a proper relationship with God, nor the kind of fellowship we ought to have with other believers if we harbor bitterness in our hearts. Unfortunately, bitterness is also very infectious. It doesn’t just affect us – it has the potential to destroy others as well as ourselves (Hebrews 12:15). And, so God requires us to find something to give thanks for regardless of how badly we’re hurting.

But it doesn’t stop there. There’s another passage which is even harder to put into practice. We are not only supposed to give thanks in all circumstances, we are also supposed to give thanks for the circumstances! Ephesians 5:20 says, “always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NIV)

How can this be? How can we possibly give thanks for situations which are wrong or evil? We have to understand that our God is greater than any situation or circumstance. He has promised that He will bring good out of everything He allows His children to encounter or experience (Romans 8:28). This is not just some generic good, but individual and personal good for us. It comes down to faith. Do I believe God’s promise? If I do, I will give thanks for what I’m going through, knowing that, some day, I will be able to look back and see the blessings which could not have come to me any other way. But, oh is it hard to do now!

Examine yourself

When something like this happens my natural tendency is to point out all the faults and inconsistencies in the people on the other side of the issue. I want them to recognize their faults and take remedial action. As important as that may be, it may be even more important for me to take stock of my own motives and character. Jesus said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5 NIV)

As much as I hate this situation, it has given me an opportunity for introspection. I’ve been surprised at some of my own reactions. I’ve discovered some areas where I still need to grow and mature. I’ve had to deal with some things in my own character that I thought I had already overcome. Though I hate what’s happened, it would be even more tragic not to learn and grow and benefit from it. I like to think that I am a little wiser now. I like to think that I will come through this with a stronger faith. I like to think that this will make me a better person. Peter writes, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade – kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that your faith – of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire – may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (1 Peter 13-7 NIV)

Wait

I’d rather not go through something like this at all. If I must endure it, I want it to blow over very quickly. But it hasn’t been quick. In fact, there is no resolution in sight – even though I have done all that I know to do.

People who know about the situation have asked me, “Why don’t you leave?” I understand where they’re coming from. And, believe me, I’ve been tempted to do just that. But I have a conviction that it is not wise to take action in situations like this without the Lord’s leading. So far, the Lord has been silent. I have not heard His call to move on. No opportunity for ministry has opened up elsewhere. Without the Lord’s direction, I don’t think I should even look. I am in limbo. At this point it is unclear whether I will ever be able to serve much here again, but no alternative has presented itself.

Over the years I have become convinced that God often calls on His people to wait. In fact, frustrating though it is, I suspect that God calls us to wait more often than to take action. Moses had to spend 40 years in the wilderness before conditions were right for God to use him. Even Jesus had to wait some 18 years after the incident at the Temple until the time was right for Him to begin His ministry (see Luke 2:41-52, 3:23).

For all I know, God may open up some amazing new opportunity for me tomorrow. But for now, He’s called me to wait; to be patient. One benefit of waiting is that it helps take ego out of the equation. I’d like things to get going now – I want a resolution to this situation. But by waiting, I know that when something does break, it’s more likely to be God’s leading, not my own pride talking. Peter writes, “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:6-7 NIV)

And that’s exactly what I intend to do.

Let it be clearly understood that I have nothing against missionaries. I was raised on the mission field and have served as a missionary, myself. Over the years I’ve met quite a few other missionaries, visited their works and read plenty of mission newsletters. I’ve also read a fair number of mission books, not only historical accounts and biographies, but books about mission theory and practice. So I reckon I know a little about missionaries and what they do. From what I’ve observed, read and experienced, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a high rate of missionary failure and that, to a large extent, the failure is self-inflicted and self-perpetuating.

The failure is not, in the main, due to character flaws. Certainly, as with any other group of individuals some missionaries are incompetent – whether from lack of ability and gifting, or from being mismatched to the task. You’ll also find some who are vain, egotistical, impatient, angry, insecure, discouraged, just plain lazy, or subject to any of the other human failings. We live, after all, in a fallen world. As a group, however, it would be difficult to find people who are more talented, dedicated, sacrificial and humble. Most truly do display the character of Christ. For sure it would be difficult to find people who love others more.

No, I have no beef with missionaries. In fact, I’ll go further and say that, as a general rule, I don’t think anybody has a right to criticize who either hasn’t served on the field, or who isn’t willing to serve. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be accountability or that missionaries are above the scrutiny of the common herd. I am saying that there’s no place for Monday-morning quarterbacks who’ve never had to run with the ball – especially those who don’t even know what the game is, let alone what the rules are.

