|
This is the third article in a series having to do with a
comparison between conservative and contemporary churches. Labels are
often unfortunate because contemporary churches may also call themselves
fundamental or conservative in certain ways. They usually mean that
they are conservative in their list of “doctrinal” beliefs although
other beliefs about biblical practices have changed. Those that call
themselves “conservative” may also include a number of beliefs and/or
practices such as dress codes, Bible versions and particular doctrines.
My purpose has been to describe those differences that affect the
appearance and practice of the church, especially its public worship
service. It has been my contention that doctrine and application must go
hand in hand, and that methodologies must be an outgrowth of basic
doctrinal beliefs. Our church services and practices are the most
important (and most visible) declaration of our belief system. The list
I have made is what one would probably find in a “conservative,
traditional (small “t”), non-contemporary, Baptist church. Few things
find 100% consistency.
Pastors and
Deacons
Conservative churches make use of the Biblical officers of the church as
given in Paul’s epistles (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). Baptist churches
usually have the two offices of pastor and deacons. There may be
multiple pastors on staff but there is usually a senior pastor/teacher
whom the congregation has called to be their pastor. I do not discount
conservative churches who use an elder system as not being
conservative. That is a point of church polity, but for my part I
believe that there are only two “offices” and not three. My point here
is that conservative churches use and rely on the offices and officers
that the New Testament describes and they will be visible in the
operation of the church.
Conservative churches find no place for ordaining women to the Christian
ministry. There are no such examples in the New Testament (though some
prophesied, this was a miraculous gift for the apostolic days which has
not continued) and there are no qualifications given for women in
ministry. That having been said, conservative churches have always
found many places of service for women (though not teaching of adult
men) in various important church ministries. A conservative church
makes the New Testament its basis for belief and practice, and does not
place current political correctness above Scriptural example.
Therefore, neither should a church place a novice in office nor a man
who is practicing immorality or who is unspiritual according to the
apostle’s qualifications. Between 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul gives
twenty seven separate qualification characteristics for pastors alone!
I have written often (already in this short series) about the tragedy of
placing young people in leadership positions while at the same time
pushing the elder saints out. Often it’s not that immature young people
hold the office of pastor or deacon (but often enough!) but that they
are virtually controlling the operation of the church from the sound
board and video equipment to the praise band and the platform (I should
say “stage”). It is not unusual for the pastor of the contemporary
church to not even come near the platform for thirty or forty minutes
until the young people have finished their performances. After their
exit, the pastor may proceed with whatever it is that he has planned.
A key difference in conservative churches is that they
believe the mature saints minister in the core functions of the church.
Mega churches are constantly looking for a way to have “small group”
ministries because they realize that is the basic New Testament
concept. The fact is, the local church, with its officers IS the small
group concept in the New Testament. Other than the Jerusalem church
(which unfortunately will never have an equal in today’s mega churches),
these local churches were fairly small congregations which operated in
the manner the pastoral epistles describe. The pastor/teacher(s) and
deacons were busy caring for and feeding the flock of God.
I grew up in a “mega” church of the sixties and seventies. It was
listed as one of the ten largest Sunday Schools in the nation at that
time. But the size was no guarantee that real ministry took place. I
do think that those large churches were not so concerned with “seeker
sensitiveness” as the large churches today, but more with pure
evangelism and outreach (of which I am a product). Regardless of how
individual congregations may grow due to circumstances and gifted
leaders, large churches will never be the norm nor should they be. Nor
should young people seeking ministry lower their view of pure ministry
by seeking positions there. How much better and more fulfilling is the
average sized congregation to the minister whose heart is prepared to
serve God’s people and reach out into his local community! There is
good reason for those Biblical admonitions to be humbled in ministry
rather than exalted.
Conservative churches differ from mega churches in their basic
operational mode. It is common today to read or hear criticisms of the
smaller churches because they have not adopted the necessary “apparatus”
for growth. Our desire for church growth has led us into all kinds of
worldly methodologies (after all, what is it that lost people are really
“seeking” anyway?) just to make the ministry bigger and better. I
wonder if these same people go out in their garden and grab the small
plants by the stem and begin to pull them and stretch them into larger
plants? Natural growth will only take place by leaving your hands off
the plant itself and paying attention to the mundane jobs around the
plant. History has told us too late that largeness does not mean
converted people. If all the “converts” in the city of Chicago from D.L.
Moody to Jack Hyles were true converts, the city would have become
Christian three times over! It is also too late for history to tell
whether having ten churches of a hundred each would have been better
than one church of a thousand, or whether having ten churches of five
hundred would have been better than one church of five thousand. No one
wants to place human limits on those things.
