Extemporaneous Ramblings

A very interesting (and decidedly encouraging) chat with a young Christian brother focused on a perspective many of us as believers needed to be reminded of. This fellow is serving with a missions organization in the Southern Hemisphere, and I thank the Lord for the Skype technology that makes our contact not only possible but amazingly easy and conversational.

In the course of our conversation he used an analogy that may be familiar to some (including as it turns out, my daughter), but which I hadn’t heard and which gave me something to think about.

The analogy characterized the self as a home (house, that is). In that home, we as Christians invite the Lord into our various rooms, communicating and interacting with Him there as appropriate whether it be the Kitchen or the Den. Each area of our home has a relatively level of intimacy attached to it in our demeanor, attitude and internal behaviour. That is, the intimacy of the entry way is quite different from that of the living room, and that affects the relationship offered and shared with those allowed access to either. In case of the Lord, the intimacy of our relationship with Him is reflected in what rooms are open to Him and what rooms, if any, are not. The question, then, is whether we have given Him full access including the bedroom as our most personal and intimate living space.

In fact we should phrase the question as to whether we have invited Him there. In the physical sense, tt is only there that we are open completely, without protection and facade. It is only there that we, by virtue of the reality of going to sleep, must completely let our guard down in order to rest. And it is only there that we awaken to a new day, in many ways setting the tone for our consciousness in the day to come. So it is in our relationship with the Lord. On in the most intimate portion of ourself is there established a genuine relationship with the Lord which sets the tone for our life.

If we have invited that Lord into every room of our being but not the bedroom, then we know Him, and he us, only at arms length. In that case the knowing is at least to some degree intellectual, not personal. With the classic North American (I am not familiar enough with other cultural groups to comment knowledgeably), who frequently has an intellectual approach in their stance in life, this is highly likely to be the case. Further, outward appearance conveys the mindset and not reality, so this situation is not likely to be apparent on the surface.

While our Lord desires that we know Him intellectually (since Scripture states that we are to understand and be able to explain the hope that is within us), He makes it clear that His knowledge of us is to be intimate at every level. We are too abide one within the other. That means that the bedroom of ourselves is a critical aspect of the relationship, in essence opening our Spirit to Him. We can not protect that aspect and truly know Him.

Now it is clear that as a sovereign God He knows us at every level He should wish. However scripture casts the relationship such that He is not pushy in the sense of coming uninvited or unwelcome to our inmost sanctuary. Though we are regenerate through the touch of the Holy Spirit and only thus capable of turning to Him, it is nonetheless only by our freely inviting Him that the relationship is constructed - willingly seeking Him in prayer, Scripture and thought (attitude). Since our mindset determines our stance, it is through leaning on Him for our self-image and value, in whatever might be our places of weakness, that he is invited where we allow or invite no-one else. And in that we have full relationship with Him.

It bears repeating that this is not to say that the intellectual aspect is not both important and encouraged as we seek understanding, but it alone can not lead to a complete knowledge in Him and life in Him. Put another way, one can understand a place but still not live in that place. On that other hand, with the Lord invited and part of the our inmost self, the other types of understanding fall into place as He (note, not we) sees the need and are icing on the cake.

Elisabeth Elliott, in her excellent book Discipline: The Glad Surrender (ISBN 1-85078-302-0), reminds us that the Lord did not promise us sufficient information for intellectual satisfaction on our path in Him. He only promised us enough information to be obedient. That obedience in relationship with Him can only occur and be satisfied when we have invite Him into, and surrendered, the bedroom of our self.

Judging by previous reaction to this direction in articles, I will be jumping even further out into rush hour traffic here, but this needs to be trumpeted irregardless.

What of the individual who hears the Gospel (or doesn’t for that matter) and is saved, but who subsequently accepts a works based paradigm of Salvation, living thereafter as a believer but with the stress of perceived constant jeopardy should his demonstrated ongoing merit not meet the burden of continued salvation, with that burden anything but clearly defined? Worse he or she might be saddled with a definition of that burden delineated by men of authority (church or other).

What of the beleaguered believer for whom every momentary nuance of sin in his or her life brings fear of immediate loss of Salvation until discovered, repented and confessed. And what if it isn’t discovered?

What about the new believer, experiencing the struggles of massive life change (which are predicted in Scripture and normal in the process), wrestling with the past in the present while being told then he or she will loose their Salvation as they struggle moment to moment? Or worse, having their state challenged as by others because they are not sufficiently perfect while in the growth process?

These people are legion. I have met many from each group, and they suffer at the hand of man (their own hands or those to miss-guided others). This is error, not Scriptural, and I would go so far as to say the work and delight of the enemy. These unfortunate soles are done great and harmful disservice by many of the faithful in this ideology of guilt and unsecured redemption. From this comes an interesting consideration.

Does the fact that they hold an erroneous view have any overall effect? Certainly it maintains them in a constant state of perceived instability concerning their own eternal state, frequently with resultant anxiety and possibly a less than joyous existence to one degree or another. If this seems an exaggeration, it is not. Many people react to these matters emotionally. Intellectual explanations, unless accepted emotional, do nothing to reduce the anxiety. It also may cause them to project a similar state upon others that they view as believers? Overall, there is a potentially to exact great misery in normal life. But what of reality?