In harmony with those sentiments, I don’t claim to have any kind of expertise in your part of the world. I can only comment on what I’ve seen and experienced. If my observations are helpful to you – great. If not, I’d be glad to hear how my take on things needs to be modified to fit where you are.

Before we can talk about missionary failure, we’ve got to define what it is that missionaries are supposed to do. The charter for mission-work is Matthew 28:18-20, “…Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”” (NIV)

We call Jesus’ command the “Great Commission.” There are two parts to it. The first is “make disciples.” The second is “teach them to obey everything.” In light of the command we can call missionaries the successors of the Apostles. (The literal meaning of the word “apostle” is “one who is sent”.) No, missionaries are not divinely inspired like the Apostles were. Nor do missionaries have authority over the entire church, nor are they in the foundation of the church (see Ephesians 2:19-22). But missionaries do carry on the Apostles’ work of taking the Gospel to people who have not heard it and bringing those who believe together in congregations.

Be that as it may, it’s the second part of the job that got me thinking about missionary failure. Yes, we missionaries do introduce others to the Gospel. Yes, we do form the new disciples into congregations. But have we really taught those disciples to obey everything? I hardly think so.

To illustrate what I’m getting at, compare a typical mission church to a typical new-church-plant here in the States. (Before going forward I should make clear that I’m talking about starting the kind of independent, autonomous congregations we read about in the New Testament. I’m sure that the hierarchical, so-called “main-line” churches have similar problems in mission work, but their process is quite different than what I’m talking about. Their biggest problem, of course, is that their very form of church structure is contrary to the example we have in the New Testament.)

There are a number of different ways in which new congregations can come into existence. The exact method isn’t really important to the point I’m going to make. However, it often goes something like this: Someone sees the need and develops a burden for starting a new congregation in a particular place. He approaches a church-planting organization for help in doing so. (By the way, if the whole concept of a “church-planting organization” doesn’t curl your hair – it ought to. But I’m describing reality here, not how things should be.) The church-planting organization assesses the aspiring church planter to see whether they think he’s capable of bringing a congregation into being. If they think he has potential, they give him additional training and a methodology and time-table of important milestones to aim for in the process. They arrange for on-going mentoring and periodic assessments of the new work. In addition they either provide or help arrange for start-up funding.

At the beginning the church-planting organization is heavily involved in the new congregation. However, the involvement doesn’t last forever. It tapers off fairly rapidly after the first few years. If, after a certain time, the organization feels that not enough progress has been made, they advise the church planter to terminate his efforts and they pull the plug on support.

Now as much as I may cringe at the concept of an organization doing what really ought to be one of the functions of the church, they have the right idea. After a certain amount of time, generally about three years, they expect new congregations to be capable of standing on their own. What does that mean?

Going on a century ago, Roland Allen made a study of the missionary methods of the Apostle Paul. He concluded that Paul was so successful in starting congregations because of three principles: Paul enabled the congregations to become self-governing, self-propagating and self-sustaining. Though they may use different terminology, the church-planting organizations generally agree with Allen’s conclusions.

After about three years or so, they expect new congregations to be able to pay their own bills. Similarly, they expect a new congregation to be capable of selecting leaders and running its own affairs. They also expect a new congregation to be growing numerically – and not just through the efforts of the original church planter.

Contrast this with the situation in many mission churches. I know of churches which still rely on outside funds, not only for capital improvements like new buildings but, for the normal operating expenses through they have been in existence for over half a century. In one place I was flat-out told, that it was useless to teach on giving or to expect the locals to support their own church. The attitude of the members was that if the church expected them to give, they’d go to a congregation which didn’t. Is it any wonder that that particular congregation is not as healthy as it might be? In another congregation a leader made it very clear that as far as he was concerned my coming – though I had spent long hours teaching the people – was pointless unless I had brought a stack of money with me. Needless to say, if his attitude was typical, I thought my coming was pointless too.

