|
I would think that anyone who values straight talk has a hard time of it during
national election years. Now, more than ever, politicians are looking for the
right buzz word or the right connection to the latest polling data which will up
his/her chances of being elected. Every sentence, even every word, is
scrutinized as to whether it will increase or decrease his/her ratings by a
percentage point! This year’s buzz word is “change.” It hardly matters what
the change is or where it would lead as long as it is change. If it unites
people and creates enthusiasm; if it appeals to the right cultural block; if it
presents the candidate as visionary and idealistic; in other words, if it just
gets votes, then this is where we must go!
Of
course, the only sensible reply to change is whether it is good or bad. And
this question, considered in a sinful world, becomes even more critical. There
is no rut so deep as the supposed need for constant change. In my reading I
have collected a few of those priceless quotes from wise men who spoke of the
futility of change for change’s sake. Here are just a few:
C.S. Lewis: “When changes in the human mind produce a sufficient disrelish of
the old Model and a sufficient hankering for some new one, phenomena to support
that new one will obediently turn up. I do not at all mean that these new
phenomena are illusory. Nature has all sorts of phenomena in stock and can suit
many different tastes.”1
G.K. Chesterton: “In the heated idleness of youth we were all rather inclined
to quarrel with the implication of that proverb which says that a rolling stone
gathers no moss. We were inclined to ask, 'Who wants to gather moss, except
silly old ladies?' But for all that we begin to perceive that the proverb is
right. The rolling stone rolls echoing from rock to rock; but the rolling stone
is dead. The moss is silent because the moss is alive.”2
Charles Spurgeon: “It is all too plainly apparent men are willing to forego the
old for the sake of the new. But commonly it is found in theology that that
which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true.”3
This
quote from Spurgeon was written during his important struggle in what he coined
The Downgrade Controversy. It is unique because we see clearly today that what
is fashionable in the world is usually followed closely by the Church. Michael
Aeschlimen, who studied the effect of liberalism on culture, observed, “But the
compulsive spirit of innovation, the lust for change and the new, which Arnold
and Newman fought in related ways in the educational realm, was a chief effect
of the intoxications of scientism, and it has continued to increase in effect in
many other areas of modern life.”4 This same thing has happened in
the modern liberalism of the American political and religious landscapes of the
twentieth century.
As we
have begun the twenty-first century, the belief in change for change’s sake in
religious matters is again reflecting the culture. This is of far greater
concern than politics because Christianity is THE revealed religion from God.
It is a body of truth that was set in propositional form by the Alpha and
Omega. We ought to expect, therefore, that Christianity in our day, more than
any other religion in the world or in history, ought to look inherently like it
did two thousand years ago. But today’s Christian leaders don’t have the
stomach for it. Our generation is demanding change in the churches and they are
getting it wholesale. Is it for the better? Ask Willow Creek’s own internal
survey. Of course, it isn’t. And, it isn’t better in our fundamental churches
either.
It
seems that almost anyone who argues for change in the church uses either
Nehemiah as a text from the Old Testament or Jesus’ parable of the new wine in
old wine skins from the New Testament. Often they will throw in the observation
that Jesus displeased the Pharisees because, unlike them, He ate with publicans
and sinners and this is something that they would never do. As Lewis noted,
when there is a hankering for change in society, sufficient phenomena will show
up to support it. So also when there is a demand for change in the church (by
those who have no intention of changing their lives themselves) sufficient
chapters and verses will turn up to support it.
The New Wine and Old Wineskins
The
account of the wineskins is an interesting picture in the gospels. It seems to
have the perfect wording for someone who is advocating doing away with old
things and bringing in the new things. It appears in the three synoptic gospels
and is always coupled with the similar picture of trying to sew a new piece of
cloth onto an old garment. In Mark’s gospel (2:18-22), both are also coupled
with the question of the attendants fasting at a wedding while the bridegroom is
absent. The contemporary use of these verses seems to be—when God gives a
visionary leader a new or fresh vision for change, or when reaching the culture
demands that new things be done in the church, these things cannot simply be
attached to the traditional way of doing things. The old things must be set
aside and the new things must be done separately from the old.
Now,
it is true perhaps that if we simply take the statements as truisms and apply
them to garments, animal skins and wedding receptions, these observations would
be correct. And, if we make general observations about connecting new and old
things in life, these same observations would often apply as well. But is this
exegesis of the passage or merely using the wording of the passage for our own
purposes? By the same method could we not preach the gospel from the poem of
Mary and her little lamb? It has all the words we need. Was there no other
purpose for Jesus saying things like this than to fill our files full of
anecdotes to be used whenever they can bolster our arguments?
