I
have a sermon titled "Crises in the Jerusalem Church" that I preach from
time to time. It is based on notes that I took on a sermon I heard
brother Clinton Hamilton preach many years ago. It points to several
crises faced by the first congregation of Christians ever. The purpose
of that sermon is threefold: 1) to show that even the Lord's church
under the personal guidance of the apostles had problems and 2) churches
of Christ in every generation have had problems to solve and overcome
and 3) that by studying how Jerusalem weathered its crises we can learn
to deal with the crises as they come to churches today.
A
study of church history, from its beginning until the present will
reveal that the Lord's church has never flourished for any extended
length of time without facing a serious crisis. The results of each
major crisis has been that a large segment of brethren (individuals and
congregations) have gone into apostasy. At times apostasy has been so
widespread that the New Testament church has all but disappeared from
the radar screen of recorded history for many years. Before the death of
the first generation of Christians, "the mystery of lawlessness" (2
Thess. 2:7) was already at work that led to the great apostasy
following the death of the Apostles that ultimately evolved into
Catholicism. For the most part the church of recorded history from about
the middle of the second century until the "Reformation" was that of the
apostate church. That does not necessarily mean that there were no local
churches after the New Testament order in existence during that period.
In fact, I have read over the years of some evidence that seem to
indicate that there may have been some isolated instances of such
congregations existing. I tend to believe that that may have been the
case, but they would not have been noted by secular and ecclesiastical
historians.
Whether or not that is the case there have been many successful efforts
to "restore" New Testament Christianity around the world from the time
of the "Reformation" to the present time. It is not necessary to
established historical succession back to the first century for the New
Testament church to exist today. As long as we have the "seed of the
kingdom," the word of God, we can teach and practice it anywhere in the
world and produce Christians and churches belonging to and following
Christ at any given time and place in the world. We are assured that the
word will not pass away (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet.
1:23-25)
and that the kingdom
shall never be destroyed (Dan.
2:44).
The
"Restoration Movement" in the
U.S.
that began early in the nineteenth century (although early seeds of it
date back into the eighteenth century) produced a widespread return to
the New Testament order. The "back to Bible" message spread rapidly
throughout the nation. Evangelistic fervor was high. Many believers were
baptized for the remission of their sins and local churches were started
without any denominational affiliation. The sense of brotherhood with
those of like precious faith was deep and genuine. There was again an
identifiable remnant of God's people at work. The ancient gospel message
rang loud and clear from the pulpits of local churches meeting in school
houses, under brush arbors, in private homes and in modest buildings
they had bought or built.
But,
by the middle of the century the church was in crisis again. There was a
sizable segment of the brotherhood that had come to believe that the
great work of evangelizing the world would not be accomplished without
brethren's combining their efforts and resources into some kind of
working arrangement larger than a local church. Various co-operative
arrangements began to be formed around the country into which individual
Christians and local churches pooled their moneys. This movement
ultimately evolved into a nationwide organization known as the American
Christian Missionary Society in 1849. From the beginning there were
brethren who opposed these arrangements and societies insisting that the
local church was the only scriptural functioning organization to do the
work of the church. The controversy occupied much of the attention of
brethren for the rest of the nineteenth century. Sermons were preached,
papers were published, and debates conducted about the issue. During
that period the issue over mechanical instrumental music in worship was
thrown into the mix. As had been the case in the great apostasy that
followed the death of the Apostles, a vast majority of the church went
with the innovators - leaving a remnant adhering to the ancient order.
The American Religious census of 1906 recognized the "churches of
Christ" and the "Disciples of Christ" (Christian Church) as separate
movements. After that, for the most part members of churches of Christ
looked upon the Christian Church as another Protestant denomination.
For
the most part the churches that did not go with the society/instrumental
music movement were not as affluent as those who did. Thus in the early
days of the twentieth century very few of the churches were able to
support full-time preachers to work with them. The majority of the
preachers made their living at farming or some trade during the week
preaching on Sundays and in gospel meetings barely being supported
enough to meet their expenses. Yet, hundreds were baptized and the
churches grew in leaps and bounds during the first half of the century.
It was rare for a gospel meeting to close without several being baptized
into Christ. By the end of WWII the "remnant" had grown and prospered.
Most churches in cities and towns had full-time preachers and many
country congregations had preaching every Sunday. The cause of New
Testament Christianity was on the march. There were some controversies
during this period that ultimately proved to be no more than a small
speed bump in the road. Then came the 50's and 60's and another major
crisis. It revolved around efforts once again to activate the church
universal in the form of "sponsoring church" and various institutions
designed to do the work of the church. As in past crises the "issues"
were discussed in papers, pulpits and debates until ultimately the lines
were drawn between conservative/non-institutional and the
liberal/institutional churches. As in the past, the majority of the
brethren went with the innovators and have become more and more liberal
in doctrine and practice with time. But, in spite of the dire
predictions of the more liberal brethren, the
conservative/non-institutional brethren not only survived but grew and
prospered across the nation. Hence, New Testament Christianity is still
alive and well in this country and in many places around the world.
