On July 25, 2013 a Rockford, Illinois news agency reported
that a former
church employee had been accused of molesting a 13 year old girl.
Initially, anyone reading that headline should have reacted with disgust and/or
anger. Interestingly, however, another encountered reaction is a defensive one.
Yet, one should note that those on the defensive usually fall prey to thoughts
riddled with emotionally-led, fallacy-styled thinking. It is the type of
thinking seen whenever God uncovers sin, as evidenced in the Garden of Eden. It
was the type of thinking when Peter pointed out “Simon the Sorcerer’s” sin in Acts
8. It is expected of sinners, because that’s what they do, they make
excuses for their sin. A follower of Christ, however, is in marked contrast. He
is one who has a deep hatred of sin, not just in his own life, but in the world
around him. This deep hatred is not based upon his own feeling or standard, or
else it would not be of Christ, but of man. The same hatred is also mixed with
deep compassion. Consider the “Rich Young Ruler” of Matthew
19. That man was in sin, he came to Christ seeking eternal life. Christ
revealed sin in that man, He had to. As Christ began to reveal sin in that man,
Mark
10:21 tells us that Christ beheld him with love, and in that love Christ
responded by telling him about his sin, and how to repent from it. This thought
brings about the real question, the one that matters most. How should the
church deal with sinners and reaching out to the lost?
The traditional modern American church position can be
summarized thusly, “Come to our church, all are welcome.” This can be and is
stated in many different ways, and upon the face of it, the statement is
inviting, caring, and “welcoming.” Most churches today go well out of their way
to create burdensome programs built to attract as many people as they can. Many
are successful, many are not. But what is the standard for success? Is it
numbers in attendance? Is it a growing national audience, or larger buildings,
or church sports teams? From a purely sound business model, yes it is, which is
why Christian Colleges offer business/management style classes as part of
pastoral core curriculum. The author was required to take a few of these
classes, and learned a few things about how-to and how-not-to do business. My
professors were intelligent men, who were pastors as well as college profs.
They knew what they were talking about, not only from books, but also from
experience. They had built their businesses successfully. But did they build
them Biblically? I’m not questioning their heart, though I have done so
elsewhere. I’m questioning their methods. To borrow a profound question from a
friend’s recent
article: Can one support the way that the modern church is built, funded,
and run from the Bible? (Section 2, question 10). Let’s make this a bit more
personal. Are there examples in the Bible of your church? Chapter? Verse? Is it
Biblical to have an “Open Door Policy” in that all are welcomed and invited to
attend meetings? According to this model it is, and it is strongly encouraged
by the leadership.
The non-traditional church position views the matter much
differently. It does not have an “All are welcome” sign, nor does it even have
a sign. This does not mean people are not welcome, however. Any would be
welcome, but those who would like to fellowship must meet a few clearly laid
out standards. First, those desiring to fellowship must show clear signs of a
truly repentant, fruit producing follower of Christ. Second, they must desire
to spread the gospel. Third, they must desire to disciple. Simple stuff, and it
is expected to be done by all, not just a select few. (Matthew
28:19-20, Mark
16:15, Luke
24:44-49, John
20:19-23, Acts
1:8, Hebrews
10:24-25 – focus on the “one another” in both verses). There is no business
model outside of witness and disciple in this model. No one is invited to “come
to our church”, no one is enticed to come to a program. It is a terrible
business model in comparison to the traditional position. It could never pay a
pastor’s salary. It could never build large buildings. It could never boast
large crowds. It is not what young men and women go to “Bible College” for. To
be fair, the same questions must be asked about this model that were asked
concerning the traditional church. Can one support the non-traditional model in
how it is built or not funded from the Bible? Are there examples of this church
in the Bible? Are there examples of the “Closed Door Policy” in that people
must meet requirements to fellowship with other believers? Wouldn’t such an
idea be unloving? How is this model an example of Jesus Christ’s love for the
world?
The author has been involved in both models, very actively
too at that, as a child, student, organizer, leader, teacher, missionary, and pastor.
He has seen how both models work from the most intricate details to the
simplest of actions. It is from this viewpoint that posited questions will be
answered, it is the author’s bias, based upon Biblical and practical
applications. It is completely understood that not everyone will agree with the
answers given. The only thing desired is that what is about to be offered is
prayerfully, Biblically considered. Do not fall back upon emotional pleas, ad
hominem, straw man, red herrings, or any other form of fallacy. They’re not
helpful. One must know and understand why he believes what he believes. If his
position is untenable, then why hold that position? One can and does cause much
harm by thinking this way, such as what happened at the above mentioned church,
or any church, for that matter.