We must remember from Scripture that what we believe is what saved us, as the primary criteria, not what we did before the fact or even changeable emotional states in the process. We are transformed in the mind, quickened by the Spirit to understand and embrace the Call, and our subsequent belief on Christ is the pivotal factor. Not that action in good works is not part of the equation, but that is after the fact, not causative - again according to Scripture. The good action flows from our new self in Christ.

However the belief we are focusing on here is not the belief on Christ that lead to Salvation. We are focusing on the erroneous beliefs related to the circumstances and scenario after Salvation which govern our ongoing emotions. As such, one must conclude that this means absolutely nothing in terms of eternity. By analogy, after a person has walked out into a sunny day, whether that person insists that the sky is blue or green does not affect it’s objective colour. Or, when a person stands under burgeoning rain clouds, whether or not they accept that it affects them will have no affect upon the reality that the subsequent rain will get them wet if they continue to stand there. Surely there is some humour in this, albeit it dark humour…

We are saved solely through the Grace of God, through the exercise of His Sovereign Will in election before the foundation of the World (Ephesians 1), enabled through the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the wholly sufficient work of Christ to those marked by God. All of this is completely the mandate and action of the Triune God, and nothing of us. Through this God merits and receives all the Glory.

Should he chose by His pleasure to elect and save us, yet we miss-understand the reality after the fact through miss-representation of the process, it matters not a wit as far as I can see. The only effect that might possibly be suggested by some might be that by furthering the miss-understanding and causing misery to others we might accumulate on our own behalf a lesser treasure in Heaven (notice I did not say penalty). But even this is highly questionable and I do not buy it, since there is no sinful intent, and in terms of the present focus it has no effect whatsoever upon our Salvation.

Rejoice in the Glory of the Sovereign work of our Lord in our lives, seeing it as all of Him and nothing of ourselves. What a joy! And what a tragedy for those that might be starved in life of that joyous view of Glory through miss-information which subversively acts to on the all too human desire to appropriate a portion of God’s Sovereignty and Glory for man.

Soli Deo Gloria

For those whose theology, and thereby their perception of eternal assurance, is works based, the words of Elmer Fudd seem to fit nicely. Namely, “Be vewy, vewy afwaid…“. As in A Tale of Two Johns, this of course refers to Mr. Wesley et al and our friends in the Church of Rome, but also to many others within the Evangelical community.

Within the larger post-reformation community, most who accept biblical inerrancy can agree that men (that’s men generically speaking, by the way) start from birth in the world as a Kingdom of Darkness, possessed both literally and figuratively by the Prince of the Air. Scripture is clear about this in numerous passages. The theology derived from Pelageous in the second century or thereabouts, and later evolving into so called Arminianism, effectively stipulates that there is some small degree of personal sovereignty deposited in each individual. This of course implies that they dodged the bullet in the Fall at least partially, and that they were somehow granted a personal portion of God’s complete sovereignty, but that is another issue for later. The proposed outworking of this possession of personal control is that they are able, of their own volition and solely by their own will and purpose, to respond to the Gospel, or not. In this theater, the Gospel is still presented by the Grace of God, but it is the individual, in exercising what can only be called their personal sovereignty, that determines the outcome, irrespective of the intent or wish of God. This script yields even more loose ends concerning the sufficiency and sovereignty of the work of Christ, but that too is another discussion. If the path is followed, with the individual in the final analysis accepting or rejecting the Gospel offer without the intervention of God (aside from the provision of the opportunity), then that individual sovereignty bring with it a subsequent ongoing, persistent responsibility to retain salvation once accepted. In other words, since they decided, then their personal sovereign authority retains the ongoing responsibility to maintain salvation or not. Individual will then is the pivotal component of eternal salvation. Whether that responsibility is exercised through willfully action or negligent inaction is irrelevant. It is still individual. This is indeed a heavy, and we shall see, precarious burden.

To continue, this responsibility must include modes of living that might influence Sanctification, namely that behaviour in line with our Lord’s example and precepts and associated repentance when that does not occur become deterministic. Furthermore, if continued Salvation is determined by ongoing individual actions, then it would logically follow that as imperfect creatures with incomplete Sanctification while still living in the world, each individual would fluctuate between states of Salvation and of not being saved in direct proportion to times of sin, repentance and subsequent forgiveness. There would by definition be frequent times of slipping from Salvation for even the most pious and diligent individual.

Scripture states that life in the human states even after Salvation is one of continued sinfulness to one degree or another. As such, there would be numerous periods of loosing and (potentially) regaining salvation. And the less than diligent Saint would find themselves out of Grace frequently.

All this is to say, as Elmer Fudd so eloquently put it, that virtually every person is effectively only a part-time Saint at best, or worse. More important, even when in a state of Grace, they must be concerned about their precarious state of being at all times! What a state to be in (no pun intended)! It is a condition of constant jeopardy and eternal insecurity. Yikes! Thank goodness that Scripture does not support this, but it is a state that many live in.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, lives in the truth of eternal security. Scripture states that those who are saved are moved to that state through the Hand of God alone. In other words, it is all the sovereignty of God, and none of man. Further, and more to our discussion here, is that those saved by His hand can never be taken (in Scripture, plucked) from it. Note, that Scripture states this as NEVER, not sometimes, possibly, conditionally or maybe. We have the Lord sovereignly saving us, and then, since His sovereignty will can not be denied, retaining us in that state eternally.