I know of mission churches which have been in existence for decades, yet still do not have any Elders or Deacons. Even worse, there is no system or plan in place to develop any. The congregations are still run by missionary-appointed preachers rather than leaders selected by the congregations themselves. (I recently ran into an extreme example of this from the denominational world. On a mission trip I met a rather imperious, middle-aged, white woman who, if memory serves, had just arrived from a tour of Egypt and the Sudan. Her father – a foreigner – had been the Bishop over this huge area. He had died several years before and, if I got the story straight, either a new Bishop had not been appointed or the new Bishop had to work with, or through, some sort of council. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood or don’t remember correctly but, the impression I got was that by virtue of the fact that this woman’s father had been the Bishop, she had a great deal of say in how that bishopric was governed. If I remember correctly, no new clergy could be ordained without her presence. Even worse, there could be no new confirmations. Since she could tour the area only every couple of years or so… Well, you get the idea. Though I do not agree at all with the denominational structure involved, I found it appalling that a foreign, white woman from a totally different culture had so much power over the affairs of the local churches.)

Things look quite a bit better in the area of self-propagation. However, I have known of situations where the missionary had to approve candidates for baptism. (See the story above where the foreign woman had a say in who got confirmed.) A number of the congregations I know are enthusiastic about evangelism. But even there, the concept that they ought to be thinking in terms of sending out missionaries of their own to other parts of their own country, let alone to foreign lands, is something they can’t even imagine.

Why do these failures and weaknesses still exist even though the congregations were established decades ago? The congregations are the way they are because we’ve taught them to be that way. They aren’t self-supporting because we’ve taught them to be dependent upon outside funding. Instead of teaching them to take care of their own, by our actions we’ve taught them to turn to us as the first resort whenever there is a financial need. For example, when a medical need arises, the people turn to the missionary first for help paying for treatment instead of taking the need to the church. Similarly, I’m not implying that they are capable of building and maintaining buildings like ours, but surely they could come up with the means to obtain and maintain meeting places which are appropriate and suitable for their culture and their circumstances?

The churches aren’t self-governing because we haven’t trained them to develop their own leaders. We have inadvertently taught them to depend on outside or foreign institutions to provide leaders for them. Otherwise, why do the people think that someone who was ordained by a foreigner has more legitimacy than a man ordained by the local church? We’ve also conditioned them to embrace credentialism. For example, there have been semi-literate and biblically-illiterate people who have discounted the teaching I’ve provided them because I don’t have a formal degree. Never mind that what I presented was far beyond their ability to come up with on their own. Since they look at me – a foreigner – like that, woe betide the local man, no matter how spiritual or capable a teacher he may be, who doesn’t have a certificate or degree of some sort!

The local churches might not be able to supply the equivalent of our degree programs, but are the degree programs necessary even for leaders in the missionaries’ home countries? Surely the locals are capable of passing on what they’ve been taught? Surely they are capable of developing some of their own curriculum and teaching materials? If education is important to them, surely they could come up with enough money to pay for such things as adult literacy courses? If individuals are too poor to buy study aids such as concordances for themselves, can’t the churches find the wherewithal to obtain a copy or two for the church? But we have taught them to turn to us rather than develop their own solutions.

The churches aren’t better at propagating themselves because we’ve taught them to rely on us to spread the Gospel. Granted, they often don’t have the resources to do some of the things we can – like produce radio programs and publish literature. However, we have not even taught them the basics such as to designate a portion of their tithes and offerings for evangelism or mission work.

I can’t help but wonder why we so often have such different expectations for mission churches than for church-plants in our own country. Do we harbor a subconscious belief that we are somehow superior to the foreign people among whom we labor? I hope not, but the end results tend to suggest that conclusion.

As serious and tragic as these failures are, there is another type of failure which hinders our effectiveness. This one is particularly insidious because it stems from genuine caring and a desire to alleviate suffering. (This failure relates to the first part of the Great Commission.) I’ve heard people say that you can’t share the Gospel with a starving man until you’ve fed him. What? Just because you don’t have the means to solve the hunger problem are you going to deprive people of the Gospel, too? Let’s face it. There is a vast ocean of need out there. Our ability to meet that need is a mere drop in comparison. As Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you…” (John 12:8 NIV) If we wait to share the Gospel until we’ve met every other need, we’ll never share the Gospel. We have the resources to do only so much. What is more important? Providing for someone’s physical wellbeing or their spiritual wellbeing? Shouldn’t the spiritual take precedence over the physical?

