Extemporaneous Ramblings

Well, I can’t help it. I am afraid that I am back onto an old soap box…

We listen to the pulpits, We listen to Christian TV, We read the Christian print media, We browse in the Christian book stores. What is expounded, with a very few notable exceptions, is a common refrain in support of programs to appeal to the unchurched and the unsaved. In one form or another, all these sources are expounding on the need to attract people to the Lord and the church by making them comfortable and entertained. This is also presented as essential to sustaining the resources required for this and other congregational outreach. The key words here are, as italicized, appeal and attract. Moreover, and make no mistake about it, the promotion and provision of this is big business in numerous respects. But that is a separate issue.

This is not say that there is anything wrong with the promotion of the church or with making people welcome through hospitality. That is biblical, desirable, and a mandate of every assembly. But these activities are not synonymous with what is happening in substance, underlying motivation or effect.

In all the talk and programs for church growth there appears to be little apparent or overt visiblity of the plain Gospel, and even less of a hint of a complete presentation of it. The talk centers on advertising, presentation, program roll-out and the like - all discussed and designed to entice the listener. Put another way, it is a paradigm to ‘tickle the ears’ of the man on the street, entreating him or her. The assumption is that once they are enticed, they will be more receptive to the Lord. Many will say, what’s wrong this that? Actually, just about everything.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” 2 Timothy 4:3.

What we are witnessing is the application of motivational business models to the growth of the church. Furthermore, the assumption that is almost directly stated, is that by enticing people to the church will result in an increase in the effectiveness of evangelism. The underlyng implication is that people will be welcome and will therefor accept the Lord more readily. Or to cut to the chase, that those actions will have a direct effect upon Salvation.

So what is this really? It is man-centered evangelism, depending upon and acknowledging as siginificant the paradigms of the secular world (rules by guess who?) in Salvation. At the root, it implies that the Gospel is in need of modern help AND that this help (created by men) is crucial to enhance the work of the Spirit for increased success in today’s world.

This is so wrong that I bearly know where to begin! And this paradigm has many insideous tentacles.

Ladies and gentlemen, you can not ‘workshop’ nor ‘program’ your way to heaven or to salvation. To assume (even subtley) that you can is to do exactly what Timothy is implying or more.

In these ear and eye tickling programs there is often lots of impressive innovation and creativity. But what is there of Scripture and it’s approaches? I would put it to you - little or nothing. As such, what is there of the Lord? I will leave that to you…

Now, I hope that this sounds harsh, because that is definitely the intent.

To harken back to a previous post, the use of these tools of the world, in the way that they are emerging, is building a colourful, diverse, vibrant structure with a foundation of sand. In the face of the tribulation to come, it will likely fall, as a sand castle in the rising tide. And as with the sand and the tide, those who have been seduced to rest on it may be at the very least severely tossed about, and more than likely washed away.

Stop any person in the church lobby and ask them about the latest ‘programs’ in the congregation. They will likely have a favourite or one that they dislike, but in either case they will likely know what is going on. Ask them to explain even the very basics of the inerrancy of Scripture or the Sovereignty of God, and you are likely to get no real information to support conviction. Even more, ask casually about the basis of their denominational doctrine, and they will not have a clue (nor much interest), and may not actually understand the question. Even if you don’t use the word Doctrine (which has become a virtual four letter word in many churches), the blank stare will be obvious. Again, harsh but reality.

Is this the correct and desirable picture? Is this the environment that is well equiped to receive and support any new adherents and believers that the many programs are designed to attract? Is this a situation that equips the next generation of believers to weather storms of secular assault? I think not! And what of the spiritual health of those already there and producing the program innovations?

But what of our Lord in these respects? Didn’t he go among the people - the unclean, the unwanted, the undesirable, the outcasts? Indeed He did, and not only that but he thought nothing of frequenting their environments. And we, as His people, can not shun these things. But what He did not do was to use their methods, adopt their habits, or bring either of those things into the assembly of His sheep. As such, we are not mandated to do so either. If He did, someone please shown me explicitly were. He brought the Gospel and the love of God into the their world, and He did so using not only Himself as the Godhead, but also his knowledge of His Father’s Word. He acted in line with Scripture, He preached the Gospel, He shared the Word of God, and He did so whereever the people were. To do this He understood the Sovereignty of His Father, His Father’s Word and the basic doctrines of the faith. And those were the tools. Is this not the correct model then?

Did I miss the part of Scripture stating that the models used by the Lord would expire after a period of societal and socialogical development, to be replaced by superior new ones evolving through man’s experience? I think not.

The emerging set of worldly models and trends are likely, for the moment, an unstoppable movement. After all, the world is moving right along in that direction and Timothy pointed out that many will be along for that ride. Revelations points out that the number included will be legion. Moreover, that ‘many’ likely does not include just individuals but their institutions.

It would seem prudent of us to consider our approach, it’s origins and it’s implications…

Another chat with a Christian brother, who is a pastoral candidate, some musing, and here we have a new thought path concerning the nuances in our application of theology to interactions within the family of believers. Actually, this thread had already been percolating in the background after reading “A Kinder, Gentler Calvinism” by James N. McGuire (RTS Reformed Quarterly, Summer 2000, 14-16). The present conversation stimulated the process.

