Who Hath Despised the Day of
Small Things? We Have!
Part 2
By Rick Shrader
I have been defending
the small church. I have not said that a church must be small to be spiritual or
that largeness is an evil in itself. But I have said that the small church is
the normal church; the one seen most often in the New Testament and throughout
church history. I have also implied that there seems to be a feeding frenzy on
the small churches by the church growth movement which infers that the small
church is inferior because it has not grown, and that therefore it must change
its whole way of doing things into a more “progressive” worship style or die. I
disagree that the small church needs to change in order to be accomplishing
God’s will, and I object to the view of the church growth movement that it must.
When we do this, we despise the day of small things—things that have no choice
but to trust in God’s Spirit.
We despise the suffering
Martin Luther once said, “Wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it
engenders conflict and controversy.”1 I think it is no doubt that one reason we
dislike small churches is that we are embarrassed over what people may be
thinking of us if we belong to it. Even though the church may be doing
everything to the glory and honor of our Savior, to some people that is not
enough to compensate for the disdain that the world has for things that don’t
appear to be successful. This is a kind of suffering that we just cannot bear.
Paul told the Galatians, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I
yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased (Gal 5:11). Paul
suffered persecution in Galatia because he would not intermingle his pure gospel
of grace with the legalistic gospel which included the fleshly work of
circumcision. For this refusal he suffered being stoned and left for dead. But
accepting the offense that came with the cross was of more honor to him than
men’s praises. He said, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world
(6:14) . . . . from henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the
marks of the Lord Jesus (17).
I am not proposing that the church growth movement is guilty of gospel legalism
as were the Galatian Jews, but if it is true that some allow the world’s demands
for worldliness in order to avoid their disdain, is that not the same kind of
thing? Hasn’t the offense of the cross ceased for them? It is a hard thing to
watch a visitor come into a service in which he is uncomfortable or even
antagonistic. You can tell he wishes he had not come and that he probably will
not come back. This is where we find ourselves in a battle over this kind of
cross-bearing. It may not be a bearing up under physical torture, but a bearing
up under social disdain can be an equally challenging dilemma.
The easy solution for escaping this kind of suffering is a total immersion in
“redefinition sanctification.” By redefining the long-standing terms of
worldliness, godliness, separation, et al, we are able to change our approach to
ministry, satisfy the demands of the waiting public, and still maintain a use of
the Bible’s terminology. Where separation meant a removal from sin, now it can
mean a mere attitude within the sin; where liberty in Christ meant a freedom
from sin, now it can mean a freedom to sin; where perfection meant a striving
for holiness, now it can mean a satisfaction with confession; where a weak
brother meant a backslider, now it can mean anyone who is offended by sin. Where
Fundamentalism meant an attitude of conviction about doctrine, it can now mean
an irreducible minimum of doctrine.
Even the winsome Os Guinness has observed, “But Scripture and history are also
clear: without maintaining critical tension, the principle of identification is
a recipe for compromise and capitulation. It is no accident that the charge of
being ‘all things to all people’ has become a popular synonym for compromise.”2
The biblical path is to live with the tension and realize it is the path of
Scripture, of our Lord and His Apostles.
We despise the soul-winning
This may sound odd, especially if it is true that the church growth movement has
adopted the new posture “in order to see as many people saved as possible.” But
I would say that the new posture avoids personal confrontation over the gospel
and therefore will fail rather than succeed in bringing as many people to Christ
as possible.
It is only natural that in larger churches lost people avoid personal contact
easier than in small churches. Add to this fact that many larger churches are
softening or doing away with invitations and in many cases eliminating the
preaching services where invitations were once given. I do think that the small
group concept has actually helped make personal contact with unbelievers, but
the small church is already a small group (it is the “small group concept” found
in the New Testament) and has found this personal contact easy all along.
A greater danger is in making the church a concert and performance hall where we
attract the lost but they are just faces in the crowd to us. And if the crowds
are large, who will complain that the messy business of altar work, personal
soul-winning and especially house-to-house visitation gets lost in the shuffle.
I’m not saying that it always does, but I am saying that a smaller church must
live or die by these methods of personal contact with people. Alexander Maclaren
said, “It is better for most of us to fish with the rod than with the net, to
angle for single souls, rather than to try and enclose a multitude at once.