Not too long ago I read an article (which I now can’t find) which described an interview a church leader conducted with a bunch of Bible college students who had just returned from a short-term mission trip. The students were all enthused about the wells they had helped dig and the medical assistance they had provided. No doubt they had helped save lives and helped raise the standard of living for the people. Yet, the person who interviewed them was appalled to find that not a single one had shared the Gospel with the people they served. What good is it to save a person’s physical life if we withhold spiritual life from him?

Are the community development projects which are divorced from spiritual teaching even effective in the long run? Just a few days ago I met with an old missionary who’s been a family friend for over 50 years. He’s served in several different countries including Afghanistan and Hong Kong. He was in Iran during the Khomeni revolution. He and his wife still travel extensively throughout Asia, teaching in seminaries and meeting with many different development groups. [Note: The man died after this essay was written.] During his mid-seventies he went back to university and earned another doctorate. In his doctoral thesis he states that evangelism is very difficult unless the physical needs of people are also addressed. However, he made an extremely interesting observation based on the groups and projects he studied. If a spiritual emphasis is lacking in development work, the projects will fail. There will be no long-term benefit. Unless people come to understand that they are created in the image of God and, therefore, there is a plan and purpose for life, they will not believe that betterment is possible. In other words, altruism will not succeed unless it imparts a transcendental knowledge of divine purpose. To try to better people’s lives without also teaching them the foundational biblical truths is, in the long run, an exercise in futility.

“But a starving person won’t listen to the Gospel!” Sure he will – provided that you are willing to starve along with him. Now I know first-hand just how much missionaries give up and sacrifice in order to go to foreign lands and proclaim the Gospel in other cultures. It’s not just a matter of accepting what is often a much lower standard of living and risking contracting diseases than one would normally never be exposed to. There’s more to it than putting up with the frustrations of not being able to accomplish nearly as much in the same amount of time – having to cope with a society that has very different ethical standards and an often byzantine bureaucracy. There is also an “opportunity cost” to serving as a missionary. By leaving his home country a missionary gives up all kinds of opportunities and perks he would have had by staying – not to mention a very real difference in earning power.

The fact remains, however, that as great as the sacrifices are which missionaries have to make, the local people consider them fantastically wealthy. And, from a local perspective, they are! Some of this perception is skewed by a lack of understanding. I remember the incredulous looks I got when a relatively poor man asked how my house in my home country was constructed. He was dumbstruck when I told him it was made of wood. In his country, it is unthinkable to build with wood – not only because wood is scarce, and therefore expensive, but because termites would destroy a wooden house in short order. This man lived in a modest house made of brick. He didn’t know what to think when I told him that I couldn’t afford a brick house. Another time someone asked me whether I owned a car. I’m not sure he believed me when I told him that it was cheaper for me to drive my own car than to ride public transport.

Mis-perceptions and cultural differences aside most missionaries really are wealthy in comparison to the people among whom they go to live and serve. If for no other reason, the missionary has a safety net that the locals simply do not have. If necessary, he can appeal to his embassy to extract him from a sticky situation. His sponsoring churches or mission society will pay his medical bills or fly him home.

There is no doubt that this disparity in wealth and opportunity can create a barrier and hinder our proclamation of the Gospel. As much as missionaries give up to take the good news to other cultures, they need to give up much more to truly be effective. We need to adopt the same incarnational approach that Jesus did.

While preparing a series of classes on the book of Philippians, I was struck by how applicable Paul’s description of Jesus’ attitude and His coming into this world is to mission work. The following is a description of a missionary and his work loosely based on Philippians, chapter 2, starting with verse 3.

(Verse 3) There was nothing selfish about him. He didn’t go about ‘tooting his own horn’ or displaying his degrees and credentials. Instead, he had a genuine appreciation for other people and their innate worth. He never gave the impression that he thought he was superior to anyone else because of his heritage or culture. He was a humble person. He realized that anything in his culture or heritage was truly superior only to the degree it was a reflection of Christ and biblical principles. Nor did he ever excuse the shortcomings of his culture or background. (Verse 4) Instead he was more than willing to admire the good he found in other people and learn from them. Though he was not a doormat nor did he hide his opinions and desires, whenever there was a conflict between what was best for someone else and what he wanted, he willingly conceded his own rights or interests. (Verse 5) He hoped that people would be able to see past him to see the character of Christ.