The real crux here is how much slack should one cut (and by implication does the Lord allow, since we represent Him indirectly in our dealings with one another) others in the discussion of theological issues? When to stand one’s ground, when to go along or when (like Nikita Khrushchev, in that famous scene years ago at the United Nations) to take off your shoe and pound in on the table.

The question divides into two types of theology - one which I will term preferential theology (that is, small issues of preference that do not reflect the basic tenents of belief), and one of foundational theology (representing crucial issues of faith and Salvation). Though there might be debate on where some issues fall, most seem to fall in one category or the other.

On preferential issues, I have always proposed that these were issues for friendly discussion among the family of believers around the dinner table, so to speak. Though we may be variously convicted of our positions of these issues, and even hold to them tenaciously for our own reasons, they should not be divisive or disrupt our fellowship. In other words, although we might present our case on one issue or another to our brothers and sisters, we should also cut them a lot of slack, even (or especially) when we think that we are correct. This is a question of attitude and demeanor as much as anything. In some ways it is reminiscent of previous articles on the need for tolerance within in the fellowship of believers that facilitates the grow of each individual (Sanctification - Expectations and Behaviour). We all need space to grow within the family, and this includes growing on theological issues. Not only that, but in the case of preferencial issues, the right and wrong is critical to Salvation. As such, discussion is important, but the we can certainly agree to disagree within the family.

On foundational issues, the water becomes more murky. As a Christian friend said to me some years ago, while commenting upon certain denominational beliefs, “The Lord honours intent”. By that he implied that though someone’s variant understanding of an issue might seem incorrect to us, their conviction of a particular interpretation of Scripture would be honoured by the Lord. They were covered by appropriate Grace, and the issue itself became moot. There are clearly limits on this application of Grace, but it does seem to fall within the scope of the Grace extended to all of us as believers. Both the Christian brother in the present conversation, as well as the McGuire article cited above, extend this to imply a flexible approach in the discussion of more seminal issues of the faith, irrespective of our view or level of conviction. The assumption is that taking a more aggressive approach does not accomplish anything, and in fact may be counter productive in meaningful interaction, or if appropriate, correction. This does not mean that ideas are not to be stated firmly and with conviction, just not divisively. Division removes the possibility of further productive discussion. A Calvinist could not dissagree with this in theory, since the Lord’s plan is covering all that is occuring. From that point of reference there is no unexpected. Yet, on fundamental matters the temptation to be more strident can be great and the seeming need to correct an situation of error may seem required.

The concept of a univerally flexible approach that is non-confrontational makes sense, but at the same time it leaves me with considerable unease. Surely if the issue is significant it can not simply pass, with silence or ambivalence possibly taken as agreement or support for a position of error. To what degree is one responsible to debate when the issue is theologically significant? Some would say it doesn’t matter and that optimal fellowship is the over-riding concern. With that approach, when would issues be corrected? Surely it does matters and correction is important. If that is true, then to what degree should one articulate the truth? Admittedly, by way of personality, I tend towards the “take no prisoners” school in areas of foundational importance, but I can appreciate an alternate argument. Fellowship is very important. Therein is the dilemma.

If a church is composed of very like minded believers, with very close views of the paradigms of Salvation and their application in the church, there is less likelyhood of ‘issues’. However, as church growth becomes an ever high priority (see also the Church Size series in Life in the Body), increasing numbers of congregants appear, and there are ofter limited resources available for church orientation, the likelyhood of dramatically different belief sets becomes much more likely. As that occurs, and demographically it seems very likely, the foundational basics can quickly and quietly become diluted.

When should one object on theological, church doctrine or other issues? Does it matter? This is, of course, said tongue in check since it clearly does matter, but many, by apparent ambivalence, do not seem to care . When it does not matter or ambivalence rules the day, does the church then start an insidious slide into being a place of entertainment and everyday fellowship rather than Christ, His message and precepts? Again, this sounds severe, but below the surface that is the slope. Is that required basic theology related only to the observed, limited congregational knowledge of what their church stands for (in it’s general statement of beliefs)? If so, and since there may be a large variation in the beliefs held within the group, does this indicate that the church is being built without a firm foundations on any common foundational set of biblical standards? I think that it does…

This is a difficult post. There are lots of questions, with no obvious answers…

What of youth ministry in light of basic Doctrinal and Theological literacy? What of the newer trends in youth worship? How does all this interlock with what is no doubt coming as creation approaches biblical millenial times? These are challenging questions for all who are parents or who work with young Christians, especially in the church context.

Young people, particularly in their intellectual and emotional growth, express their process at least partially, and often loudly in one way or another, by carving out a different perspective, a ground that is their own. This may have many divergent facets, but it expresses the need to risk in defining their own environment for growth, independent of past paradigms in one way or another. They are pressing towards the mark, as we have been exhorted to do in Scripture. The key for young (as well as older Christians, for that matter) is that the mark in question be Christ. Does that imply that the perspective that they carve out must be overtly in the church or even in ministry? I don’t think so. The mark is the focus on being lead in Him, irrespective of the outward manifestation, though clearly this would not lead of sinful pursuits.