The traditional church attempts to meet the great commission
through various means. Services, programs, events, dinners, and/or sports-teams
are all part of the plan to draw in the lost. In theory these attract more
people’s attention, and therefore more people’s participation. Nothing is
inherently wrong with these events in and of themselves, but if they become the
method of evangelism then they are unbiblical. The Bible’s method for
evangelism is always one on one. Consider Philip and the Ethiopian Eunich in Acts
8. What about Christ with Nicodemus? Or Peter with Cornelius? The Bible, as
stated already, command all followers of Christ to spread the word. We are all
to be instant in season and out of season, not just the salaried staff. There
is practicality in this. First, it puts more people in the army on the front
lines. Second, it is more personal. People have questions, serious ones at
that. One on one allows for these questions to be asked and answered carefully,
thoughtfully, compassionately. Third, in light of number two, the Christian is
forced to study to shew himself approved. It forces him to prove all things,
and hold fast that which is good. It forces him to know Christ. The traditional
model robs the member of all of this, as, generally speaking, the vast majority
of church members do not witness one on one. What instead occurs, is the
leadership encourages “All to come, attend our services. We’ll put on a good
show for you.” It could be a traditional show, or a contemporary show, an early
show or a late show. Just attend. That’s what matters. American Christendom has
an historical example of this method – the Half-way Covenant in New England
churches. After a few years of this practice, churches were filled with such
sin and superstition that they were useless for Christ. They opened the doors
to everyone, and everyone came. Everyone brought everything, and everything
sent Christ out of the church. This satanic perversion has been happening for
quite some time, and not just in America (Revelation
2:12-29, 3:14-22).
God commanded the churches in Revelation to repent of this, which always
requires a turning from sin/error and turning to Christ.
The traditional church’s method of discipleship is even more
non-committal. It attempts to use, in their term, a “shot-gun” approach to
reach the crowds. The idea is that “God’s Man” will preach “God’s Message” and “God’s
People” will hear what needs to be heard, and this is the Biblical plan for
discipleship. To answer this issue, one must look more carefully at the Great
Commission. Focus on two specific words – Preach
and Teach. Preaching is to the lost
in most cases (Romans
1:16, I
Cor. 1:17-31). Teaching is done to those already saved. It is discipleship.
One does not need to continuously preach Christ crucified to the saved, it was
the foundational message that has already been lain down (I
Cor. 3:11). Christ did both teaching and preaching. He did so, because some
were saved, and others were lost that heard Him. (Matthew
4:23, 9:35,
11:1
– both words are used in each verse, it’s not being redundant, it’s two
different things that Christ was accomplishing). He made sure to do both aspects,
and He commanded us to follow after Him. (Matthew
28:19-20). He preached to the lost, and he taught his disciples, all one on
one. His disciples followed this same pattern, and there is no other example
given as to how to accomplish both preaching and teaching anywhere in the Bible.
(Acts
1:1, 5:25,
5:42,
13:1,
15:35,
18:11,
28:31,
Romans
2:21, I
Cor. 2:13, 4:17,
Galatians
6:6, Col.
1:28, 3:16
– notice the one another here - , I
Timothy 2:7, 3:2,
4:11,
II
Tim. 1:11, 2:24,
Titus
1:9, 2:12,
Hebrews
5:12, 8:11,
I
John 2:27). One must be careful, however, of bad teaching as is often
warned. (Matt.
15:9, Matt.
23, Mark
7:7, John
9:34, Acts
4:18, 5:28,
21:28,
Romans
2:21, I
Cor. 2:13, I
Tim. 1:3, 1:7,
2:12,
6:3,
II
Tim. 4:3, Titus
1:9-16, II
Pet. 2:1, Rev.
2:20).
Bad teaching comes from bad teachers, and the teacher as well
as the teaching must be rebuked, as Christ often rebuked the Pharisees (eg. Matthew
23), or Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians
2:11-12). This only stirs up controversy if the person being rebuked
refuses to see his error. The Pharisees did not respond properly to Christ’s
open rebuke. How could they? They were lost. Peter, on the other hand,
responded well to Paul’s rebuke. He knew that Paul was speaking truth, and
Peter was following after the truth as a saved man. Either way, the point is
that rebuke is commanded (Titus
1:13). Exhortation is commanded. Judging is commanded. (I
Timothy 4:2, II
Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew
7:1-6, I
Cor. 2:15). A Christian can know the difference between truth and error,
and Christ gave us a very powerful example of that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew
7:13-29). He followed that up with the parables of the sheep/goats and wheat/tares
in Matthew
13. I John is entirely written to distinguish saved/lost. John 3 splits the
two camps into light/darkness.