(Verse 6) He was, in truth, an American but did not flaunt it. On the contrary, he did not hold on to the rights and privileges of his American citizenship. He never appealed to the embassy to smooth his way or rescue him from difficulty. He shunned the special treatment and special access which his citizenship could have obtained for him. (Verse 7) In order to serve those to whom he ministered he gave up his income, his savings and financial security. Going to a far country he lived as a peasant. (Verse 8) Though, in the world’s eyes, it was a real come down, he learned to live and make do with the same level of income and material possessions as those to whom he ministered. He entered into their lives and shared their misery as well as their joys. No one could accuse him of being arrogant or having a ‘holier than thou attitude.’ In all he did he tried his best to be obedient to Christ, even at the peril of his life.

(Verse 9) As a result, Christ was highly honored. The people realized that Jesus did not come merely for the rich, nor was Christianity merely a means to better their social, economic or medical status. (Verse 10) They learned to bow before Jesus because the missionary was, himself, submitted. (Verse 11) They confessed Christ as Lord because they first saw that He was sovereign in the life of the missionary. And in this way much glory was given to God the Father.

I’m fully aware that the above description probably raises as many questions as it answers. For example, it does not address the issues of family and what a missionary should do about educating his children – particularly if they are going to return to his home country. Each missionary will have to figure out the details to fit his particular (and unique) situation. However, I am convinced that we have not paid sufficient attention to Christ’s example and that we would be far more effective if we did.

As I listened to speaker after speaker my sense of frustration and defeat grew. Oh, I appreciated their enthusiasm. I was impressed by their courage. Several had never spoken in public before. Others had to make their presentation in a language which was not their mother tongue. One man was almost illiterate. Yes, I admired their desire to share their insights and their willingness to risk looking foolish. Yet every single one of them, whether they were new converts or had been in the Lord for decades, whether they had spoken in public for years or this was their first time, regardless of their education or lack of it, all of them without exception, followed the same tired, worn-out formula in their talks. The reason for my discouragement was that this was a graphic demonstration of my shortcomings as a teacher.

The exercise was a relatively simple one. As a condition for being allowed to attend a seminar I taught, each of the participants had to present a five-minute Communion talk during the last session. During the seminar I stressed the importance of remembering the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. I pointed out that focusing more attention on the Communion or Last Supper has the potential of revitalizing every thing else we do in our assemblies. I also told them about my own experience that giving various men in the congregation an opportunity to speak about the Communion fosters spiritual growth and is a good way to give them experience in speaking to others about Christ. I not only told them about the benefits, I showed them how to prepare a Communion meditation. Then, I assigned each person a section from the book of Ephesians. I asked them to imagine that someone else was going to give an expository sermon from that passage – their job was to prepare a Communion meditation which would complement or harmonize, but not interfere with or rehash the sermon.

Things didn’t work out as anticipated. Instead of writing a meditation on the same theme as the assigned text, each person began his talk by reading the Ephesians passage followed by the words, “May God bless the reading of His word!” Then he proceeded to give a talk which, more likely than not, was more a mini sermon rather than something designed to draw our attention to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Now, I have to take responsibility for part of what happened. Afterwards I realized that I had never explicitly told the men that during their talks they were not to use or refer to the Ephesians passage I assigned them. To me it was simply obvious, both from the example meditation we had written together during class and from the hand-outs I provided. What was perfectly obvious and clear to me didn’t even register in their thinking.

But I was not the only one at fault. I had offered assistance to anyone who had questions or needed help preparing their talk. Nobody took me up on it. When everyone finished giving their talks, I asked how many had read the instructions I had given them. No one had. I asked how many had read the Communion-meditation examples I had given them. Again, nobody had. They were so sure that they knew what a message was supposed to be like that it apparently never occurred to them that it could be otherwise or that they needed to look at the instructions for the talk they were assigned.

What astonished me, aside from the fact nobody bothered to read the directions, was that everyone, without exception settled on the same formula. These guys came from several different congregations. They came from a wide geographic area. Some of them were new to the faith. Yet each presentation followed the exact same pattern. Amazing! And scary. Is it possible for a particular practice or piece of church culture to be so deeply ingrained that even newcomers automatically default to it? Apparently so.

In my postmortem analysis it occurred to me that there was also another factor at work. In this particular church environment topical sermons are the order of the day. It’s all they know. Expository sermons are virtually unknown. I’ve tried to introduce the concept of expository speaking more than once. So far, they just don’t get it. They may catch a glimmer that, in theory, it is possible to structure a message around the natural flow of a passage of Scripture but, in practice, it doesn’t happen. With maybe one or two exceptions I think the idea goes right over their heads. For whatever reason, they can’t grasp the concept. Or, they don’t see the value of it.

