Emergency Post

I want to draw a theme for much of what I'm going to write from Prov. 16:25. There is so much depth to this scripture, and yet I don't believe that we delve into it as much as we should.

There is a way that seems right to a man. A cursory examination of this scripture might lead one to assume that it refers to a man who is out in sin, doing whatever he want to do, but I wonder if there isn't more for us in this scripture than that. With further study it becomes evident that this man is not just reveling in sin either because of ignorance of a better way or simply because of the self gratification of a hedonistic lifestyle. "Seems right" stands out to me, and denotes that this man is trying to do the right thing; his intentions are good. He wants to do the right thing and is doing his best to determine what that is.

The problem that is described in this scripture is that this man is relying on himself to determine what is right. This scripture is describing humanism in its basest form and the arrogance that goes along with it. It is dealing with that ever so natural and universal thought: "I'm right". It is dealing with the condition of leaving God out of our lives and not recognizing His authority over us and His plan for us.

If people lived in total isolation from everyone else, this would be a minor problem at worst. However, add just one other person to the mix and the result is something formidable indeed: an opposing view. I don't care what it is over, opposing views will eventually lead to only one thing: a confrontation. Put it another way, if you have two people, you are going to have differences of opinion, and those opinions will eventually lead to a disagreement. This my friends is something I like to call human nature.

The reason we don't see more fighting than we do is because in an effort to grow beyond our own capacities, we've learned to suppress this just a bit, and have instead chosen cooperation and mutual understanding. However, all too often beneath all of our high-minded ways still lies the thought, "but I'm still right."

The arrogance that accompanies the thought "I'm right" can be summed up with the counterpart of that thought, which is "I couldn't be wrong". Arrogance is at the heart of what this scripture is dealing with, and it is arrogance that I will address today in this post. If I were to take this scripture, and rephrase it, this is how I'd do it. "When you're sure your right, you can be sure you're wrong, dead wrong."

If you are at all informed about the workings of our group then my title is probably not a mystery to you, but for those of you who are not, allow me to inform you. An emergency ministers meeting has been called in one month in Little Rock and the purpose of this meeting is a dire one indeed. It is the intention of some to determine who can be a part of the Body of Christ. If this issue wasn't such a controversial and divisive one, the thought that some element in our ministry actually believes that they are qualified to make this decision would be almost laughable (1 Cor 12:18).

Just a quick side bar right here. I've heard from some that the people today do not want to submit to the authority that God has placed in the church and that is the root of all of the problems that we are experiencing. There is an element of truth in this statement, but to state that this is the whole story couldn't be more wrong. There is another variable that needs to be factored into this problem, namely ministers overstepping their authority (1 Pet 5:3). Some of what we are seeing is a rebellious factor, but if you ignore the impact that just a few ministers who have overestimated their authority can have on a group of people, you are being somewhat naive. I say that with no doubt in my heart there still remain among us those who want to submit to a proper God-given authority. Some of the hesitancy to do so however can be explained by the perception of problems at the leadership level in our group, either corporately or in some cases locally. When there is so much turmoil and confusion, how can you not expect people to be somewhat unsure as what to do or who to trust? But I digress.

At this meeting it is the intention of some to attempt to purify our group from some of it's more liberal elements and yet the simple fact of the matter remains that no person or group of persons has the authority to determine who is or is not a part of the Body of Jesus Christ. God has amalgamated our varied elements into one special whole and His body is not the work of any one man or group of men (1 Cor 12:24). We need to wake up to the fact that we are not called to complete uniformity but instead that there are meant to be differences among us. Is the purpose of this meeting not in direct opposition to 1 Cor 12:23? Instead of distancing or disfellowshipping or whatever you want to call it, we should be seeing to the care of one another, lest there be schism (1 Cor 12:25)?

Schism, that is not a nice word, and yet it is a very real possible outcome of this "Emergency Meeting". Let me be very direct with what I am about to say. No minister has the ability to remove another from the Body of Jesus Christ, however based upon their own actions they are completely capable of removing themselves. What can happen is for a minister to be so sure that they are right that they will stray out from under the covering of the Lord. There is a way that seems right unto a man. Might this not be what is really happening here? Self-righteousness and arrogance creating such a surety of action that on their own a minister or group of ministers will head off in their own direction, trying to pull as many as they can out from under the pillar of God, only to wander aimlessly in the wilderness? I wonder.