Surely Elmer would have said that we then can be “vewy, vewy secure”…

If we look in Scripture, as well as at the definitions used by many Evangelical denominations, we find a description of church leader (ie. Elder) to include a number of attributes and their outworking in certain responsibilities. Although there may be others, all definitions seem to include teaching, preaching, spiritual shepherd, visitation, and holder of some level of local church accountability. These roles may be defined in many ways, but they center on the role of spiritual leader and teacher for the local assembly. What we do not find in the definition is any hint of attributes involving business acumen, organizational strategist, long time member, financial contributor or similar. Those are attributes recognized in the world, while the attributes of a church leader stem from Biblical acumen, knowledge and application, not that of the world.

These leadership attributes (and therefor qualifications) focus clearly on both the spiritual health and biblical enhancement of the local assembly through example, preaching, teaching and exemplary Biblical fellowship, and on the sharing of the Gospel with the unsaved (whether directly or through equipping).

To move a bit further down the church hierarchy to Deacons, we find the practical expression of the tone set by the Elders. That means that the environment that allows the teaching, support and preaching of the Elders becomes the practical responsibility of the Deacons. To draw an analogy, the Elders likely teach or preach most effectively in a heated room, and the Deacons service the furnace to facilitate that heat. A trivial example, but it makes the point.

In this model we have the Elders setting the vision for the assembly, drawing that vision (one would presume) from Scriptural models and their explicit implications.  In many modern churches, following a congregational decision framework, the assembly then approves these visions. However, it is common for this to be little more than a rubber stamping at a church meeting that in effect takes place after the fact. Nonetheless, the vision as set by the Elders normally becomes the official focus for implementation largely as presented.

In this process of setting priorities and subsequent goals for the assembly it would seem safe to assume that the vision would be Biblical in tone, and follow Biblical paradigms in the propagation (both in the congregation and outside it) of both the Word of the Lord and the Gospel message. As such, any other priorities would be assumed to flow from this, as side effect from success in these so to speak. For example, in concentrating upon preaching the word and spreading the Gospel with clarity and truth inside and outside the assembly, the congregation might by the Grace of our Lord alone experience growth, and consequently even need of a larger facility. That growth and its consequences, however, are a result of the performing the work of the Lord, not the primary focus the vision. They are by the Grace of God and not by the process of men.

With this in mind, what do we sometimes observe in reality? Unfortunately, it may be an apparent reversal of the paradigm as demonstrated in the Scripture.

Today, the first vision statement heard could be something like “We envision a congregation of 900-1000 people”, assuming the current one is quite a bit smaller. Or “We envision this place filled to capacity by the end of the year.” Now, dreaming of a great congregation is not bad in itself, but what is wrong here? You got it (I hope). The cart is before the horse. No talk of learning and propagating theological or Biblical truth. No talk of equipping all for evangelism, and of going forth for the Lord and His Kingdom. No talk of expending resources distributing the Word of God without condition. Just vision of growth. Maybe couched with words about using it for the Lord, but with growth first. To put it bluntly - GROWTH IS NOT A BIBLICAL GOAL ITSELF! It is perfectly legitimate if you are a department store, with shareholders. This is wrong, wrong, wrong thinking!

In discussing various approaches to congregational life, Biblical and doctrinal literacy and church priorities, the question arises as to who exactly should be setting, establishing and monitoring these fundamental aspects.

Not only do these issues affect the tone and nature of the assembly, but they often have a resounding though quiet effect on the faith and satisfaction of the lives of believers. This effect is often in direct proportion to their level of involvement, but not within their control or influence it many cases. That is, the more involved people are in church life, the more affected they will be, either for good or for bad. That said, it might be prudent for any adherent to have a close, objective look at the church organizational and power structure (the real one, not the published one), and its health, before getting heavily involved. A little circumspect observation while still somewhat detached can go a long way to avoiding grief and finding joyous satisfaction in cases where change is needed and unlikely to occur.

In the church of today, the techniques of successful secular business are strongly in vogue. These are currently concerned with downloading responsibility, distributing accountability, and the encouragement of strong organizational growth. Church leaders are much enamored of business management gurus and writers, with their growth techniques and operational philosophies. Pastors are just as likely to be reading and championing the latest business strategies as they are Biblical approaches, often even bringing them to the pulpit. Irrespective of whether this is appropriate in a Biblically based organization (in my view it is not, but that is a subject for another discussion), it is the reality of the day and the effects are many and resounding.

When secular management gurus (with completely worldly agendas) are the order of the day for congregational management and guidance, what is the likely result? One could propose that since there is great success in these philosophies and organizational approaches, the church as an organization in decline in recent times could benefit from their techniques. On the surface, when judged with a priority on growth and numerical success, that may well seem true in a pragmatic sense. But is it in line with Biblical priorities? While it occasional may move in parallel, in general my answer would be no.

The Scripture lays out very simple priorities, and none of these include organizational growth for its own sake. They also do not include growth to support resource intensive programs and entertainment. Those are secular, plain and simple. Scripture also clearly lays out the responsibilities of church leadership, and these similarly do not include that focus. Ignoring all the explanatory words one may hear to work around or rationalize the approaches on these issues, the focus is in the wrong place.