So, here I was asking them to imagine that someone was going to present an expository sermon. It was their job to create a Communion talk which would go along with the theme of the sermon. But if they didn’t even get the concept of expository speaking, how in the world could they understand the assignment? I was asking too much. I was trying to build a structure on top of a non-existent foundation.

It shouldn’t surprise me that not everyone is always ready or capable of understanding or accepting everything I’d like to teach them. Jesus often faced the same kind of frustration. For example, He told the disciples, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.” (John 16:12 NIV) There were some concepts the Apostles didn’t get until long after the day of Pentecost.

However, there’s something else which scares me a little. Are there things I’m unable to bear right now? Are there concepts that go right over my head because I don’t have the background or foundation to understand? I can shake my head over the rut the seminar participants fell into, but what ruts am I stuck in? I know congregations right here that are every bit as ritualistic or formulaic in their Communion practices as the people in the seminar. I’ve heard plenty of topical sermons right here based on the formula of proposition and three points.

The experience was a needed reminder to take nothing for granted; to not get too comfortable in our practices. We need to continually re-examine what we do, why we do it and how it lines up with Scripture. Do we act from principle reasoned from Scripture, or are we doing things merely because we’ve always done them that way?

How God communicates with us / Christ as the image of God

In another of these essays I used the metaphor of a computer game to illustrate the point that, if God exists, we cannot infer, with certainty, anything about either the beginning of the universe or its end by observing current conditions. Just as the actual origins of a computer game cannot be inferred by a character within the game merely by observing the state of his environment, we cannot know how our universe began by extrapolating the laws of physics backward in time.

The problem with scientists – even Christian scientists – is that they treat the universe as if it were a closed system. I don’t suppose there are many scientists who would deny that the physical laws indicate that our universe came into being through some sort of ‘Big Bang’. But if a Creator exists all bets are off as to whether the Big Bang actually occurred. The act of creation itself is a disruptive event which physics can’t look behind. If Someone is out there with the capability to create a universe like ours, then He is capable of creating it in any particular state – just as the computer programmer determines the state of the game at the start of play.

A while after developing the metaphor of a computer game to illustrate my understanding of the origin question, it occurred to me that the metaphor can be extended to illustrate how God communicates with us. Think for a moment about the constraints under which God has to operate in order to communicate. Assuming that God wishes us to believe in Him of our own free will, how can He disclose Himself to us without destroying our freedom of choice to believe? How can God receive our love, freely given, if He takes away the choice to reject Him? He must provide us enough information about Himself, and His love for us, that a reasonable person can believe, yet He cannot force Himself upon us without taking away choice.

A programmer faces the same dilemma as God. Suppose there’s a character in your game called Gus. Suppose you want Gus to know you and give you his love. How can you communicate with Gus so that he can? First of all you, as the programmer, live in an environment that is so removed from the game that Gus cannot even imagine it. There are dimensions to your environment that Gus has no inkling of. How can he possibly relate to you?

Secondly, how can Gus learn anything about who you are and your characteristics unless you tell him? And how can you even communicate with Gus unless you do it using his language? How can you tell him enough about yourself that he can know you, yet still leave enough room for doubt so that he has a genuine choice about whether to believe in your existence? How can you disclose enough about yourself so that Gus can love you, but not force belief?

Natural revelation

Like any thinking person, Gus, no doubt wonders about his environment. Where did it come from? What is the purpose of it? Why am I here? By observing his environment Gus can deduce that it was created and since created, made by someone who is greater than him. Since the environment was created, Gus can also deduce that he, himself, owes his life to the creator of the environment.

In the same way, because the creation is an expression of God we can learn something about God just from observing what He has made. In Romans 1:20 the Apostle Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (NIV) We are awed by the power of the ocean waves, by the destructive energy of hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes. Even though we observe and experience them, the power that drives them is beyond our ability to grasp and comprehend. We thrill to the beauty of the sunset, the majesty of a snow-capped peak, the taste of a delicious fruit or a melodious sound. How much more awesome, majestic and beautiful must be the One who spoke the universe into existence!

We call this type of revelation, ‘Natural Revelation’ because through nature we can catch a small glimpse of God. But, though we can catch a glimpse of Him the Creator appears remote, impersonal and unknowable. As the prophet Job exclaimed, “…these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?” (Job 26:16 NIV) Before we can understand the Creator as a person, rather than an impersonal force, another form of revelation is needed. A higher revelation.