Preaching to a congregation has its own place and value; but private and
personal talk, honestly and wisely done, will effect more than the most eloquent
preaching.”3
We have also seen “redefinition evangelism” in our day. By redefining what a
true believer is, we have done in a stroke of the pen what evangelists and
missionaries could not do for two thousand years. On a large scale, the ECT
documents4 simply took a long-standing definition of “Christian” that excluded
Catholics and drew the line differently to include them, thereby, in a single
stroke, bringing millions into the family of God. On smaller scales, I have
attended funerals for Christian saints, where known unbelievers (to me and
others) talked about faith and God and were praised for their “testimony.” In
sports and Hollywood, anyone who talks at all about God or Jesus Christ is
accepted as a true believer without further question. No doubt, by dropping all
barriers within professing Christendom (especially denominational ones) we have
opened ourselves up to this danger. And nowhere is this danger more apparent
than when numbers mean more to us than true conversions. It has become easier to
redefine them than to win them.
We despise the Spirit
Paul asked the Galatians, Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye
now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3:3). He wrote to the Philippians, For we
are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and have no confidence in
the flesh (Phil 3:3). Zechariah was criticizing the Jewish remnant precisely for
their lack of faith in God’s powerful Spirit when he said that God’s work was
not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts (Zech 4:6).
How can we deny that the modern mega church with its lights, sounds, screens,
bands, videos, and multiple programs finds it easier to lean on the arm of the
flesh for its strength and success than on the smaller church who must trust God
for provision?
Tozer wrote, “Our meetings are characterized by cordiality, humor, affability,
zeal and high animal spirits; but hardly anywhere do we find gatherings marked
by the overshadowing presence of God.”5 Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote, “Churches are
emptied in proportion to the failure of pulpit occupants to discover the
anointing of the Spirit.”6 And G. Campbell Morgan wrote, “There has been much
quenching of the Holy Spirit by service that does not wait but rushes, and by
the burning of false fires upon the altars of God. The attempt to carry on the
work of the kingdom of God by worldly means, the perpetual desecration of holy
things by alliance with things that are unholy, the pressing of mammon into the
service of God, have meant the quenching of the Spirit; for God will never allow
the Fire of the Holy Spirit to be mingled with strange fires upon His altars.”7
Have you ever noticed that the Holy Spirit’s ways are not our ways? None except
the Son of God Himself, including the Apostles, seems to be able to discern
completely how the Holy Spirit is pleased to work. Paul wanted to go to Ephesus
from Galatia on his second missionary journey but was forbidden by the Holy
Spirit (Acts 16:6). The same was true for his desire for Bithynia (16:7). But
the Holy Spirit called him to Macedonia (16:10) and he went, suffering
opposition and leaving small churches of baptized believers in every city. It
was not until his third journey that he could stay in Ephesus and plant a
church. This time the Holy Spirit blessed and did His wonderful work upon twelve
men. These twelve men, before Paul’s life was over, planted churches all over
Asia which remained until the end of the century. This was more common in New
Testament church life than Pentecostal growth found in the early chapters of
Acts.
In truth, the only safe way to follow the Spirit in ministry is to follow His
Book in detail. It is impossible for us to devise how the Spirit will work if we
depart from what He wrote through inspiration. It alone is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim
3:16-17). In a day of large things as well as small things, it is dangerous
business to despise a particular path because it seems unwise to us. God only
knows what can be accomplished if we, with His Word in our hands and His Spirit
in our hearts, are stirred (Acts 17:16), pressed (18:5), purposed (19:21), and
bound (20:22) to follow Him in church planting and soul winning.
And So . . . .
Let us not despise the day of small
things, nor the value of small churches. A hundred years ago, in the third
volume of The Fundamentals, Bishop Ryle wrote,
“This is the Church which does the
work of Christ upon earth. Its members are a little flock, and few in number,
compared with the children of this world; one or two here, and two or three
there. But these are they who shake the universe; these are they who change
the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active
workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are
the life-blood of a country, the shield, the defense, the stay and the support
of any nation to which they belong.”8
Notes:
1. Quoted by R.C. Sproul, Willing To Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997)
19.
2. Os Guinness, Dining With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) 28.
3. Quoted by A.T. Robertson, Paul and the Intellectuals (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1959) 132.
4. “Evangelical and Catholics Together” has been an attempt by Evangelicals such
as Chuck Colson to persuade us that Catholics have always been true believers.
5. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill: Christian Publishers, 1997)
30.
6. From Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr. Martyn
Lloyd-Jones (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) 37.
7. G. Cambell Morgan, Understanding the Holy Spirit (AMG Publishers, 1995) 166.
8. Bishop Ryle, “The True Church,” The Fundamentals, vol III, R.A. Torrey, A.C.
Dixon and others, eds.(Grand Rapids: Baker Book Reprint, 2000) 319.
| 
