Dr. Rick Shrader is the editor of Aletheia, a monthly publication which helps meet the need for a balanced conservative voice among Baptists. Aletheia includes discussion dealing with current church issues.  Visit the links above to see any Aletheia article.

The Thesis or Antithesis?

By Rick Shrader

What is a conservative/traditional person to do when people, churches and institutions he is associated with are going contemporary?  Often this is an individual’s case when one watches his own church make these changes.  You cannot enjoy the services that have become mundane and annoying; you cannot send your young people to camps, retreats or even college because they become indoctrinated in something you feel is worldly and wrong; you do not want to monetarily support programs that promote this type of ministry or force you to participate in a way which is contrary to your own convictions; and you cannot just “pay and pray” without objection which has always been the ecumenical movement’s bottom line.

From the contemporary point of view these things are said to be a matter of preference and not conviction, so they are frustrated by a conservative person’s objection to the changes.  A one-way street is fine if you happen to be going that way and it is always frustrating if someone is going the other way.  But the man who needs to go the other way has no other options than to frustrate people or find another street.  However, many of us were also becoming uncomfortable when the street was two-way because the separation factor was too thin and our conservative lane was being pushed farther and farther over to make room for the growing contemporary lane going the other way.  For most of us it has become a better option to find another street altogether.  And, of course, most contemporaries are relieved when the irritation is gone.  As this is true of many pastors it is also true of many church attenders. The feeling that their church was glad to see them go is disheartening and discouraging. 

Before you begin feeling sorry for the conservative/traditional ones who have had to find another avenue, don’t! This dilemma also opens new doors and solves many old problems.  First of all, Scripture and a man’s conscience cannot walk different paths.  The sun always shines brighter and the air always seems fresher when these two are in agreement.  Second, though oak trees may come down in a minute, planting a new one gives hope and satisfaction for the future.  Thirdly, God can choose to cleanse His church(es) in whatever way His sees fit.  Baptists and other independents are no strangers to separation, having always understood the nature of leaven.  But lastly, there is no joy like worshiping in Spirit and truth!  When you cannot sing the songs, or participate in the applause, or wave your hands and sway back and forth, or say amen to what you hear, you cannot do the most basic Christian act, and that is to worship in Spirit and in truth!  Regardless of how it came about, by staying or leaving, the restoration of Godly, reverent and satisfying worship makes all sacrifices to get there or remain there worth it!

Whereas many are (rightly) listing or pointing out the contemporary intrusion into our churches, I have decided to list some things that mark a conservative/traditional church.  I am not saying that there are not things that both conservative and contemporary churches would share, but these are the areas which many of us have decided are too important to give up and they more often describe conservative than contemporary churches.

Commentaries and Theologies

If we are to make teaching the saints Scripture the primary responsibility of the church, then studying the text itself and forming theological conclusions must be priority.  It has become a common joke that you cannot find neither commentaries nor theologies in the local Christian book store, and if you do they will be a token display.  Paul wrote to Timothy:  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee (1 Tim. 4:16).  Albert Mohler observed,

Perhaps many of us could testify of going to a church service where something was said or even printed in the bulletin to the effect that 'first we are going to have some praise and then we are going to get to preaching,' or 'first, we are going to have a time of worship and then we are going to turn to preaching.'  What do we think preaching is but the central act of Christian worship?²

Some years ago, Daniel Akin, writing in the National Liberty Journal, was critical of Willow Creek’s ministry in this area.  He wrote, “Culture rather than scripture will be discovered as the force fueling the engine, and it is at this point that church leaders and the flocks that they tend must beware.”  I appreciate those words but wonder if that hasn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy at Liberty University.  In an interview last year, David Brooks, a columnist with the New York Times, in an interview with Rick Warren, described Warren’s Purpose Driven Life as, “a lightening of religion, certainly a walking-away from the old Jonathan Edwards trembling before an angry God.  It’s certainly more happy, more upbeat, more optimistic.”⁴

We might evaluate how we’re doing in this area of Biblical and doctrinal instruction by counting the hours we spend actually in the Text and its related books, as opposed to the hours we spend preparing materials, creating environments and doing technical preparations.  Though I utilize Power Point (at least it’s easier than an overhead projector) when appropriate, I resist the time involved in preparing the screen rather than preparing my head and heart with the Text.  Going to the classroom with all the technical bells and whistles is no substitute for the cognitive understanding of chapter and verses and their subsequent doctrines, confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Names and Familiar Objects

One of the most common symbols of the contemporary church is to have no symbols.  That is, the polls and surveys have led them to do away with denominational names, buildings and auditoriums that look like a church, pulpits and church-like furniture, and even the word “church” itself.  It is more common today for a person to walk into a business-looking building, with a theater-looking auditorium, with casual-looking people (including the pastor), with culturally-looking objects, all saturated with worldly-sounding music.  We’ve become more afraid of what the world thinks than what God thinks.