Since we live in a fallen world, there are many destructive ways that this process can emerge, and the long term potential is often the root cause of both societal and family concern. Furthermore, in our current society, with most of the previous moral and ethical structures made effectively moot due to relativism and the associated void of values endemic in the education system, the dangers increase exponentially. Nonetheless, this process must occur and we must focus on it as part of the Lord’s plan for emerging young people. Developing young people are wired to take risks. One could propose that since developmental paradigms were created by the Lord, then this penchant for risk is expressly to allow the young to press forward for the Kingdom in ways that are more inhibited in older Christians.

In this situation, we once again return to the need for firm grounding in foundational theology and doctrine, as lay out in Which Theology and Doctrine?. In this case, however, the most significant focus is on very basic training in these concepts before adolescence, and upon a Scriptural, discussion oriented approach during adolescence. The intention here is more mentoring and accompanyment than training. Assuming that the concepts are in place up front, the natural struggles are precisely that, natural, and can follow the Lord’s leading.

Then what of areas change might conflict with established organizational norms, not outside Christian beliefs or in sin, but simply outside “the way things are done”? A prime example of this would be worship style.

In the development of Christian youth, the Lord is clearly very gracious. Those among the youth who are believers often express both their belief and their emerging identity through worship styles that some many find at odds with tradition. They may even be sited as lacking in some nuances of doctrine. Though factually these concerns may be correct, and assuming that they do not deviate into obvious sin, I would propose that in this situation they are moot. Through their worship and concomitant focus on Him, the Lord has provided a framework for these young believers in which they may strike out, yet do so with His sword and shield of protection still in place. The experience can be as emotional and overwhelming as fits the individual, yet still in Christ. As with all believers, with the Lord in absolute sovereign control all is well. This, of course, continues to depend upon the framework of the faith already being in place. As with all senarios that are in the Lord, youth then experiment and redefine within Him. Older believers must retain this perspective in supporting youth as they strike out to create their own place in life, while holding to our Lord.

The Sovereign Will of God is just as much solidly in place among these members of the flock as anywhere else. Concern over style can be missplaced. Certainly guidance is appropriate, but our Lord is providing for these, His people, as he aways has.

The spectre of young Christians coming together to celebrate both our Lord and his provision is wonderfully inspiring and uplifting. The overt form is not an issue. Let us enjoy the gracious freedom that the Lord has provided to the youth, while still championing the faith and remaining vigilant on their behalf. He has designed them to go forth on their own, for Him and in Him.

There is no conflict between this freedom and our comments concerning Theological and Doctrinal literacy. Both have a place and are essential over time, that all Glory will be to God alone.

Now to quantify what topics to cover, under what assumptions, in the quest for a universally applied, basic foundational grounding.

The most basic groundwork must be two pronged, the Sovereignty of God and the Inerrancy of Scripture. Some faith groups who propose type of training start with these two items as givens, and proceed to build upon them. That can be problematic. Since these two fundamental concepts are so important for all subsequent study, they should be addressed at the start in a reasonably exhaustive way. Also, if believers are later challenged, these two tenents of the faith are often the root of a challenge. Thus, a basic apologetic knowledge of them will prove very useful.

For the Sovereignty of God, a guided Scriptural survey plus some exerpts from authors such as Pink, Packer, Boettner or similar would certainly be a solid beginning. The emphasis, however, should fall to Scripture, since absolute sovereignty is layed out not only explicitly but in both the individual and national lives described in both the Old and New Testaments. For Biblical inerrancy, a review of the major proofs with a bibliography of associated works should suffice. The key is to provide sufficient support in each individual case that the inidividual has cofidence in themselves and a set of references that can be consulted as the need arises. As we proceed to other tenents of the faith it is critical that there be no doubt concerning these basics and that this confidence be based upon direct scriptural observation. As such, the degree of investigation and material may vary from person to person.

Quite some time ago the post The Word in your Heart, addressed the ongoing value of Scripture memorization and rehearsal. I would submit that there is a place for that here. This is not to say that huge numbers of verses should be commited to memory, but a small number of key verses that related to the main concepts and doctrines would be instructive.

For basic theology, with the assumption that the Sovereignty and Inerrancy issues have been cover, a treatment of the Doctrines of Grace would provide a solid base. Again, this does not have to be exhaustive, but a few hours on the appropriate ideas and associated Scriptures would be appropriate. This would likely also lead to profitable discussion.

Doctrine will likely be somewhat more denominationally specific. In most Protestant and related denominations there are both Confessions of Faith and associated Catechisms available that express most doctrinal concepts well. Although an appreciation of the Confession of Faith is good, the Catechism is likely the best tool for methodically examining the basic ideas and their Scriptural basis. A detailed walk through the Catechism and some of the more pertinent references would be very profitable for this topic. Peripherally, those interested could compare the differences with the Catechisms of closely related denominations.