Not only that, but as can sometimes ironically be the case, this is quite clear to many of the rank and file in the pews, who comment on it frequently in one form or another (even if they may not be able to articulate it perfectly).

What a flash point worship music has become! On the other hand, it has apparently always been thus.

In writing about church focus, concerning theology and doctrine, I considered worship music to be a side issue simply involving preferences. However, the comments on “What is the cure, Doctor?” indicate it merits a separate thread. It is clearly both a dividing line and a divisive issue for many congregations. Congregation do, and have, split based solely on animosity over this issue.

Anecdotal evidence would indicate that one major dividing line is drums, as in a modern drum set. The appearance of this instrument actually results in the summary exit of some people from not only the service but the congregation. Worse, I heard a Pastor remark on this topic that the congregation was being held back by such people and they should just go quietly if they couldn’t embrace the changes (hard to believe but that is actually what was informally said).

Thinking about it, the implications appear to extend well beyond my original thoughts of simple preference. What I preseumed could be solved by simply blending styles and alternate presentation seems to indicate issues beyond that.

One suggestion might be that this scenario is a demonstrable symptom of the movement of the church into functioning as an entertainment medium. In that scenario, the assumption that would follow (as with any service provider) would be that the church has a responsibility to service each attendee’s need for a joyous and uplifting experience. The existence of any discomfort would be counter-productive. Notice that one of the undergirding assumptions here is that the responsibility for the experience is placed solely on the church, not on the congregant. This reflects the societal issues appearing today in many other forums with the emergence of entitlement rights. This could be taken to illustrate the church and expectations of its responsibilities mirroring societal change, and therefor completely separate from any Biblical expectation. Many would say this is good and that entitlement is driving positive developments. In most respects, I would not be among them.

A related area of exploration could be around the function of the church in supporting and providing comfort for the member or adherent. Is the worship service for us or for the Lord? Without doubt most Evangelicals would say that it is for Him, but is  that the reality? Isn’t the reality that the church is often views as if it is for us? In all of this, where does simple individual preference come in, and to what degree?

Lastly for now, let us move to the Pastoral comment on naysayers. Now, I do not doubt that the comment was serious, and in context am also quite sure that the person it was said directly to (not me) agreed in principle (evidenced by their comments in other venues). But however true it might be for them, it was pretty appalling to hear it stated out loud. It would appear that those who left were likely better justified then they realized. It could could also be legitimately projected that there were likely other people and other issues that would eventually fall to the same solution eventually. So the question needs to be asked, is ‘my way or the highway’ a legitimate response in any of these situations?

There - that’s a start. Again, for me this seems peripheral to the foundational issues, but I could be missing something. I have my preferences and some things appeal to them and others don’t. But we will see what shakes out in comments…

Almost the first phrase that people greet you with when they first meet you is “What do you do?”. Your answer and vocation will in most cases slot you into a category for them, and yield a predefined level of respect and associated attitude toward you. Breaking out of that box once it is assigned to you is often not easy. As such, your initial presentation, irrespective of who you really are or your value, is important. That may be unfortunate and sound superficial, but it is often simple reality in our society. For many people with career and/or professional employment, this plays in their favour.

But what about when you retire? You are not ‘that’ any more. You may be in the process of becoming something else, but since the something else may not have significant monetary value presently it is of little social value in the eyes of many others. What do you do, and how do you adjust?

One strategy is to say you are whateveryouwere-retired. If your previous vocational title had some sort of medical, academic, military or similar status, then you likely can carry that on, garnering whatever social usefulness or advantage it might have. And don’t be fooled, it usually has quite a bit. Position is a tool that will gain advantage or preferential treatment. If that aura of position remains intact in some form, people will most likely treat you as if you were still in the position or close to it. This likely also applies to any person who has had a socially recognized professional designation of some type (eg. engineers, chartered accountants, etc.)

On the other hand, simply ‘retired’ doesn’t cut it in the redeeming social value category. The only exception is in the eyes of those who are drawing close to (or wish they were drawing close to) retirement themselves. If you are well retired financially and health wise, this often accrues great amounts of envy and a certainly related status. Outside of these exceptions, the retired person is viewed by many as doing nothing, and therefor of having no status. This is true even if they are pursuing interesting avenues for themselves. The fact that they are not using whatever skills they have to make money or accrue status of some sort is often viewed as almost unethical.

All this is an interesting backdrop for those who are contemplating retirement or some sort of self-directed period of leave without a finite end date. It says a lot about what modern society values (activities which have income as a goal) and what it does not value (activities for which the primary goal is not income), irrespective of what altruistic words may be offered.

Christian certainly face this directly in contemplating a retirement or extended leave period in which to seek and follow the leading of the Lord. Successfully growing past this hurdle to follow the direction of the Lord, even possibly allowing oneself to “not seek gainful activity” and allow life or direction to unfold, effectively thumbs the nose that the whole societal affair. But from the reports of those treading it, this road has more potholes than one might think.

A Christian brother took early retirement just over a year ago. With a timely set of skills, he went on to establish an relaxed and effective consulting practice which brought satisfaction and remuneration without most of the previous organizational grief. After a year, however, he related that he had finally realized that he was still performing the same old same’old. He had gone back to a form of work based upon programmed expectations. He had not been able to, in fact had not even seen the possibility to, allow himself to simply let things unfold without creating them. Even thought and research into identifying and using his gifts had still fallen into his pre-programming until he realized what was actually going on. With that humongous hurdle at least partially understood, he could finally see meaning in giving himself permission to stop striving in the old way and possibly allow a new direction to emerge. Doing that, however, involved both seeing through and stepping back from a lifelong socially accepted paradigm that also had great emotional value as a undercurrent.