Now
in these early years of the twentieth first century, I believe that the
church is once again in a crisis of major proportions. While I am
optimistic and confident that the church in the long term will weather
the storm and a remnant will once again persevere. However, in the short
term I am far from optimistic. I believe we have some rough waters ahead
in the immediate future that will try the faith of us all. This time the
crisis is not as focused on one or two well-defined issues, but is
caused by several seemingly unrelated matters that threaten the very
fiber of the church. Some of these matters have been around for years,
but not nearly to the degree that they are now and because they were
mostly confined to a few relatively isolated cases - but each has grown
in the number of influential advocates and practitioners of each
position. All these issues combined constitute a major crisis for the
church that in my judgment could easily fuel the need for another
"restoration movement" in many areas of the country.
1. The quality of preaching emanating from our pulpits.
Much of the preaching in our pulpits is like cotton candy - a lot of
fluff and very little nourishment. Too many gospel meetings are filled
with sermons(?) that are mostly anecdotal sprinkled lightly with
scripture to give them a mild religious flavor. Very little real Bible
teaching finds it way into the modern presentation/performance (I refuse
to call such a sermon) of some of the more popular and used preachers
among us. This is not just the subjective opinion of an old tired
preacher, I have heard the same concerns expressed by faithful gospel
preachers of all ages in recent months. There are still a goodly number
of preachers who take the Bible in hand and "preach the word." but I
fear that their tribe is decreasing rather than increasing. Churches fed
on this kind of preaching can only grow weaker in the "knowledge of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The situation is not likely to improve
as long as "the people love to have it so." (Cf. Jer. 5:31). Until
brethren in the pew rise up and say "enough already" to the leadership
that continues to invite such shallowness into the pulpits, things will
not likely improve.
2. Corporate style leadership managing churches.
One of the great needs among the churches is that of qualifying and
appointing faithful men to the eldership. I can name sizeable churches
that have operated for years without an eldership. This ought not to be.
Having said that, there is a grave problem among many of those churches
that do have elderships. The elders and the congregations they serve
view their position and work to be much like corporate boards in the
business world. This is especially true of the larger and more affluent
churches in urban areas and this mentally is fast spreading to smaller
churches in more suburban and rural areas. Often they are chosen and
appointed not because they have proven themselves capable of "ruling
their houses (families) well," and of "convicting the gainsayer," but
because they have proven themselves to be successful in the corporate
world. They approach their work as corporate managers rather that
shepherds of the flock of God. Their prime concern is to see that the
church has show-case facilities and programs that will attract the most
"customers" or "clients" possible from the community and to ensure that
a budget is maintained that will pay for those facilities, their upkeep
and future expansions. They often will look for a preacher whom they
believe will facilitate that objective. He must be charismatic with the
charisma to be a great P. R. man for the corporation, excuse me, I mean
church. When a personnel problem arises the best solution is the one
that will minimize the loss of "customer base" and revenue rather than
what the scriptures demand of shepherds who truly care for each sheep in
the flock of God over which they are supposed to be overseers. As long
as these conditions exist churches will continue to be spiritually
malnourished and ripe for every wind of doctrine that comes along.
Things will not get better until churches come to realize what real
elders are like and that their work is that of tending God's sheep and
going before them setting examples for them to follow and not bosses nor
lords demanding their subjects to blindly follow their lead.
Also, as part of the corporate mentality, elders are more concerned with
running a well oiled corporate machine than they are with watching for
the souls of those over which they have been made overseers. They are
good at drawing up corporate plans that organize and departmentalize a
maze of activities that really belong to the Christian's work as an
individual. All of this gives the appearance on paper that this church
is really on the ball and has every base covered. As a result many
congregations are top heavy with organization leaving little room for
individual initiative. Christians come to feel that in order to do the
Lord's work that they need to be assigned a place on the organizational
chart. A Methodist friend once told me that his church was so
organizationally minded that if two of their preachers were to fall out
of an airplane they would have to organize a landing committee before
they could hit the ground. Brethren seem to forget that the bulk of the
Lord's work is to be done by individual Christians as they go about
their daily lives. Again, this condition will not get much better as
long as "the people love to have it so."
3. Redefining of marriage and liberalization of divorce.
There has always been some differences of views on marriage and divorce
among brethren. Until recent years these differences were very limited
in their impact upon local churches because only a few brethren could be
found that held views differing from the overwhelming majority of
brethren. Even those who held those views differing from most brethren
did not openly push their viewpoints because there were so few divorces
in local congregations. But that has changed since divorce has become
more socially acceptable and preachers and churches have had to deal
with a huge increase in the number of divorces among members and
prospective members of local churches. All of this has given more
urgency to studying the subject and making application to situations as
they exist today. As a result many Christians, especially preachers, are
giving more time to the study of all aspects of the subject and coming
to very conflicting conclusions about the institution of marriage itself
and how a marriage can be scripturally dissolved.