There are likely many other items that could be included since this is admittedly an ‘off the cuff’ outline, but with that in mind we will forge ahead (just thinking about it won’t get it done). As already discussed, all of the following items assume not only the presentation of the tenent, but solid Scriptural support and explanation. So, to summarize:

1. Sovereignty of God
2. Inerrancy of Scripture
3. Bible verses to memorize
Two options a.) a small number (12) or b.) an optional 52 verse, 1 year program
4. The Doctrines of Grace
5. Basic demonimational Confession of Faith, including brief history
6. Detailed walk through of the associated catechism
Then, after this grounding
7. A review of the particular church statement of faith in light of what has been covered.

This outline is the initial syllabus of a Basic Tenents of the Faith program that would be of great benefit to almost all believers, whether new or in review. It is highly probably that most, almost all, church members (and adherents) would be surprised by the amount learned and the deepening of conviction experienced.

From the organizational point of view there are other benefits. A higher general level of literacy in these areas stimulates more discussion of, and focus on, the Lord’s work. After all, much of material was likely completely unknown before this exercise. Also, though discussion can be challenging at times, focus on the church vision and beliefs will result in clarity.

There must be a catch, right? And of course there is indeed a catch. Actually there are two catches.

The first is the usual requirement for will and effort. The usual trolley of excuses about lack of resources (mostly financial) is often rolled out, but this is a complete red herring (smoke screen). The real question is around effort, which always stems from seeing the need of change. The financial resource requirements are minimal.

The second catch is more difficult in today’s church environment. It is always seductive to avoid these issue completely by assuming that congregants are literate in foundational matters and to focus on more high profile, more overtly productive, programs that have more flash. This has never been more true than in today’s church, though admittedly this may always have been the case (I wasn’t around 50, 100 or more years ago). To motivate action, a need must be more than passingly acknowledged as of good, or even enduring, value. In today’s church it must often show benefit, often in the short term, in order to compete for sustained leadership attention. Biblical, foundational, theological and doctrinal literacy are not overly flashy. They do not usually produce tangible surface benefits that are quantifiable in the short term or from minimal effort. However, they do not require significant financial resources, and need not detract significantly from other endeavours. They do, however, require leadership commitment over at least the medium term. This can be a serious challenge in today’s now environment where results are more often than not judged sooner rather than later. Nonetheless, they are the underpinnings of the future, and in my opinion of much greater importance than many other more visible activities.

Let us close this article with a reference back to the series of articles Witness for the Lord, concering evangelism. With the combination of the present issue and that of basic evangelism, we have a two pronged proposal for foundational rejuvenation. The present discussion complements that of evangelism training in that it provides not only the basis for enduring personal conviction, but very useful apologetic knowledge.

Let us move forward grounded in Christ, convicted in the Word and its meaning, and secure in sharing the only news that is of true significance, as we wait another day for His return.

With the need for the systematic provision of a doctrinal and theological base within the Body established, how should the congregation proceed?

You will notice that this post title says Theology Lite, and not just Theology. God’s people, in general, though having an crucial needed for basic doctrinal knowledge, do not require intensive theological education. Put another way, every believer in the assembly does not need an MDIV (the stereotypical pastoral degree) in order to rest on a solid base. Not to say that such a level of enquiry is not desirable, but it is more than is needed on the general level. This will seem a given to most, but there are those who might choose to construe the proposed made for general education to be a call for a universal seminary movement, which it is not.

The next suggestion (actually another tangent which avoids the real need) might be “Why not just read the Bible daily, even end to end systematically?” Although clearly a good thing, supported by Scriptural example and having benefit in one’s relationship with the Lord, this nonetheless does not address the issue. Bible study author and teacher Irving L Jensen, a century ago, pointed out that simply reading and enjoying the Bible is not the same as systematic study. We would agree. Both are needed. Immersion in the reading of the Scripture draws us close to our Lord and is of great joy and value. However, though it is supportive of, it is not the same as nor necessarily most effective in, building conceptual understanding and concrete ideas.

Despite the methodology used, systematic study of the Scriptures is a long term project which is the responsibility of each believer. Our Book of Life is just that, and we turn to it in each daily situation. However, to grasp the overall theological and doctrinal concepts, upon which much of our understanding rests, by individual study can take many years, literally. On a shorter timeline, a systematic study of the distilled concepts and beliefs gives a structure and overview to both new and old believers. This is what can be supplied through the suggested systematic education in basic theology (that it, theology lite) and doctrine. If further development is desired, then the framework is already in place.

I am a strong advocate of a systematics approach to theology (after all, I am an analyst by profession). In the case of theology, the atomistic approach provided in Scripture, in presenting related concepts, requires the building of a conceptual system from related texts which can span many non-contiguous passages or books. Systematics provides such a framework. In the case of doctrine, usually related to a particular demonination, the appropriate Confessions of Faith and Catechisms provide a distilled view of foundational matters. In this area I feel that the catechism is most useful since it presents the more complex issue of the confessions in a more easily digested form, including Scriptural references in most cases. Not only that, but in that form denominationally specific points are often more easily identified and thereby opened to explanation.