Bravo!!! I applaud his bold realization and his desire to look beyond the world to the Lord’s direction. And more than that, the realization (instructive for us all) of the requirement to stop one paradigm in order to be able to see other possibilities - realizing that without stopping the other possibilities can not appear.

T’would that we all can do precisely that in due time, allowing the space for a new direction  to unfold, irrespective of the expectations of others, the world, and most significantly, ourselves…

Following-on from the article and related comments on Preaching and Small Groups, I think that I should reiterate the implications. I see the effect on small groups as peripheral, as with music. Though the issues can be flash points that are sensitive, I am interested in the the larger (and for me at least) more critical issue of underlying foundational knowledge within the congregational body that support true Christian assembly over time.

The proposition for small groups is merely that that without the underlying foundation being properly prioritized and consistently dealt with, the small groups are caste into a role that they are not equipped (through their set-up, not due to any lack of sincerity or intent) to fulfill. As has been suggested, if they function to increase the depth of and expand upon foundational preaching and doctrinal exploration, that is wonderful. Or alternately, if they are defined to fulfill the acknowledged need for a solid forum for fellowship combined with some biblical or devotional sharing, again great. However, when they are caste in the role of the primary educational forum for foundational matters, and subsequently left to their own devices and development by the leadership with respect to approach, curriculum and direct support, then the overall situation is built more and more upon thin ice.

This brings the discussion around to an all too familiar theme, that of foundation, biblical and basic doctrinal literacy. A comment on the previous post began with the assumption of solid biblical preaching. Let us focus that to preaching based in and for the purpose of Biblical, foundational and doctrinal exposition. The tone and direction of the organization is likely to subsequently proceed from that, and there will be a priority on programs in support of those areas. Our refrain to-date, however, has been that the church in general is moving in precisely the opposite direction, with the focus on organizational growth and programs in support of that. In this case, the tone and direct will follow suit, away from the Biblical and doctrinal literacy. The foundational areas, in fact, will more and more come to be looked upon as arcane subjects suitable only for seminary debate, and not necessary for the general assembly of God’s people. Once paradigm that picks up steam, faith isolated to experiential evidence and with less and less foundational knowledge is not far behind. One may even hear the proposal that the two focus directions described are synonymous. The absurdity of that simply denies expression.

I would propose that this scenario is what we are seeing, and it should give us much pause when looked at with a view to the tribulations which we know will come, and which Scripture has implied will remove much of the experiential support through the tactics of Satan and the world. That this will come about is in not doubt in Revelations.

In conclusion, one would hope that the refocusing of congregational, and particularly leadership, priority on foundational matters, leaving the rest (for example, growth) to the Lord, will move towards a path more centered upon the Sovereignty of our Lord, with the people of God better equipped to weather the future.

Let us expand a bit on a couple of points. First “Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!”

Preaching and the Pulpit are the primary framework for the dissemination of congregational education. This alone is today likely a controversial proposition in many churches with the downloading of responsibilities to pastoral associates and preference group ministries. The pulpit message should be for expository education in the central issues of biblical literacy, theological framework and foundations, and the doctrinal specifics of the faith. Within the context of about 30 minutes a week on average, that alone is a tall order and extensive branching out is sure to water down the delivery of the basics.

The tone and attitude (in both word and action) communicated from the pulpit concerning foundational areas is crucial. That tone and attitude will likely make or break the importance of foundational knowledge in the congregation. In other words, the buck initially stops in the pulpit, and it will have a make or break effect, acting as a watershed from that level to the congregation. Further, in most cases other levels of leadership will emulate the attitude expressed there (even if they don’t agree). Unfortunately, my observations as well as those from other congregations I have queried indicate that more often than not the result is break, rather than make, with the importance of foundations being communicated as very low. The foundations may be called important, but action and ongoing emphasis indicate otherwise, and the congregation readily picks up on, adopts, or least emulates this. The subsequent effect is to shift foundational issues to the sideline of talk, not action. Not encouraging, but true.

Despite the paradox at work here in the difference between the surface message and the real message, the result likely plays out very smoothly on the surface. Biblical literacy and foundational knowledge is moved onto the shoulders of the ubiquitous small group ministry, with the convenient reasoning that it is a matter for individual and group work, and a subject that is of individual choice or preference as to how much is appropriate. This is error. When it comes to the basic knowledge of the faith, our Lord’s statements on this are completely the opposite. The stress seeking understanding and knowledge of “the reason for the hope that is within you”.

Once the areas of exposition and study slide onto the sideline of small groups, where they are largely unguided and unregulated in comprehensive sense, several things happen very quickly. The leadership can consider them ‘dealt with’ and in good hands. This frees them of ongoing direct responsibility, since the matter is deemed as being ‘well addressed’. They can then move on to other more immediately, pressing organizational matters such as organizational and resource growth. Oversight should and may continue, but in the somewhat informal framework of the small group environment in many congregations this is often not the case.