In an Atlantic Monthly interview, Leith Anderson, of Wooddale Baptist Church in Minneapolis, gave the reason for dropping the name Baptist if they relocated, “Putting ‘Baptist’ in a name is to the unchurched about the surest turnoff there is . . . . One Midwestern Episcopal rector I met [said] ‘Denominations as we know them are a historical anomaly . . . The very large churches are becoming the new dioceses.’”⁵ 

I believe denominational names, as well as church related décor is a plus to teaching as well as evangelism.  A sinner must begin to learn of his own sinfulness somehow.  So why should we remove those things that make him think of God, church or other Scriptural things?  It seems the contemporary calculation is that creating immediate good feelings is more advantageous than immediate conviction.  Where they may see these names and symbols as hindrances, I see them as advantages because they break the ice, open the conversation and begin the thinking process. 

Paul was concerned that Timothy would behave himself properly in the church because it is the pillar and ground of the truth and portrays the mystery of godliness by which people believe (1 Tim. 3:15-16).  Retaining the names and symbols of our conservative churches is not just a matter of stubbornness or traditionalism, it is a thinking that believes it is better to put things up front rather than in a stealth fashion; that it is better to confess than to hide one’s faith; and that the best thing that can happen to the sinner is to see and experience what believers do in church.  Beside all of this, those of us who retain the traditional forms of church feel a strong connection to our history and feel it is imperative that we pass that on to our children.  In the contemporary mode, we are seeing hundreds of years of testimony cut off like a fishing line and it will not easily be replaced.  When this experiment has run its course it will be too late to say “oops, I guess we shouldn’t have done that.”

Separation and Protection

Of the many areas of conservative/traditional Christianity that are being attacked today, the only area that receives more vitriol is Fundamentalism (but that’s for another issue).  The doctrine of separation is being reviewed, rewritten, repulsed and replaced.  Personal separation (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 5:7-11; et al.) is now, at best, only on the inside, in the mind and heart.  Nothing on the outside looks different than the world.  Ecclesiastical separation (2 Jn. 10; 2 Thes. 3:6, 14; et al.) has been so realigned or totally discarded that even our fathers and grandfathers in the faith can’t recognize it.  But both areas of separation are in the Bible and are important though unpopular.  They also protect families and the church.  The Purpose Driven phenomenon will bring conflicting doctrinal positions together by making other issues the focus.  Warren said, “I think that’s how evangelicals and Catholics can get together.  And I don’t know if you know this or not, but fundamentalists and Pentecostals don’t like each other, okay?  They don’t.  But they could get together.  ‘In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.’”⁶

My mail box is full of advertisements to Christian rock concerts, dances and various contemporary things to make sure the young people in the church don’t feel ostracized or different from their lost peers.  But this is not protection, it is accommodation, and it is spiritually dangerous for our kids.  Every pastor feels the undertow of young people who would hold the church hostage to these things if they could.  They can make life so miserable for conservative parents that they are forced to change to a contemporary church.  The only way a church can justify this is to redefine separation completely, dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator with the world.  Then it can be stated that the doctrine is the same, only the methods have changed (but ask Moses about striking the rock, or Uzzah about holding the ark). 

Our churches must not abrogate the responsibility to train and discipline our own children.  It is part of our heritage for which all other generations have made sacrifices.  Leonard Verduin, in his classic book on Reformation history described what would take place when some of our forefathers were brought to trial for their faith.

When certain people were being investigated for suspected Anabaptist leanings, this testimony was offered:  ‘Because their children are being so carefully and devoutly reared and because they do not have the practice of cursing and swearing, therefore they are suspected of being Anabaptists.’⁷

Spurgeon asked, “When fathers are tongue-tied religiously with their offspring, need they wonder if their children's hearts remain sin-tied?”⁸

  —To Be Continued—

Notes:

1. Distributed by Southwest Radio Ministries, www.swrc.com

2. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “The Primacy of Preaching,” Feed My Sheep, Don Kistler, ed. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002) 6.

3. Daniel L. Akin, “Willow Creek Community Church: Driven by Culture or the Scriptures?”  National Liberty Journal.  1996.

4. Pew Forum’s biannual Faith Angle conference in Key West, Fl., May 2005.

5. Charles Trueheart, “The Next Church,” Atlantic Monthly, August, 1996, p. 57.

6. Pew Forum.

7. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1964) 108.