I wonder if in fifty years my decendents won't be able to look back at this time as the time when a significant portion of our group got out from under the covering of the Lord? What will our posterity say of us? Will they say that this people was a stiff-necked and rebellious people or will they be able to say that we narrowly averted a split at this time? Will they say of us that those among us who sought to sow discord among the brethren held more sway than those among us who sought the fullness of Christ through the unity of the faith (Prov 6:19, Eph 4:13)?

Don't be fooled, right now we are headed at high speed for a split in this group and if we don't alter our course by changing our attitudes, there will be schism. It completely mystifies me that the very same people who seemingly espouse a greater unity for our group also wish to divide it (James 3:11). I ask myself, how can this be and I'm am left with only one conclusion. Those people who wish to do this are operating outside of the order of the Lord.

How can we avoid this? Paul answered this very question in 1 Cor 12:31, in the last half of this final verse of this chapter. Paul states "And yet I show you a more excellent way". This one sentence should really be the first verse of 1 Cor 13 because it serves as an often ignored preamble to this chapter whose theme is love. Charity my friends is the answer to the problems that our group is experiencing and the only alternative to a very probably split. Unfortunately, it is charity that we are sorely lacking right now, and not just within the ministry, at every level. Charity will not fail us, and yet I despair that we will be able to see it (1 Cor 13:8).

I leave you with a question and my hope. What will our leadership choose? A way that seems right unto them, or a more excellent way? Although I pray for the latter, I cannot say that I expect it. However, I will continue to hold out hope that we will forsake our own ways and will instead humble ourselves, pray for forgiveness and seek the face of the Lord. This way my friends and no other way will we see healing in our group (2 Chr 7:14).

The Local Expression

I think this post will be my last follow up to A Remnant and Consider the Sources. I believe that this post wraps up the subject well, although I'm sure that there are aspects that I haven't yet discussed, but I'm not the only person speaking so I'll leave that to someone else.

How do you define our group of people? On the whole we call ourselves the Body of Christ. I've said that we use this term much in the way that denominational churches refers to the greater organization of which they are a part, and frankly many of us do. I've also said we are a special group, and I won't rehash this here, but this remains my opinion. But really, how would you define our group?

We are the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), however it seems that we don't really have much say so in the matter (1 Cor. 12:18). Does it surprise you to think that not only is God in control, but that He takes an active role in the development of the Body of Christ? How much more that it pleases Him to set the members in His order, by His design? Why then would we attempt to dictate what is and what is not the Body of Christ? This exclusivity that some espouse which dictates that this group of people whom Paul calls the Body of Christ must be derived solely from our rank and file is hogwash. I don't doubt that people in our group help comprise the Body of Christ, but to think that no one else who bears the name Christian could ever qualify for that distinction and that instead they partake in some lesser Christianity is nothing other than a superiority complex on our part. This my friends is not only prideful in the extreme, it is also ludicrous.

When did we start subdividing Christianity anyway? When did statements like "It's our group and not some other group that is special" or "This denomination has this doctrine here wrong and that's why the can't be used by God" become part of our lives? The truth is that we are all one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Additionally, this body that we are all a part of is not a homogeneous body (1 Cor. 12:14). Instead it is a varied body, and all parts of it are important and to say that one part is more important than another or that one part of it is not valuable is wrong (1 Cor. 12:20-21). Does this not apply to everyone, or did the translators miss an "if" and some kind of qualifier when they were translating verse 31?

Some of you might have problems with me using 1 Cor. 12 to address denominational divisions because Paul is obviously dealing with the church in Corinth and not the greater amalgamation of churches that comprised Christianity in the first century. Although I think that not only this chapter but also 1 Cor. 3:4-6,9,11 can apply, I agree that 1 Cor. 12 is not addressing large organizational divisions like those that are present in contemporary Christianity. I recognize that 1 Corinthians was addressed to a local church quite clearly and this is in fact one of the points I so very much want to bring out. Although Paul is addressing the Body of Christ in this chapter, he is doing so on a strictly local level. Strangely enough, all of Paul's epistles seem to be addressed either to a local church or an individual and not to the Body of Christ at large. Why do you think this is?

Let me pose a question. Is it the members that define the Body of Christ or the Body of Christ that define the members? I know that I am getting off into philosophy here, but the issue at hand is fundamental, and a greater understanding must be built upon a firm foundation in order for it to be correct. Let's look at the phrase "building blocks" and consider it's meaning. I think this is a good thought as Jesus is called the stone that has become the head of the corner and Paul refers to himself as a master builder(Luke 20:17, 1 Cor 3:10). How does the progression go? Do I first become a Christian and then a member of the Body of Christ, or do I first become a member of the Body of Christ and then a Christian?