Next, and likely more important to the issues at hand, since small groups largely function with only arms length guidance and oversight, physically separate from the church, with few in-depth resources, often using as a guide largely devotional style, inexpensive literature with limited biblical content, and offered on a volunteer basis by people of widely varying levels of expertise, they are not well positioned to fulfill what should be critical work. They are unlikely to cover foundational subjects with consistent, predictable depth or completeness. This is particularly true of difficult doctrinal or theological issues, which they are understandably likely to avoid altogether or be unable to resolve. More superficial material and exploration is simply more plausible within the available resources. We should not that this is not a commentary on the people involved but on the environment provided. Overall, the result is a quiet loss in these pivotal areas of knowledge from the general mindset of the congregation. With this loss comes general theological and foundational weakness, and a lack of interest in such issues, as a substrata of the congregational body.

Small Groups are well positioned to foster limited, preference group based fellowship, but not education in biblical or doctrinal literacy. The result is an appearance of education and action but no consistent, measurable delivery of either on foundational issues. You don’t believe me? Fair enough. Take a quiet informal poll around the congregation over few weeks, examining individual knowledge and interest (remembering that the encouraging of interest in these matters is a significant part of the process and responsibility of the church leadership), as well as variance in group study content, in even the fundamental tenants of the faith and its doctrine. I have no doubt of what you will find.

Thus we return to Preaching, and to the issues of Small Groups touched on in several points. Put simply, Leadership must have foundational issues as a priority. Small groups, though very useful, and making a great contribution in some congregational respects, do not offer the leadership a pass on these crucial matters.

Let us finish by restating the suggested starting actions, with the addition of the eighth:

1. Blended contemporary and traditional worship - many do this now and it seems to work well.
2. Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!
3. A congregational approach to familiarity (preferably with some memorization) with foundational Bible verses.
4. Bible reading, both individual and congregational (this is not small group bible study from a booklet).
5. Congregational education on the denominational doctrines and distinctives to a level of repeatability.
6. A provision for and endorsement of congregational prayer, specific as well as generic.
7. Church leadership (beyond the paid pastoral staff) actively and obviously engaged in the clear Biblical requirements - spiritual guidance, teaching, preaching and congregational care.
8. Remove church growth from the congregational or leadership agenda. It is a side effect of Glorifying our Lord through primary exercise of the faith and sharing of the Gospel (see Witness for the Lord), not an proper activity.

So there you have it. Again, as stated at the beginning, there are surely better analyzes and corrective actions. That does not, however, reduce the present magnitude nor the growing significance of the problem. In the current tide, and without a change in direction, it is likely to only get worse…

With various issues brought into the light of day, and a number of apparently unaddressed needs discussed, the picture being painted might appear to be a tad bleak. In the face of some of the issues that may well be the case. As a side note, I have just started to read John MacArthur’s latest book (The Truth War) and discovered that I have been harping on roughly the same track. It is encouraging on the one hand to find that much greater thinkers are proposing similar concerns, but discouraging in that it further confirms my suspicions. That having been said, however, I am still naive enough to think that there are a number of simple prescriptions to move things back toward the yellow brick road.

Let me also state that there are surely many other better answers and approaches than those proposed here. That having been said, anxiety about inadequate answers can be an excuse for inaction and decline. For those old enough to recall a TV show named WKRP in Cincinnati, the series opening show had the newly self-named Dr. Johnny Fever exclaiming on the air “Give it to me straight, Doctor. I can take it”. With that in mind, we shall wade in boldly and see what happens.

Overall, I think that we can preserve much of the popular ‘look and feel’ changes that seem to delight people, while still re-incorporating the foundational basics. The point here is not to declare all current changes as unwanted and throw the baby out with the bath water, but to use the present preferential changes to enhance the foundational basics. The problem to date has often been that the new approaches have replaced the basics and not enhanced them, as if these modern preferences formed an equally valid theology of their own. That is surely the road to apostasy!

The other present day reality is that of financial resources. A great advantage to the re-incorporation of the foundational, biblical content is that is it relatively cost free. This also conveniently removes a major excuse.

One key is to give those foundational basics at least as much emphasis as the newer issues. Moreover, in order to re-orient things, it may be required in the short run to put more emphasis on the issues to be re-established as foundational. The next, but likely the most important, key is consistency. The foundational basics must be consistently and persistently taught, preached, discussed and thought about until they are second nature and endemic in the congregation’s paradigm. This second point is absolutely crucial to success. Application of those two changes alone would likely yield a positive result even in the short them, but they must be actually applied, not simply thought about about or talked about.

So how can we practically combine the present and the foundational basics? Here is an off-the-cuff action list (in no particular order of importance) for starters:

1. Blended contemporary and traditional worship - many do this now and it seems to work well.
2. Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!
3. A congregational approach to familiarity (preferably with some memorization) with foundational Bible verses.
4. Bible reading, both individual and congregational (this is not small group bible study from a booklet).
5. Congregational education on the denominational doctrines and distinctives to a level of repeatability.
6. A provision for and endorsement of congregational prayer, specific as well as generic.
7. Church leadership (beyond the paid pastoral staff) actively and obviously engaged in the clear Biblical requirements - spiritual guidance, teaching, preaching and congregational care.

And one further point, more an attitude than an action - Forget church growth! It is a side effect of Glorifying our Lord, not an activity.