One other related point that bears mentioning, though it does not reflect upon the specific need and provision of education as such, is the probably effect of this process on the local Assembly. With the provision of marriage by our Lord, two can join in Him. It is the in Him which provides the binding focus. In a larger sense, the focus of the Assembly upon common ideas in the study proposed has a very high likelyhood of drawing all together much more tightly in Him, even in peripheral congregational matters. As the intensity of focus increases on the faith and its ideas, all areas of worship and service are very likely to be intensified.

Having now qualified an overall requirement for a concrete form of doctrinal and theological education, how do we now quantify what is to be studied, the base assumptions, and the priorities?

Theology is both significant and sadly unfashionable in today’s church. Feeling and friendliness have full reign, ruling the day, with foundational understanding being relegated to the realm of the unnecessary, possibly even guilty of causing dissatisfaction, and reducing the possibility of church growth. A harsh diagnosis? Seemingly so, but nonetheless accurate once the facades are stripped away. Enquire of the knowledge of foundational beliefs in most assemblies, and the situation is clearly evident. This synopsis of the current situation in many churches has been quietly stated to me numerous times recently by church members (both men and women) of more than one congregation and of various ages.

On the more global horizon, this mirrors the decline of fundamental values and the rejection of sovereign origins in society as a whole. With liberal relativism and the pluralistic definition of beliefs comes constant variance in those beliefs. This yields no permanent benchmarks for sustained values, from basic civility to more global societal behaviour. Societal decline, though hidden in high sounding philosophies of man’s ability to rise above problems, continues, and reflects his imperfect nature. With this in mind, we have the spectre of the church institutionally mirroring the proforma definition of man as sovereign, confirming the downward Biblical paradigm illustrated repeatedly after the Fall.

What does this have to do with our everyday congregational and church program focus or experiences? More that might be evident initially.

Today’s church formats include many approaches in style, music, dress, sermon focus and so on. These are frequently structured to appeal to many different congregants depending upon preferences. In the case of worship this allows a diversity that helps all participate - a positive result.

A decade ago, congregants often used denominational choice to express preference within similar evangelical churches. Athough still true to a degree, many congregations exhibit every more similar appoaches to worship and church life, often resulting is very minimal denominational differences. Doctrinal and theological issues have in many cases become completely subservient to presenting a face that attracts congregants. Since the overall size of the congregant pool is not growing substantially (and has not done so over the past several decades), the churches are effectively competing for the same group. This results in the narrrowing of worship and church formats to those which are considered most appealing and desirable. This is essentially a market oriented enviroment.

Foundational doctrinal or theological issues on which a particular church or denomination was founded, especially any that might seem restirctive, demanding or controversial, are proactively removed from view as counter-productive. They are not condusive to the implicit focus on inclusion at any cost and sustained enjoyment, and this do not fit.

The result of this is very likely to be vibrant worship, heartfelt emotional experience, and often strong growth, with little or no foundational understanding or true biblical grasp of the basic beliefs or concepts of the faith. In other words, a wonderful building built on a foundation of sand. In present times this is most likely to be completely invisible and seeminly inconsequential. When looking at the church in the present, it could even be argued (falaciously in my opinion) that it doesn’t matter. In the times of tribulation (which Scripture clearly states are coming) however, how will this church and these believers fair? With the likely removal or collapse of the things supporting the organizational vibrancy, what will be left to cling to, and what will there be to fall back upon? The likely answer is, nothing. Scripture also indicates that this will also take place.

You might conclude that I am proposing that this situation is without any redeeming merit. In many ways, you are correct. I feel very strongly that the current lack of virtually any practical interest in laying solid foundational and doctrinal groundwork in believers (individually and congregationally, new or old alike) is a massive and far ranging error. The long term result is a new generation of believers with no underpining of factual belief. This senario is ripe for collapse in the face of the Scripturally predicted times of and types of tribulation. If there are times of tribulation in which many will fall away to false profits and doctrines, the developing situation as laid out here is what one would expect. The Lord is of course sovereign in all of this, but that does not mean that action is not appropriate on the level of the individual congregation.

The situation is not hopeless. The present growth of vibrant styles can work in tandem with the necessity of foundational development at all congregational levels. The rise of one does not have to mean the decline of the other, though without concerted effort experience would indicate that is precisely what does occur.

To assume (even uncounciously by omission) that new believers do not need foundational grounding as a manditory part of thier development is certain folly. To be even bolder, it is negligent. Further, that grounding does not simply imply vague compliance with some general statement of faith or beliefs. It is basic and specific understanding of the confession, catechism and theology of the faith. This is the only cement upon which a robust structure is constructed.

Futhermore, to assume (particularly in this case, by omission) that ongoing or even basic foundational grounding is not needed for existing and even long standing believers, is the height of hubris.

The laying and maintenance of foundational knoweldge is not a happenstance. It can only be accomplished by deliberate action. As with the case of vibrant worship and prayer, it most often does not happen by accident, but by design.

As we wait for the Lord, let us be deliberate in both worshipping with great vibrancy and in building a faith standing upon foundational bedrock, that we will be carried across the waves to come.