8. C.H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. ii (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978) 333.

Eutychus and His Kin

by Debra Conley

The illustration is never as good as the imagination. We’ve all seen a picture, photo, play, or film that illustrates a prized work of literature and been quite disappointed in the actual portrayal of the scene or the character. Our God-given imagination far outplays the human ability to portray it. I think this is one reason faith is such an important part of reading the Scripture. Each of us has his own desire for what is perfect and precious. A former pastor of mine used to tell of his dreams of Heaven which included massive fields of strawberries. We’ve all pictured our mansion in glory in our imaginations. Mine has a huge veranda covered with gorgeous flowers that never fade, wilt, or die. And there’s no Georgia red clay in the soil!

But my original premise that the imagination is far better than any illustration is my point. Readers in younger grades have oodles of pictures on every page, but when they arrive at the upper grades, the reading includes few illustrations. I think there may be some overkill in the younger readers rather than a lack of edutainment (my word, not in Webster’s) in the upper level reading. I’m not opposed to pictures or photos. I actually think history books ought to contain more actual photos, maps, etc., for the sake of factual portrayal. However, when reading, especially fiction, the imagination is the best! Think about a favorite book of yours and what kind of images you conjured as you read the descriptive passages. Did you later see pictures or a play about that book and experience some disillusion over the scenes? You probably did. I’ll never forget being captivated by a commercial about romance with a handsome prince (I thought I had married the only one!). My mind immediately created a million images. Then the representation appeared on the screen: a horribly unkempt male with the curb appeal of a hairy frog. It was a margarine commercial! I’ll never be able to buy that brand, but every time I need a good example of something disgusting, I refer to the “Butter Boy.” I’ll keep the Prince I have, thank you.

Keep the imagination alive and active, rather than providing your students every image. Let your students read a passage of the Bible and then illustrate it themselves by drawing a picture of what they imagine. After they finish, ask them if they were able to draw a picture that was as good as what they imagined. Compare pictures throughout the class in order to see how varied our minds can be. Describe a passage of a book with words and then try to draw what your mind envisions. Let’s make more use of imagination.

The Bookshelf

The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament

By F.F. Bruce

(This is a guest review by Doug Kutilek which also appears in his online paper “As I See It”)

                 In this small but excellent book, we have the substance of 5 lectures delivered by the late acclaimed Pauline scholar F. F. Bruce in 1958 at Calvin College.  The theme of these lectures is the Apostolic “defense” or “apologetic” of the Gospel when it was confronted with various objections and hostile belief systems.  Bruce traces the method of the Apostles, especially but not exclusively Paul.  When the Gospel message encountered objections from traditional Judaism, the chief appeal was to the testimony of fulfilled prophecy and miracles.  When paganism was encountered, often appeal was made to Divine providence and the testimony of nature and history.  When Roman political  authority was the adversary, the falsity of charges of anarchy and rebellion against Jesus and the apostles were appealed to, and the fact that Christianity makes for a better and law-abiding citizenry.  And when various pseudo-“Christianities” were faced, appeal was made to the true facts of the Gospel.  Among these false “Christianities” were Judaizing legalism (which sought to pervert the message of salvation away from “sola gratia” to a combination of faith and conformity to Jewish traditions); Gnosticism (which presumed that matter was evil), in its ascetic form which severely deprived the body, its antinomian kind which cast off all moral and carnal restraint; and docetism, which denied the reality of Jesus’ humanity, birth and death.  The Apostles did not hesitate to proclaim the absolute truthfulness of the Gospel and its absolute finality as God’s revelation of Himself to man.

  The analysis of Paul’s message in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) is especially good (pp. 37-47) and was by itself worth the reading of the whole book just to discover this excellent presentation.  The only comparable treatment I know of is that by A. T. Robertson, “Paul in the Center of Greek Culture,” chapter XII in Paul the Interpreter of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976 reprint), pp. 141-155.

  This is a most excellent brief book, and worth seeking out.

Scotland's Battles for Spiritual Independence

By Hector MacPherson

     This history of the Church of Scotland includes John Knox’s battle for independence from Rome and his part in the  Reformation; the Covenanters who established an independent General Assembly within Presbyterianism; and the Evangelical revival of the Haldane brothers in Edinburgh, as well as Thomas McCrie and Thomas Chalmers.  The Presbyterian Church of Scotland still sees itself as independent from civil authority, yet for all practical purposes it is the controlling religious body of the country.  This history does not include the later Baptists nor most of the twentieth century.