Jesus
was offering Himself and His kingdom to the Jewish people (this is clearly seen
in the preceding analogy to fasting while the bridegroom is present rather than
absent). The law is being brought to an end. With the rejection of the King
and kingdom, the gospel dispensation is commencing and the law as a rule of life
is definitely over. Edersheim noted that “the new wine of the Kingdom [cannot]
be confined in the old forms. It would burst those wine-skins.”5
You cannot operate the new wine of the dispensation of grace (with the local
church being the primary agency) by keeping the old wine skin of the Mosaic
law. Dwight Pentecost wrote, “The parables clearly indicate that Christ did not
come to reform an old and worn out system but to introduce something new (cf.
Heb. 8:13).”6 This is what the analogy of the wine and wineskins is
teaching.
If the
parables are used simply to support every new thing that comes along and to do
away with every old thing that stands in the way, then the meaning of the
passage is missed and only the wording of the passage is being used for
someone’s personal agenda. If I flipped through my Bible, trying to prove that
suicide is biblical, and came up with: “Judas went and hanged himself . . . .
Go thou and do likewise . . . . What thou doest do quickly,” though I have used
biblical words, I would not have discovered the biblical teaching about
suicide.
The
further irony of using this passage to support changes in the local church is
that the church age is now 2000 years old and the local church will continue to
be God’s plan until the second coming of Christ. The local church now IS the
old wine skin, and we are not to discard it until Jesus comes and establishes
His kingdom. That is, if we transfer the meaning of this passage to our
situation today, rather than supporting changing the church, it supports
retaining the church and its doctrines and practices that are now 2000 years
old.
Nehemiah’s Building Project
I
don’t think I’ve read a book on transitioning from a traditional church to a
contemporary church without the author referring to the book of Nehemiah.
Usually, the whole book is taken from a series of lessons on Nehemiah that the
author has given to his church. Much is made of Nehemiah as a visionary who
sees the need in Jerusalem and then goes through a series of wise steps to get
the whole project done. The application usually is this: the pastor should
pray for his specific vision for change from God; he should share it with a few
people in his inner circle; he should then broaden than circle, being careful to
indoctrinate new people to his personal vision carefully so they will come on
board; he should reveal his vision to the whole congregation only after
assurance has been found that the vision will definitely be adopted. If
opposition occurs he must try to bring those people into his way of thinking,
but if he can’t, he must count the cost of losing those people for the
betterment of the whole. This is all done based on Nehemiah’s task of getting
the temple in Jerusalem rebuilt.
Of
course, we may find principles to live or work by in many passages of
Scripture. But we must be careful not to violate the meaning of the text, and
also not to be so trivial with the principle that we, again, are just using the
wording that we need. Was Nehemiah doing something new that God was showing
him? In whatever way he prayed and asked God’s help and made his decision to do
what he did, is this a direct parallel for a pastor receiving a unique vision
for his ministry (and not necessarily anyone else’s) and then going about to
change the local church? Yes, we may see wise principles of leadership but is
the book of Nehemiah a blueprint for local church polity? The irony is that
Nehemiah was not doing something new, he was rather rebuilding something old!
He was reestablishing proper Mosaic worship, something that had been destroyed
because of Israel’s disobedience for the last 500 years. We would do better to
begin printing books based on Nehemiah on how to rebuild the traditional
churches after they have been destroyed and taken into captivity by new
methodology! At least the overall intention of the book would be better served.
Eating With Publicans and Sinners
When
Levi decided to follow Jesus, he invited the Lord and many of his own friends to
a supper at his house. Among these “Publicans and sinners” Jesus carried on a
conversation that resulted in Him saying, They
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not
to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17). A common
excuse for changing to a contemporary mode of local church polity is that Jesus
reached out to sinners such as these. Since the Pharisees criticized Jesus for
eating with the sinners, they are made to represent the church members who
object and (supposedly) don’t like these “unchurched” sinners in the church.
But
can this passage be made to support such a proposition? First, Jesus usually
had to leave most houses He was invited into because He made sinners
uncomfortable—a far cry from the contemporary church auditorium. Second, it was
the lost tax collectors that heard Him, saw themselves as sinners, repented, and
changed their life-style—also a far cry from the contemporary church
auditorium. Third, it was the Pharisees, who would not see themselves as
sinners and had no intention of changing, that even Jesus did not call to
repentance. They were too self-righteous to think they needed to be changed
from what they were. Yet these are the kind that seem to be filling today’s
churches (where little or no repentance is preached). This story does not
condemn believers who changed when they were converted and have remained
changed, but rather those who think they can come to Jesus without any change in
their lives.
And So . . . .
Though
we all have equal access to the infallible Scriptures, none of us are infallible
interpreters. We all need to be challenged to see if our conclusions really
match the text.
| 