For longtime readers, some of this post may have sounded a tad reminiscent of “What ever happenned to Christian Doctrine?” of some months ago. Though it is related, recent conversations and observations have brought the issue into more practical focus. With the ground work here in mind, the next question would be exactly what should be taught, at what level and in what order of priority? All good questions…

We have been discussing some of the situations that can arise for the believer in the assembly of God’s people when expectations placed on him or her meet, and possibly conflict with, the reality of the ongoing process of Santification.

But what of the unsaved in the assembly as these situations unfold? Does the senario of stumbling by believers have a deleterious effect on the unsaved observing it? Is their path towards Salvation hindered? Does the presentation of a positive face, irrespective of the reality, make the assembly better for the unsaved? Are the unsaved, upon witnessing the flaws of Saints as displayed in lapses in behaviour, pushed deeper into the world? For the saved, how do expectations and their implications inhibit or block the Scriptural directives towards supporting the believer (ie. you can’t have real accountability and teaching if the classroom is by definition serile)? And how does all of this play out in the face of Scriptural reality? A set of issues with wide scope and wider implications. Our view, admittedly, will not be exhaustive. Nonetheless, it is worth addressing.

One’s view of this will likely be strongly influenced but basic theological disposition. Though on the surface the theology may seem distant, and it’s effect may masquarade as general feelings about the symptoms of the situation, these underpinings are nonetheless the pivotal issue.

Let us begin with a very general overview of those underpinings, as related to this situation.

For the Calvinist believer, the suggestion that the process of one believer influencing the potential for Salvation, or the path thereto, in any serious way outside of the exclusive Will of God, is patently absurd. Since God is obsolutely sovereign, any affect that may appear to be propogated by a believer can only have influence on the movement of the unbeliever toward or away from Salvation as it fits within the Lord’s sovereign and preordained plans. Recall that “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:4. As such, in modern language, in the present there is nothing new under the sun. Accordingly “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself” Ephesians 1:5 (emphasis mine), and thus any effect is as planned.

In contrast, if an Armenian paradigm is adopted, there are potentially serious deleterious effects at every turn, from the tone of the assembly in the global sense, to any overt act by a believer that might portray a negative view of Christian life or the effects of Salvation in the individual sense. Since in this paradigm the future path is not preordained in a sovereign sense, a great and ongoing responsibility is placed upon both the assembly and each individual believer situationally, to alway present the optimal view to the unsaved, that they might be attracted and thier view not juandiced. There is little or no maneuvering room for any believer’s individual process of growth within this framework. One needing room for growth, with the inevitable miss-steps that occur thereis, would likely have to find it outside the body. And this is often the case. This is clearly undesireable and unbiblical. This paradigm is appealing and sensible from a Natural point of view, but it is Biblically unsupportable without interpretive gymnastics.

Consider the first question above, that is, the potential that any stumbling by believers might have a deleterious effect on the unsaved observing it. The unsaved in any situation will indeed experience effects, in that whatever we observe can not but effect us. According to Scripture, the Lord will either quicken or harded the heart of the unbeliever to the Gospel message through the Spirit. Who experiences each action by the Spirit is clearly stated as the sovereign choice of the Lord, without regard to any condition of the individual. Since the actual decision has been taken by the Lord “before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:4, the actions of the person were not a parameter. That being said, every situation reflecting upon the Spirit’s procative work in the heart, whether outwardling or inwardly occuring, must be part of that same sovereign plan and process.

Since the process must have the effect that the Lord intends (sovereignly willed plans that deviate are not by definition sovereign), then both the observed behaviour of a believer and the effect upon the unsaved observer must be part of the developmental plan. If the heart of the unsaved person is destined for the Lord, then irrespective of how the situation might appear, it must in some way contribute to the path to Salvation. If the observing heart is hardening, then the effect may indeed be negative, but that in no way reflects upon the believer or their process. To presume otherwise would place the believer in a partially sovereign position with the Lord. jointly overseeing the destiny of the observer.

So, what does all this imply in term of the situations and senarios that play out in the Assembly of God’s people, and is there a message for us? There are several actually, and possibly others that are not seen here…

First, Salvation is a process that will engender reaction at times. As such, some overt acting out of the believer’s underlying difficulties is to be expected. That is not to say that this behaviour is to be encourged in a ‘rewarded’ sense, but it is not something that should be shocking nor that engenders peripheral guilt. The believer should be aware of this as part of the cost, and inherent in the death of the old natural self.

Next, and more to the point in the present context, the body of believers must actively recognize the sovereignty of the Lord in this process, not in just a general sense, but also in the minutae of the interactions of the Saints and the unsaved. This is surely a cause for worship and celebration at the Glory of His work.

As the individual believer works through the reality of their Sanctification, while striving and being encouraged to show the fruits of the Spirit and love within the Body, they should not be unduly saddled with guilt in their miss-steps due to the erroneous assumption that it has hindered another. For the congregation, this should reduce the temptation to judge the fellow believer who errs. Specifically, the believer is not culpable in influencing the unsaved either towards or away from Salvation beyond the preordained, sovereign plans of God.