The Body of Christ is made up of individual Christians who gather and worship together in their local assemblies on a regular basis. This is why Paul addressed his epistles to specific churches, and not to the larger organization. I won't deny that our group is a wonderful affiliation, but you must understand that it is made up of local assemblies which in turn are made up of individuals, not the other way around. I believe that "the Body" exists much more at the local level and not so much at a larger corporate level. To believe otherwise puts the Body of Christ back on some pseudo-denominational level.

This stuff is basic and simple, but how you understand the Body of Christ will color what you see happening in our group. You see, someone who sees the Body of Christ as an organizational entity will make sacrifices on an individual level in order to save the whole. Conversely a person who is a member of a functional church that is under the covering of God will see injustice that is happening at a group level and believe that it reflects directly on their local church because they are a part of that group. You must understand that both of these examples are only relevant if you see the Body of Christ as some kind of organization. If however you see the Body of Christ as something that transcends organizations of men, it doesn't matter anymore. You see, while the leadership of an organization might have the authority to remove a person from that organization or even choose to reorganize in whatever way they see fit, no man will ever have any authority when it comes to determining the makeup of the Body of Christ. That will always remain God's prerogative. Additionally, our local churches are not called to be representatives of a larger organization on this Earth, they are called to represent Christ. The only reflection that matters to the true Body of Christ is that of Christ Himself.

Isn't it time that we stopped looking at the Body of Christ as a pseudo-denomination or any affiliation of churches and instead recognize that it is made up of individuals whom God has chosen in order to bring Him glory? Isn't it time that we stopped feigning control over things that we have no right to? Isn't it time that we who adhere to a Christ centered order actually recognize the order that Christ created?

A Remnant

In a way, this post is a follow-up to the post Consider the Sources. This subject has been on my heart for a long time, but more and more I'm noticing it on the hearts of others, so I am going to try to address some of the issues involved. To really delve into the full depths of this subject properly is probably beyond my abilities, nevertheless I will try.

It seems to me that our group is in the beginning phases of becoming a denomination. I've said before that we use the phrase "Body of Christ" in a way that is analogous to a denomination. Bro. Shaw at the meeting in DuQuoin, IL, said openly to the ministers there that he believed that our group was organizing, which he also stated he was against.

There seems to be a rash of people just waking up to the fact that our group is made up of men, organized by men and even founded by a man. We've had the better part of a century to realize this, but for some reason it seems that this realization is only culminating now. What's got me puzzled about this is why so few people have caught on to this earlier. Still the fact of the matter is that there are an increasing number of people whom I've heard from either directly or indirectly that have begun questioning our group. Moreover there are some that are looking for a better alternative to our group, or even more subtle, an eventual escape plan. I have something to say about this.

I caution anyone who is looking to leave one of our churches regardless if it is for another church in our group, another church in another group, or no church at all, be careful. Reacting to a situation is one of the ways that humans operate, but that operation is often on an instinctive level. When you touch something hot, you don't go through the mental exercise of equating the level of heat with possible burn injuries and the effects that they will have on your everyday activities and then decide to quit touching what is hot. No, you just jerk away. Instincts are good, but they are not foolproof however. In paramedic classes I learned that stab victims will instinctively try to remove the knife which often causes them to bleed out. While they are making the move that will end their life, they still feel like they are making the right decision. An instinctive reaction to a new found disillusionment of our group has the real potential of causing you more harm than good and I urge anyone to think any step that they are going to take through, considering all of the ramifications before they make any move and to not succumb to an instinctive mentality.

Still, even if you are not operating instinctively that doesn't mean that you will make a good decision. Remember you too are a man (or woman) and just because you make a decision, that does not make it right or the best decision for you. Often it seems to me that we tend to make things worse for ourselves, not better. In my opinion, people in general have an uncanny ability to make the worst possible decision for themselves. If we as a race were truly capable of making the best decisions for ourselves there would certainly be fewer unfaithful spouses, divorces, crime, bankruptcies, unwanted pregnancies, and a myriad of other things that have enormous detrimental impacts on our lives. The fact of the matter is that we never see the full picture and are not capable of making unerring decisions. We have to settle for "the best we can do", but still there is another consideration that I haven't addressed yet.