Are all bad teachers lost? No. some of them are saved, but have not been
disciples properly. Consider Apollos,
to whom Aquila and Priscilla had to teach sound doctrine. Apollos endured that
teaching, a proof of his salvation. One who will not endure sound doctrine is
lost (Matthew
23, John
5:38-47, John
8:30-59, II
Timothy 3:1-10, 4:3-5,
Titus
1:9-16). These people get only one or two chances, no more, no less (Titus
3:10).
If bad teaching is not reproved and rebuked the consequences
can be disastrous. The Traditional Church actively seeks to squelch these
situations. In the fundamental setting two prominent teachers have actively
taught against reproving and rebuking. Both Paul Chappell and Jack Hyles
allow(ed) for no
criticism of their preaching. Why? What is there to hide? What is given in
defense of this ultimate, unquestioned authority? Where does this tradition
come from? What are its abuses? What is its purpose? Are there Biblical
examples of this position? The first and last questions on the list must be
taken together. Yes, there is at least one Biblical example by name mentioned
in III John, Diotrophes (III
John 9). Diotrophes wanted to be
preeminent, that is above all else, in charge. John blasted him in no uncertain
terms, and commanded the readers to follow not that which is evil. By
implication, Diotrophes and his method were evil, and should not be followed.
Christ further had many sharp rebukes against such practices in Matthew
23 and His judgment against Nicolaitainism in Revelation 2-3.
(Nicolaitainism is a hierarchical setting – simple or complex – in which one
lords over another. It is as prevalent in Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon circles as it is in Roman Catholicism). One should further
remember Paul’s comments against such man-following in I Corinthians 3. Bottom
line, following man is “carnal” at best, and deadly-wicked in reality. The tradition,
in a nutshell, is pagan, as Alexander Hislop details in his incredibly detailed
work The Two Babylons.
The head of woman is man, the head of man is not the Pastor, or the church, it
is Christ (I
Cor. 11:3). Consider the devastation. A seemingly devout man spends 30-40
years in the ministry. Hundreds to thousands come under his teaching, and
believe that man to be “God’s Man.” He is given a place high atop a pedestal.
One that is revered. He’s called Reverend, Doctor, Father, Pastor, or whatever
else (Matthew 23). He’s trusted, respected, and loved. No one would ever think
that this man is capable of teaching error (most people think this of their
pastor, other pastors teach error, but not mine, this is subjective thinking,
and very dangerous). One dark afternoon the police raid your church, and take
your pastor out in handcuffs. What’s going on? What’s happening? Who is
attacking this blessed man of God? The media hates Christians. It’s a liberal attack
against good people. Right? That illustrates much of the reactionary thought of
many, but not all. The rest of the story is soon illustrated. Pastor
molested, pastor
committed adultery, pastor
raped, Christians
involved in sexual crime…. Then there are the cover ups. ABC News
foundation rattling expose in 2011 got the ball rolling, but the issues did
not start there, they’ve
been around for some time, and will continue to plague this system, because
the system is faulty. No one dares say anything against this giant of a man of
God. Surely, he couldn’t be doing anything wrong. Right? Apparently not, there
are entire organizations
now devoted specifically to uncovering and stopping this type of stuff within,
most likely, your own church! Yes, the media has illustrated a concerted hatred
toward things of God, but it also understands that sin sells stories. In other
words, it knows what sin is, even if the church no longer does. Hurt church
members also understand what sin is, which is why they flee in large numbers
after they realized they’ve been a part of the system. In some instances, such
as Trinity Jacksonville (of which I am well acquainted), those scarred
institutions trade their former conservative positions for more liberal ideals.
They have to, or they’d lose the numbers, which is business 101 for failure.
To this point this article has been all about expose, and
pointing out problems. One must be asking, “Oh yeah, smartypants, what would
you do? Could you do any better?” Inherently, that is the wrong question, but
it is the normal question asked in situations like these. No, “I” could not do
any better, and if “I” think I could then “I” would be guilty of what “I” just
wrote against above. It’s not about me, you, I, we, etc… It’s about Christ.
Granted, that seems like a pious claim that all make, but let’s back it up with
some Biblical force.
In the second listed model, the non-traditional, there is a
plurality of elders. There is not one person running the show, there are many.