Verbal revelation

We call that higher form of revelation, ‘Verbal Revelation.’ Through verbal revelation God speaks to us in human language. We call the people through whom God revealed His message, ‘Prophets.’ The Apostle Peter writes, “…you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21 NIV)

It is through the words the Prophets recorded in the Bible that we learn about God: Who He is, what He is like and what His will is. Getting back to the game illustration, if you wanted the character in your game to know more about you than to just infer your existence, you would need to send him a message.

“Dear Gus, I made you. I love you. I want you to learn to love me too. Stay on the path and I will protect you from the viruses of the anti-programmer. Faithfully yours, The Programmer.”

It would be extremely difficult to learn about God without the words of the Prophets. But even that is not enough. Knowing about someone is a very different thing than knowing him. In order for us to know Him, God had to use an even greater revelation.

Personal revelation

Think of it this way. If the game programmer wanted Gus to really know him, instead of just knowing about him, what could he do? Gus cannot leave his environment. He cannot even comprehend the dimensions in which the programmer lives. So, since Gus cannot ascend, in order to make it possible for him to know the programmer, the programmer has to descend to the Gus’s level. The programmer has to make an image of himself and inject it into the game. The image thinks and acts exactly as the programmer would if he could descend into the environment of the game. It is only by interacting with the image that Gus can comprehend and understand the nature and character of the programmer.

And this, essentially, is what God did. John writes, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, [or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 NIV)

Hebrews 1:3 tells us, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being…” (NIV) It is only through Jesus, the exact representation or image of God, that we can comprehend, understand and have a relationship with God.

This is the message of the Bible: We are incapable of approaching God or comprehending Him. So, He descended to our level so that we might know Him, be reconciled to Him and, one day, be raised to His level. In other religions God sends down. In Christianity, God comes down.

An exact image

This raises one of the fundamental paradoxes of the human experience. How can the Creator subject Himself to the constraints of His own creation? How can the divine become fully human? It is a misunderstanding of this paradox which, I believe, leads so many religions to deny that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. They are quite willing to accept Jesus as a great teacher or even a prophet, but deny His divine nature.

On the surface their denial sounds plausible. God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted. God is omnipotent, yet Jesus became tired. God is omnipresent, yet Jesus was subject to time and distance. God is all-knowing, yet Jesus professed ignorance of certain things. God is eternal, yet Jesus died.

What those who deny Jesus’ divinity fail to recognize is the limitations of the medium or form into which God injected Himself. This is the key to understanding the paradox. While it is true that, objectively, Jesus is less than a perfect representation of God, this is not so within the limitations of “bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). Within the limitations of the “bodily form” Jesus is a perfect or exact representation of God. It is impossible for it to be any more exact or perfect. This is why Jesus could say, “…Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9 NIV)

Stated the other way round, if you want a more perfect representation of God than that provided by the earthly Jesus, you have to go beyond the medium of “bodily form.” Even if God did so, we would be unable to appreciate or comprehend it. Since we are locked into bodily form, we would be destroyed if we ever saw God in another form. “…no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20 NIV) To see or experience God as He really is will require putting aside this nature and acquiring a different one. This is the significance of the ‘spiritual body’ Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 15. John flatly states that the day we see God, we will be like Him – that is, we will share and participate fully in His nature instead of this one (1 John 3:2).

Let me try to illustrate the difference between God’s true nature and His image in Christ by referring back to the computer game. The image of himself which the programmer injects into the game might be an excellent likeness. Though the image is perfect and is obviously derived from the programmer, it is just as obvious that there are huge differences between them. It is a likeness, not a clone of the programmer. There are differences in the number of dimensions between the two. There are differences of scale. Most importantly, the programmer and his likeness have different natures. The programmer is flesh and blood. His image has no material existence. It is composed of 1’s and 0’s which are themselves merely the expression of an idea.

The image may be a perfect and exact image, but it will never be the same as the person it represents. It is as human as the nature and form of the game environment will allow, yet it has, of necessity, had to give up much of human nature in order to fit into the game.

In just this way, Jesus is as perfect an image of God as this universe can contain. Yet He had to give up much to fit into human form. He “…made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:7 NIV) How could there be any greater proof of God’s desire to communicate with us than this?

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.