God. I don't know about you, but God placed me in the church that I am in. I've had several chances to leave, yet I know that Great Lakes Christian Church in Warren, MI, is where God put me and regardless of my own opinions and perceptions, that is where I am meant to stay and if I were to leave, I would be going against God. I know that the vast majority of us feel that we are where God put us, and do not feel the Lord moving us elsewhere. I can't express strongly enough that reacting instinctively to a revelation that our group has its problems or relying on ourselves for answers totally ignores the leading of God. Those who have just reacted and moved off may have ignored God to the point of moving out from under His covering. This is why I urge caution.

I've been directly asked on multiple occasions why I would stick with a group that isn't completely following God in the fullness that they ought and instead have made their faith about themselves. I admit that it's a valid question, but my best answer to it is another question. What other kind of group is there?

I had a brother say to me that he doubted that if Jesus himself were to come to a ministers meeting and speak that everyone there would accept what He had to say. He also seemed to have a problem with the fact that not only did I agree with him, but I told him that if this actually happened, it wouldn't be a factor to me as to whether I remained a part of this group or not. That really threw him for a loop, and maybe I wasn't being totally fair to him as it was early in the morning when I told him this and he hadn't finished his first cup of coffee quite yet, but I still stand by this. The leadership of our group is not the primary factor by which I determine whether or not to continue to be a part of this fellowship; No man is.

I hate to disappoint those who haven't come to this realization themselves yet but there is no perfect group that we can choose to associate with. To attempt to find one is an exercise in futility. Man's order is always out of order and when you are talking about a group that is made up of men and led by men, there will always be some of man's order in it, it can't be helped. All of those people who I've heard say "I'm here because I just can't find anything better" about our group don't understand that it wouldn't matter if they did find something better because finding it still wouldn't make God any better.

Let me reduce this down into its most concentrated form so you know exactly what it is I'm really saying. There were these twelve guys, you may have heard of them. Their names were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon and Judas Iscariot. These men actually had Jesus right there with them for over three years, teaching them and leading them. If I could offer you the chance to spend three years of your life to become a part of that group and to actually sit under Jesus during that time, wouldn't you do it? Seriously ask yourself would want to become the thirteenth disciple?

Before you make your decision though, let's examine the situation more closely. James and John, the sons of Zebedee were concerned about what was in it for them (Mark 10:35) and about what seats that they were to sit in (Mark 10:37). It seems to me the other ten might have been interested in playing politics too (Mark 10:41). Peter was an interesting fellow to be sure. When he walked on the water to Jesus which was proof that Jesus could and would sustain him, he still let his faith waiver (Matt 14:28-30). Judas betrayed Jesus for money (Matt 26:15). None of the disciples could manage to stay awake when Jesus asked them to pray with him (Luke 22:45). Peter physically attacked a man with a sword (John 18:12). They all scattered when Jesus was captured, and only two of them had enough courage to follow even at a distance (Luke 22:54, John 18:15). Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times (Luke 22:61), and Thomas didn't trust the other ten disciples enough to believe that Jesus has resurrected (John 20:25). These aren't the only examples of how flawed the disciples were, just some of the most well known. After this reminder, would you still trade three years of your life to join them and be counted as one of them?

I'm guessing that just maybe the last paragraph might have dissuaded a few people from wanting to associate themselves with the disciples. Consider this though. These men were hand picked by Jesus Christ himself so either Jesus was very bad when came to picking disciples or He operates on a different level than we do. Have you considered that if a group of men who were this closely associated with Jesus could be so messed up, finding a group of men that isn't messed up must be nigh impossible? So why are we spending time looking for something that doesn't exist? Let me tell you how I would answer the thirteenth disciple question. I'd jump at the opportunity to be one of them, not for the twelve men that I listed earlier, but for the chance to be with Jesus. Jesus is what's important my friends, don't ever loose sight of that.

I'm reminded of the pillars of smoke and fire in the wilderness. Let me posit a thought experiment. Let's say that the tribe of Reuben were given the chance to skip the forty years of wandering, would that tribe have come out better than the other eleven? Let's consider it from both sides. Let's say they stayed in Egypt for an extra thirty-nine years and change and left at the last minute to meet their brothers just as they crossed over into the land of milk and honey. Alternatively, let's say they took off and made it to the promised land, and when the rest of Israel caught up with them they could say "What took you so long" and they all laughed about it over kosher BBQ and big pitchers of sweet tea? In either case would the tribe of Reuben have been better off? I say no. I say that for Reuben to wander off on their own, even if they had been able to skip all of the hardship that the wilderness had to offer, would have been extremely detrimental if for no other reason that they would have taken themselves out from under the covering of God. I would also say that even though wandering through the wilderness was a punishment for Israel, the covering being manifest in their presence day and night was still a blessing. Even in reproach, God is good to His people. We can't afford to ignore that for all the turmoil and infighting that is going on in our group right now, God hasn't stopped being good to us.