Does this negate the Scriptural proscription that believers should not participate in activities that, despite being of no harm to themselves, might be a stumbling block to others? Not at all. This is not at all the same issue. We draw a distinction here between the miss-step in the process of change, and that of willful defiance, though admittedly this is not always that case.

There is great diversity in those called to the Lord, and a similar diversity in their path of Salvation. The Lord is sovereign in every path. Surely, as we support (including providing accountability without personal adgenda) one another through the process, the unsaved will be impacted precisely as the Lord intends, and we will contribute to Salvation as He plans.

Soli Deo Gloria

One evening about two months ago I was having coffee (tea, actually) with a couple of Christian brothers. Between us we represent several churches of different evangelical demoninations, all generally Reformed in flavour. We are on reasonably common ground in our basic expectations of congregational life and relationships, bearing in mind that our impressions still admittedly represent a tiny microcosm of anecdotal evidence. A draft of this post came from that meeting, but remained a draft. Then, recently I heard a related exhortation in church, and subsequently started the current topic thread. The article now fits. The Lord works even in the smallest things…

At the coffee shop meeting a discussion developed around the apparent (and unfortunate) superficiality of portions of congregational life and interaction. It was interesting that this was apparently not unique to any congregation, nor was it an anomaly related to any particular church event. It was felt, irrespective of where one now or had previously worshiped, that there was a noticable void in real personal relationships within the congregational fellowship. There was simply no depth, and it was often quite unsatisfying. This is competely at odds with what is universally preached, in term of openness and encouragement within the family of believers. There was a perception of a common church game-face (much like the classic work game-face) that avoided most openness, thereby removing the possibility of real encouragement, often when it was most needed. Since real needs were frequently not shared as a result, they remained unknown and could not be addressed within the church family context.

Having said this, were we concluding that there is no encouragement available in the face of dire circumstance? Quite the opposite actually, but that is an extraordinary situation. In the face of dire circumstance, the game-face is frequently stripped away of necessity, and actual support is requested, available and extended. But the special nature of that sort of circumstance belies the normal reality, and does not address the real issues of acceptance, fear of rejection or dissapproval, and lack of genuine fellowship, in everyday congregational life.

In considering the normal culture of the church lobby, fellowship hall, or meeting, and though there are certainly exceptions, what was experienced was definitely not what those in the discussion found to be a positive or biblical environment for the development of the Saints. It must also be noted that pleasant and enjoyable were not included in this list of missing attributes, for on a purely social level these qualities are often present and quite enjoyable. What seemed more desirable and biblical (looking back on our often limited view of the early church, and on what we know of the Lord’s comments on fellowship) was a more open environment, devoid of the necessities of social appearance which most use to live in the world. Overall it would appear that we, as the church, are often assembling but at the same time neither meeting nor coming together. This was deemed dissappointing at best, potentially destructive to the Saints and the church at worst.

In desiring an improved situation, could it be said that one is proposing some sort of utopia, devoid of any reality. No, but admittedly the word ‘easy’ is not part of the equation. Surely, however, an expectation of interpersonal encouragement and relationship based upon safely sharing our real lives (warts and all) and assist each other in working through them, is not impossibly unrealistic.

Viewed through the lense of the disappointment and basic dissillusionment articulated in the discussion, what would appear to be occuring in many congregations is a subtle but steady increase in the influence of the world within the bounds of the fellowship of believers. As long as we view each other from the point of view of worldly values, then our view within the fellowship of believers will be increasingly juandiced. In that senario many will perceive a need of personal protection (the game-face). Part of the key issue here is those wordly values that are used to evaluate others. If these normal secular paradigms are carried unchallenged into church relationships, then it will follow that the reactions and behaviour of believers will follow suit and be worldy.

Could it be that this need or lack is specific to some sub-group or groups within the demographics of the typical congregation? This is very likely. Those that at any point in time form the mainstream of a congregation, or for whom congregational life (by design or situation) forms a minor role in satisfying their personal needs, are unlikely to notice this issue since it does not touch their normal pattern of living. Those for whom the assambly of believers potentially forms a significant part of their emotional lives, however, are more likely to be marginalized if they do fit perfectly, and likely must seek supportive relationships either in the para-church if available, or outside the Body. This is unfortunate and undesirable.

While we live in this life, waiting for the Lord one day at a time, this problem will always be a struggle by virtue of our broken world. However, possibly an awareness that it is a struggle, an awareness of the effects of the world within the congregation, and discussion with an open desire for something else, can help. Recalling the previous post on expectations subtely communicated to believers, there is a close link between that problem and this phenomenon. The solution in that case will go a long way to alleviating the situation under discussion here.

It is hoped that by shining a light on these closely linked symptoms and focusing back on the Word and the Lord, there can in some way be a small beginning to working together as a true people apart, even now.

There seems to be a paradox between the process of Sanctification and the behavioural expectations within that process proposed by many Christians, as well as many churches. The result can be quite counterproductive and diss-heartening for the believer. This stems from preventable error.

Scripture indicates that the process of Sanctification and the subsequent presence of the Spirit will yield recognizable fruit in the Saint, namely “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” Galatians 5:22-23. These are clearly desirable and recognizable behaviours.