(I
Timothy 5 – elder does not equal pastor, if so, then woman, who are
mentioned as elders in the chapter could also be “pastors.”) Elder men have a
responsibility to younger men, and elder women have a responsibility to younger
women. Under no circumstance, ever, anywhere, is a pastor to, by himself, meet
and teach a woman one on one, alone. That’s the elder woman’s responsibility. The
same applies to elder women and younger men (I
Timothy 2:11-12). In a group fellowship setting, there should be someone
who keeps things decently and in order. That is detailed in I
Corinthians 12 and 14,
as well as Romans
12. That person, who is often called pastor, is to be an “ENSAMPLE”
according to I
Peter 5:1-3 (note that Elders is mentioned here in this passage). The point
is necessary, because “en” means from within, and “ex”, as in example, means
from without. The Elders are those who have become so within the body of
Christ, and have proven themselves worthy of that double honor mentioned in I
Timothy 5. (Consider also Leviticus
19:32 and Proverbs 16:31). They do not just become elders over night, but
have consistently proven that Christ is indeed working in and through them, and
has been for some time both in witnessing and discipleship.
Those elders have a responsibility to guard the flock. They
have been around. They have much more wisdom, as demonstrated by how they
handle sound doctrine, than the younger brethren. They, therefore, can spot
error much more rapidly than the younger Christian, that is not to say that the
younger Christian cannot spot error, or that he cannot point error out (I
Timothy 4:12). He certainly can, and does. If it’s truth against an elder,
however, he must be careful in how he handles the situation so as to not breed
confusion. One of main functions of an elder apart from teaching and
discipleship is keeping error out of the church. They are to reprove, rebuke,
and keep it from entering the fellowship (Ephesians
5:1-17). This is the crux of this article’s main point. The Biblical
pattern is to properly distinguish between saved and lost (Matthew
13). Once distinguished, fellowship together with Christ and believers
should be a desire, one that doesn’t need to be commanded, as it is a proof of
salvation (I
John 1:1-4). The lost are not allowed to enter the fellowship, as the Bible
commands (I
Cor. 10:20-21, II
Cor. 6:14-18, Ephesians
5:11-12). If, as happened in Corinth, someone “slips through the cracks”,
that person, under the non-traditional method, will not abide long before he is
revealed by salt and light. When found out, the fellowship has a God mandated
responsibility to swiftly deal with the issue. If the professed brother refuses
to see his error, he must be compassionately, yet sometimes forcefully told to
break fellowship (I
Corinthians 5). It is this author’s experience that churches very seldom
heed this command, and in turn believe that it is their responsibility to “reform”
that individual. They’ve missed the point, the person, if sin is not properly
repented from, is lost in sin and one heartbeat from Hell. The modern approach
does the fellowship no favors, as sin will and does eventually spread like the
leaven mentioned in I
Corinthians 5. PURGE IT OUT! Further, if the person in question is led to
believe that he is saved, and that sin is just normal, then that church is
creating a religious lost person akin to anyone in Islam, Mormonism,
Catholicism, Judaism, et. al. They all know some truth, but not the clear truth
that Christ came to die for the sins of the world, was buried, and rose again
the third day. There should be, as a clear example, a decreasing pattern of
sin, not a normal pattern. That was broken and overcome by Christ! Don’t be
afraid to point this out, it’s the greatest love that a Christian can ever have
for another person! (John
16:33, Romans
12:21, II
Peter 2:18-22, I
John 2:12-29,
I John 4:4, I
John 5:1-5).
Is this an argument stating that these problems cannot or do
not happen in the non-traditional church setting? Not at all. But it is an
argument stating that the issues plaguing the Modern system cannot, and are not
being handled scripturally. Because of that being the case, they will continue.
People will keep getting hurt, and in this age of mass communication, the
public will hear more about it than ever before. This should be a given.
Further illustration of the system’s failure is its constant creation of new
programs and outreaches to, in some way or other, fix the issues. It’s simply
become too complex, or to borrow a phrase from the political realm, “Too Big to
Fail.” Keeping in that line of thought, the System must be overhauled. It must
be built upon the only sure foundation. It must be patterned after the only
Biblical models available. It must vanish so that it Christ can once again
become visible. It must die, so that Christ may live.
For more on the non-traditional viewpoint, please, visit here, here, here, and here. If you’re
in fact wondering about how much Bible you may or may not know, take this quiz, if
you find that you don’t do well on this quiz, please, follow II
Corinthians 13:5’s admonition. I’d much rather be wrong, and one ends up in
Heaven, than be right and many end up in Hell. If you’re in the system’s trap,
please, consider this,
this, and this (The posts
entitled Satan’s Suction System as well as Do We Need Better Leaders?)
Don’t keep falling prey to this system. Break free.
Overcome!