Some
of these conclusions that are being openly espoused will, if widely
adopted, destroy the institution of marriage as we have known it and as
it is revealed in the scriptures. They will also open the door for
adulterous marriages within congregations. These conclusions are not
matters of individual conscience and personal practice, but matters that
strike at the very foundation of the oldest God-ordained institution and
they force local churches to decide whether or not they will fellowship
adulterous relationships.
Among these erroneous conclusions is the concept that marriage is just a
private agreement between a man and women to be husband and wife before
God and it is fast catching on with brethren. Meeting the requirements
of civil law and cultural norms is just a mere formality that really has
nothing to do with the validity of a marriage. Likewise divorce is just
a mental act before God and that civil divorce proceedings have nothing
to do with a real divorce. Then there is the conclusion that there are
multiple scriptural reasons for divorcing a spouse that is gaining
popularity in spite of the fact that Jesus said that "But I say to you
that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality
causes her to commit adultery..." (Matt.
5:32 NKJV).
If
these conclusions are not challenged and checked they will throw the
marriage institution into chaos adversely affecting the church and
society as a whole. God's marriage law is universal in scope and is for
all of human society as a whole and not just a law for Christians. We
would like to hope that those who have recently arrived at these
dangerous positions and are advising brethren based on their conclusion
will rethink their positions and consider the logical consequences and
return to the position that most brethren have held for years. That
being that marriage was ordained in the beginning for the good of the
human race and is entered into by a covenant between the parties that is
publicly ratified and recognized in a manner dictated by the society in
which the parties live and that dissolving a marriage is also a legal or
societal act based on the customs of the society in which one lives.
That does not mean every marriage or divorce authorized by a given
society meets God's approval. God's law tells us who it is that has a
right to enter into a marriage covenant to be ratified by society and
who has a right to petition society for divorce from a marriage
(Matt. 5:32;19:3-9). If the situation continues as it is now and the
number of advocates of these new positions continue to grow, I fear how
it will direly affect unity among brethren. Those who believe that such
doctrines will result in adultery will not be able to stand idly by and
let such teaching have free course. This is a real crisis.
4. The creation and proliferation of unnecessary issues.
There has never been a
shortage of things for brethren to argue over. Most of the time such
discussions are of little consequence and are localized, never rising to
the level of a "brotherhood issue." Many issues are of the nature that
brethren can agree to disagree because their application is personal
rather than congregational, nor do they cause a breach of morality or
undermine the foundation of one's faith. Such issues have been around
for years causing a minimal of strife among brethren. Most brethren
agree that such differences are not worth dividing over.
So,
it is not like we don't have enough issues to keep our argumentative
skills honed, it seems that in recent years there are those who are bent
on creating new controversies to throw into the mix to keep the polemic
pot boiling. Among these are the "tradition busters" who dream up new
and novel approaches to the church's worship and work. It is not that
they, through serious study, have found that the "traditional"
approaches need changing because they are unscriptural, but that we need
change for changes sake. They push their proposed changes upon brethren
knowing full well that they will be met with resistance from those who
happen to believe that approaches already in place are scriptural and
have proven to be expedient over the years. Even those who are clamoring
for change admit that the old approaches were not necessarily wrong but
in their judgment their new approaches are better. But are they enough
better to warrant the strife that their introduction causes?
Then
there are those projects that are launched that depend on the approval
and support of a goodly number of brethren to succeed. But, alas, a
significant number of brethren view the existence and promotion of the
said project to be at best questionable and at worst unscriptural and a
dire threat to the purity of the church. Thus the fat is in the fire and
a new major issue develops. We need to ask if all of this is necessary?
The best defense that the promoters of these projects are able to make
is that they are "authorized liberties." Then the question must be
raised is: Is clinging to an admittedly "authorized liberty" worth the
brotherhood strife its introduction has caused?
Then, on the other hand, there are some brethren who see apostasy
lurking behind every bush. Their unwarranted and ill advised objections
also create new unnecessary issues. We all need to be careful that our
oppositions are well thought out and scripturally based and not just a
product of our living in the "objective case and kickative mood."
There is hardly anything that is worth disturbing the harmony and good
will among brethren. We are going to need unity to go forward in this
new century. Nor can we afford to allow trends away from ancient order
go unchecked for the sake of peace. So, we believe that the church is
truly in a crisis that is going to require careful study of the
Scriptures and sound judgment on the part of all to weather the storm
and once again preserve a remnant bent on walking in the "old paths."
edbragwell@edssermonsandthings.com
Other Articles by Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.
Brethren With Too Many Relatives
A Leadership Crisis
How to Raise a Heartache
The
Right Baptism
The Right to Grow in the Faith