It is also implied elsewhere (and accepted by most) that part of the cost of the process of Salvation will be the exposure and working through of the parts of one personality, approach, etc. which do not line up with the emerging new self. This is part of the refining process, driven by the Spirit. Scripture, however, does not state or imply a time frame for the appearance of these attributes (fruits). Since we are never complete until Glorification in the presence of the Lord, this is a life long process, which will likely vary in intensity over time, and the appearance of the results will be progressive in nature.

The tone of the associated Scriptures implies that during the refining process, while difficult changes are being wrought within the Saint thought the work of the Spirit behind the scene, that person is nonetheless expected to strive towards the ideals of behaviour expressed in Galatians. That notwithstanding, most will falter at times in the normal course of events. In fact, Scripture characterizes the process as on-going and often difficult. Seeking the Lord in these times of challenge is an important part of developing dependence upon Him alone, in the face of worldly difficulty and the temptation of worldy solutions.

All fine, so far, but do you see the potential paradox that could be presented to the Saint, depending upon how this set of internal and external circumstances is spun by a Christian ‘authority’?

The difficulty arises in well meaning, but partial, presentation of the overall senario of Sanctification, as it relates to living in the world. In most cases, it occurs when the reality of faltering is forgotten or glossed over superficially, and only the requirement to exhibit the recognizable fruit becomes the sole communicated expectation.

Time and time again we hear preached the need (or even the requirement) for consistent, continuous, demonstrable, clear evidence of the fruits of change in the life of the redeemed. These results are expected to be obvious to all and sundry. Further, the presentation often also contains the implication that these results should be particularly obvious to the unsaved, for the express purpose of casting the best possible light upon Salvation. Admitedly this is not always stated quite that bluntly, but the implication is nonetheless there quite clearly.

There is high probability that this can set up conflicting expectations for the individual, and actually make the process more difficult.

On the one hand the Redeemed are being refined by the Spirit, likely experiencing a multitude of internal conflicts from time to time. In many cases this will make their remaining ‘flaws’ stand out all the more obviously. It may even in some cases precipitate behavioural miss-steps or at least a less than perfect image as they work through the situations of life with a completely new and emerging perspective, fueled by the Spirit. This will most likely not provide to the world a perfect image of the fruits of the Spirit.

In 1 Corinthians 10:13 it states that “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” (emphasis mine). This does not say that the escape will be without difficulty or struggle, or that it will be transparent on the surface in the individual’s life. In fact, if the process is of sufficient magnitude to require the Lord, then the most reasonable conclusion is that the upheaval will be obvious. And it may well produce a less than desirable surface appearance at times.

On the other hand, the Saint is exhorted (at least implicitly) on a regular basis to search for clear indication that they are exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit. Encouragement to examine the changes and symptoms is positive, but then comes the problem. They are also exhorted that these fruits must be evident on the surface, and that the appearance they present is to attract the unsaved to the Faith. This clearly implies that it is then a responsability to present a face to the world as a saved person that will fullfil the world’s expectations of a Christian, in such a way as to attract them to the Lord (and in most cases the church). Also, and more incidious, it may be implied that absence of clear and obvious surface indication of these fruit most of time (pesumably as determined by those looking on) may be an indication that Salvation might be questioned. Though this may be simply missguided, I find it presumptuous, possibly even subtly arrogant, and in need of re-evaluation.

Having heard this exhortation to display positive results, and with often challenging problems occuring as a person struggles with the refining process internally, what is the probability that they would expose their real struggles within the exhorting environment, be it church or group? Very low to say the least!

Does this mean that the fruits of the Spirit should not be preached and extolled, that believers should not be encouraged to pursue behaviour reflecting the fruits of the Spirit, or that the behaviour within the body of believers should not be discussed or subject to due accountability? Not at all, as these factors are important. However, it does indicate the needed for a more balanced discussion and set of expectations. This would go a long way to increasing fellowship and actually assisting each person in their unique process.

Lastly, let us examine what might be considered the most serious underlying problem. One of the major stated reasons that is preached for the unvarying display of joyous Christian life, and by implication the implicit encouragement to supress anything else, is to entice the unsaved and unchurched into the fold. We have likely all heard that almost verbatim from time to time. In essence it is trying to ‘prove’ something to the unbeliver. This implies that our actions in this regard are a pivotal factor in the calling of the unbeliever to Salvation. When exposed, the implication is that if you we do not display the correct appearance, irrespective of what is occuring, the Salvation of the unbeliever willl be in jeopardy. This line of thought and action is not only counter-productive to the very openness that is the hallmark of legitimate assembly, but it implies serious error concerning the origin and motivation for Salvation. Their feelings for a particular assembly or group may be changed, but their call from the Lord is separate and beyond effect.

In “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will” Ephesians 1:5, and “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son” Romans 8:29, nor anywhere else does it mention any conditions for success related to the technique or perfect appearance of the assembly of believers.

Having said all this, what of the effects on the fellowship of believers, and on the unsaved in the assembly? We will hopefully get to that shortly…