I have read criticism of smaller churches for being “hub and spoke” type
of churches. These type of churches (it is said) will never grow
because they have a mentality where all the church is connected (the
“spoke”) to the leadership (the “hub”) in some necessary way. The only
way for growth (they say) is to adopt the leadership style of the world
(which is in my opinion the “purpose driven” style) of having CEOs and
pyramid flow charts. But is the New Testament our authority for faith
AND practice or not? Are the Biblical offices of pastor and deacons
supposed to minister to the people God has placed under their care or
not? If so, the “hub and spoke” picture is a Biblical picture! Why
can’t we be satisfied with it? Because it will not bring us fame and
fortune!
I’m not saying that all New Testament churches will be the same size.
There are many circumstances that go into the make-up of a church such
as the abilities and gifts of the pastor and deacons to minister in that
church, or perhaps the church is located in an area that is hardened to
the gospel. The size means nothing but the Biblical functioning of the
body means everything. When the church is too large for that man to
dispense his sacred office well, it may divide. If it levels off at the
level of the pastor’s giftedness, that is God’s enabling business. A
man of God will be held accountable for his care of God’s sheep!
Perhaps if we had done this for the last hundred years, there would be
more churches, more converts and a greater testimony in our country for
Christ.
Manners and
Decorum
Manners is no more than self-government. To the degree that an
individual, a family, a church or a nation loses its manners, anarchy or
totalitarianism takes over. The Bible admonishes us to personal and
corporate manners because God has displayed divine manners on our
behalf.
Paul told the Corinthians, Be not
deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to
righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I
speak this to your shame (1 Cor. 15:33-34). We are plagued today
with a lack of respect for our sinful nature. We do not understand or
estimate what our old nature will do in our lives when it is left
unchecked or even encouraged. Even when it comes to the treatment of
our bodies, Paul wrote, And those
members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we
bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant
comeliness (1 Cor. 12:23). Those parts of our bodies that ought
to be covered should receive that help from us. This “given” is used as
an illustration for the church body. But where these “manners” are
corrupted, the whole body suffers.
The writer of Hebrews beautifully paints the picture of divine manners.
For it became him, for whom are all
things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to
make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering (Heb.
2:10). It was “becoming” of God to allow Jesus to suffer for
us. Wherefore in all things it
behooved him to be made like unto his brethren (vs 17). Jesus
took upon Himself these divine manners to become a faithful High Priest
for us. For such an high priest became
us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made
higher than the heavens” (7:26). It was “fitting” that Jesus
would become such an Holy Priest for our sakes.
Paul told Titus, But speak thou the
things which become sound doctrine (Tit.2:1). I fear we think
this means that anything we speak becomes sound doctrine. Rather, Paul
is saying that what we speak ought to be “fitting” or “becoming” of
sound doctrine. If God has displayed such divine manners on our behalf,
surely we can display manners that are equal in deportment to our very
doctrine!
Symbolisms teach. We are willingly ignorant to think that Americans are
not pagans because our body markings and piercings have now become
stylish. Our churches are following closely as we watch manners
disappearing from our services and families. It seems to be too much of
an inconvenience on parents to discipline or say “no” to their
children. How selfish! We are willingly sacrificing our children and
our churches for our own comfort. The family that is truly happy is
the one which practices more manners at home, not less. Why should we
be polite when strangers come into our home and act like pagans around
the ones we love the most? At home, by ourselves, with our spouse and
children is the time for the most careful self-government. One
television advertisement for finding one’s mate keeps using the
testimony that “you can be yourself; you don’t have to change at all;
you can find a mate that will let you be whatever you want to be.” The
truth is, such a relationship is headed for failure because there is no
mannerly self-control from the beginning which says, “I will discipline
myself for her sake because it is the right thing to do, and it will
make me a better person besides!”
Churches ought not advertise that we can come to church and be
ourselves; we will never have to change; God will be satisfied with us
just the way we are. Conservative churches that believe in the sinful
(unmannered) nature of man and the life-changing power of God, should be
acknowledging every good thing which is
in you in Christ Jesus (Phile. 6). Rather than adulterating the
Word of God, we ought to, by the
manifestation of the truth, [be] commending ourselves to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).
And so . . .
My purpose has been to encourage the conservative, traditional churches
to keep on doing what is right. Comparisons to “successful” ministries
mean absolutely nothing before God. The Word of God is our only
measuring stick for success in ministry, and the Bema Seat of Christ
will be the only proper evaluation for how we have done. We will do
more for the cause of Christ by doing it His way, whether we can see all
the details or not.
|