That is a start. It will no doubt offend the “church is boring, you must engage people to draw them to the Gospel” set. Good! That would indicate that we are at least actually discussing the issues. Points two and possibly four could use some expansion since two is so pivotal and four is such a strong focus in today’s church, but that can wait until the next article.

Within the points listed there is a basic framework for at least a beginning toward more general biblical literacy. And that is real literacy, not just talk about it and vague references. This might just yield an assembly of people who actually are of the Book…

Baptists often refer to themselves as “People of the Book”. That is not unique to Baptists as far as I can see, and is applied both internally and external in describing many in the evangelical and wider fundamentalist protestant communities. It expresses a great intent.

This reminds me of a true story from the family of another believer. Their children attended the publicly funded elementary schools associated with another branch of the Christian faith (I won’t mention who). One day in class, a member of the religious order that oversees the school was querying the class about their church affiliations. The child in question responded that they were Baptist. The functionary responded “Oh, you’re the ones that believe the Bible literally“. Although the child was not sophisticated enough to respond appropriately, the response could have been an equally sarcastic “And your point is?”. Our Lord left us one concrete thing, His Word. Had he considered anything else either necessary or authoritative, He would have told us so. The point is clear…

Within the Baptist paradigm the Bible is considered the only authoritative User Guide in all things. Having said that, and bearing in mind the way that we describe ourselves, one would think that a great, if not inordinate, amount of time would be spent on the Scriptures. On the surface it might appear so, but is that really the case?

There is a significant difference between spending a majority of time explicitly in something versus talking about that same thing. It is my experience that the majority of time is spent talking about the Scriptures, and not reading or addressing them directly. I often think it might be more honest to describe ourselves as “People who revere and talk about the Book”. And that is a shame.

Go into most any Christian store and as time goes on you will see fewer and fewer copies of the Bible. At that same time, there will be many, many books voluminously addressing snippets of Scriptural verse. From the store point of view this represents simple marketing reality, but it also reflects the growth of the issue under discussion.
Now, someone is sure to comment that the Bible is simply too difficult and obscure for most people, and that they need a predigested form that shows them the way. Althougth there is some truth here, is that not what the Reformation was about? To refresh your memory (and admittedly state things very simplistically), the Reformation proposed that the Scriptures be available and read by the masses. It implicitly proposed that direct contact with the Bible was the intent of the Lord, and that the average person was supposed to read it. The dominant church of that time (and in many ways its derivative today) proposed that this was not the case, that it was a recipe for error, and that the interpretation and even contact with Scripture must be left to scholars. These scholars would dispense understandable devotions and such Scriptural snippets as might be deemed appropriate and digestible without causing havoc, confusion or distressing the masses.

Is the bottom line effect today really much different? The real difference seems to be that the evangelical church in many instances chooses to impose a pre-reformation paradigm upon themselves. Does the fact that there is an apparent choice involved change the actual situation or result? I don’t think so. It may mollify one to thinking that they are studying the Word when they are reading about it, simply because they have a choice. But the result is still that the majority of people are largely ignorant of the actual Bible and are dependent upon a professional class of interpreters. Seems pretty pre-Reformation to me.

It was pointed out to me recently (by a clergyman) that if one was to go back 100 or 200 years within the Protestant church movement in general, they would likely find that Biblical knowledge and interest therein would be notably higher overall. If that is true, and even a brief look are historical church writings would seem to indicate that it is, then we are in fact accelerating towards the past.

Does this mean that commentaries, devotionals, and the like are bad? Not at all. But it does mean that in our complacency and laziness we are letting one of the primary freedoms of our faith slip quietly away. We are in fact embracing the past. After some time (and this is already evident in any church lobby) many believers can not now or will not be able to remember the actual Biblical truths and foundational support verses. They will still likely appreciate them experientially or emotionally, but without being able to articulate the reasons or basis. In that situation, what will happen when a stronger worldly stimulus arrives? Even more, what will happen when the time of tribulation arrives?

As pointed out in the last post, we have a clear and fairly well defined model for the presentation of the Gospel in the life of our Lord and His Apostles, as presented in Scripture. The scriptural presentation does not contain any proposition that the models presented will grow insufficient or ineffective over time. It also does not state nor imply that further development by men is either desirable or intended. In fact, Scripture tends to imply that movement in this direction will be a sign of error. There is no mandate for any fundamental departure from the paradigm.

Now to the upside down part. Let us have a peek at what we hear from the church pulpit. We will take it at face value.

Basic one-on-one evangelism is often encouraged in words. However, it is not cited as a tenant of the faith. However, since it is prescribed in Scripture, it sure is just that. It is usually excused with the statement that many are not suited by personality, temperament or demeanor to be able to participate. In human terms this is indeed valid, but there is no provision is Scripture releasing any believer from responsibility in this area. Did not the Lord create each believer uniquely as they are, yet not release them from this responsibility? At the very least, all are responsible to educate themselves as needed to appreciate the task, participate as the situation might be present by the Spirit, and support it as they can. This sort of education does not happen by chance, and it is rare at best in today’s churches beyond cursory lip service.

The growth of the church has gained massive significance in many congregations. Congregational growth is erroneously construed to be synonymous with growth in the body of believers. The presentation of attractive church programs requires ever increasing resources, and an increasing congregation size is needed to provide (fund) these. Although some of these programs may contribute to true evangelism, they are a very costly solution and more that anything else they contribute to church organizational growth and support. That is a completely different matter, and is only peripherally related to presentation of the Gospel.

Next, to stimulate growth it is assumed that any effort at evangelism in today’s world requires that the church entice and entreat people to the congregation before they can be presented with the Gospel. They must be made to feel organizationally wanted and needed, impressed by great programs and fellowship, and made to feel that “this Christianity thing” (a direct quote) is something that they have to get in on. Then, it is proposed, can the Gospel be most effective and is the message most likely to be accepted. It may not be stated that bluntly but that is the message, as clear as day.

Let’s be blunt. This insipidly usurps the Sovereignty of God by implication and make the key factor in sufficiency to be the work and creation of men. This is error!

Harken back to our Lord’s model. Where is any of this? This is precisely upside down from what he did and what he modeled. This is subtle immersion in the world. This proposes that men must improve upon the Gospel for it to be effective. This implicitly proposed that the presentation, and at least part of the acceptance, of the Gospel is under the Sovereign control of man, and that the Lord and the Holy Spirit need help. This is exactly the sort of thing that the Scripture warn against in the coming ages before the end.

Too strong? I think not!

Now, is this proposing that a welcoming church is incorrect? Not at all. We are mandated to hospitality to all, especially fellow believers. Welcoming fellowship to all who come is very important and is in fact required of us as a body. Is there anything wrong with great programs, an attractive assembly and communication that speaks to the people of the time? Again, not at all. These are desirable and encouraging to all. However, this is not the primary mandate or model for us. It is peripheral. Because it has become primary, it is upside down, and all that stems from it is upside down.

Since the world of flesh can only beget the world and can only encourage the kingdom of the Prince of the Air, organizational growth bound in the techniques of the world must be likewise based there.

What is insufficient for evangelism based upon the paradigms, model and examples left for us by our Lord? What is it that justifies and mandates further development or strategic change by man or the church? In a word, nothing…

Continuing on the familiar refrain, I was considering the latest I am hearing on church evangelism, communications, and church growth. Forgive me if I am slow, but it finally dawned on me how perfectly the biblical paradigm is being understood and taught backwards. Why didn’t I see this before? Well, because the two views come from a completely different mindset, and until now I just couldn’t see the other one (though I still think it is totally in error). When you naturally see the sky as blue, it is hard to comprehend it as green even when asked to, so to speak.

Looking at the examples that Jesus set in His ministry, what was His approach? It was pretty consistent. He went among the people, visiting them mostly in the world, in their environment. That environment might be the church of the time (the synagogue), which was socially acceptable, or it might be the secular environment, which was unacceptable in varying degrees (the home of a tax collector or a prostitute in public). In this, He cared not a wit for the optics of the situation! His response to optics problems was “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7), effectively shaming the opticians.

How did He instruct the Apostles when they went out with the Gospel? First, He sent them hither and yon, among the unsaved. He sent them, as Himself had gone, among the people in their secular environment, irrespective of the optics. Next, they went is His name, not their own, bringing any optics or blame upon Himself as well as them. Then, they were to proclaim, again, in His name alone (Sola Christos), the Good News of Salvation. Did they go without difficultly? No. Did they go without Him? No. They went solely in Him and with great struggles at times. They also went utilized only His model of evangelistic behaviour in presenting the Gospel. As time went on in the first century church, this paradigm and no other appear to continue.

As the mother of a long time Christian brother commented to me some years ago, referring to the work of the Lord and the Scriptures, in concrete terms our Lord left us only the Bible and within it His model for the presentation of Him. I would add that as Sovereign God he clearly felt that is what we needed or He would have left something more.

Contrasting the modeling we see in Christ, what did he not do? He went among the unsaved (virtually everyone it should be pointed out) in their environment, but not within their paradigm of behaviour nor their actual activities. In that environment he preached the Gospel in word and deed. He did not in any visible way emulate their activities nor tickle their ears or sensibilities using their cultural norms or passtimes of the day. He did not make any identifiable attempt to entreat people to Himself or the early church by molding Himself or His message to the appear more appealing and welcoming in a cultural sense. When the Apostles were sent forth, did they do differently? Not from what we have in evidence. They represented the Gospel as had the Lord, calling the unsaved to Salvation as He had. They did not establish nor derive techniques to entice the people to like them or the church so that they would be amenable to the Gospel message.

The Lord explicitly acknowledged the absolute Sovereignty of God in calling His sheep to Him. The Gospel had to be offered and that often had to be where the people were, but the people were not enticed to the church through popular activities. Furthermore, the church was not tasked to prove that it was part of the culture in order to appeal to people. The Holy Spirit was assumed to be in control of the actual changes and calling of the sheep, not the church or its people.

Having all this as the only Biblical model, is it not the correct one? Where is the Biblical prescription that says that the model must be developed further culturally over time and that it is will otherwise be in some manner insufficient, to added to by a more evolved form of man? Answer, there is no such prescription. In fact, there are several warning that such things are the work of the world and not of God. How much clearer can it be?

The Lord, in the only documentation and modeling He sovereignly deemed necessary, left us a clear model with many examples. That would appear to our singular mandate and model.

Next we will look at the flip side, the backwards approach…