Somehow however, this whole idea begs a question in my mind at least. Why would God even work through groups that are flawed? More fundamental, does He? I would go back to history for part of the answer. Historically, every group that God has ever put his covering on have managed to find their way out from under it. The nation of Israel used to exist under His covering, but eventually they were carried away and fell into apostasy. How long was the early church in existence before it became apostate, a century perhaps? That may have been how long it took for the results of apostasy to become evident, but I would suggest that the seeds were always there. What I take from history is that not only does God tolerate imperfect groups, He works through them.

God's working is not impacted by the imperfectness of the group that He is using. Put that another way, He does not require a perfect group in order to be able to operate (2 Cor 12:9). The imperfection of the group that God is working through does not in any way diminish His greatness. Friends, God is not limited by us. So when I am asked the question, "Why would you associate with an imperfect group?" my simple answer is "Because God works with and puts his covering on imperfect groups of people, they are called His children".

And yet there is still more to this subject. I was talking on the phone with my friend Steve Lewis, and he made a statement that was good, and since I'm using it, I wanted to attribute it to him. He said that he wouldn't let any man interfere with his relationship to God. He was speaking about other things, but the application to this issue is crystal clear to me. When it comes to my personal relationship with Christ, if I trust in Christ instead of a man or an organization, my faith is secure.

Let me put it this way, have you been or know anyone who has been shaken when someone prominent and respected falls away? Sure we all wonder how they let themselves slide, but if you are impacted personally to the point that your relationship with Christ is effected, then aren't you building your foundations on other than Him? Those of us who were blessed enough to attend more than a handful of Sunday school classes as a child have been exposed to the folly of this idea. I can remember singing about the wise man who built his house upon the rock and the foolish man who built his house upon the sand. You have to understand that if you build your Christianity on Christ, it will be secure because it's founded on the Rock. However anything built upon anything else is some different -ianity, built on a foundation that will, not can, fail. Storms are going to happen in each of our lives, so why would we knowingly build ourselves on a foundation that is vulnerable to storms when we could instead build on one that is impervious to storms? The question to ask yourself is if you have been "too" shaken by someone loosing out, has your faith become dependent on the wrong thing? If so, beware my friend, that faith will let you down.

The same thing goes for groups. Don't let your faith become structurally dependent on a group of people, you will be shaken. Don't let this group or any other group become your source of strength. This applies not only the group as a whole, but also to individual elements of the group (1 Cor 13:8). I don't care how good a group is, it simply can't take the place of Jesus in your life.

Up to this point I've addressed how we should handle ourselves in the situation that we are finding ourselves in. Still, I want to address our current situation for what it is, not in a hope to divert our course from becoming a denomination, but perhaps as a reminder of what we are based on in an effort to slow it down just a bit.

I want to take you back in time to one of our founding moments. William Sowders had a chance to organize with the Assemblies of God in 1914 and was actually planning to go to an organization convention when the Lord gave him a dream. In this dream he was in a hayloft and was looking down at all the animals wandering around in the muddy barn floor getting filthy. The impression that he got was that the men who were organizing in Hot Springs were the animals that were mired in filth of their own creating (not the best mental picture) and that he was to remain separate from that. This was a very good message for Bro. Sowders, but I notice one more subtle thing about the story. God was telling him to avoid organization, not how to create a perfect organization of men. There was no better organizational choice to be had in that hayloft, organization was merely to be avoided.

But avoiding organization is what we've done, isn't it? Well, we've talked about avoiding it enough that's for certain. I've spoken on this before in Order, Organized, Organization, so I won't rehash it again, but I do have a few questions to ask.

When we have a "head table" where a group of leading brethren sit, are they not the heads of our organization, at least in situ? How does this jive with Jesus being the head?

If we are starting to determine who can and cannot be a part of us, I ask you what exactly is it that we are deciding they can or cannot be a part of?

When someone lays down specific guidelines for our entire group and says "This is the way", as has been suggested that we do in our meetings, how is that inline with what Jesus said? (John 14:6)

The reason that we find ourselves where we are right now is because we have misunderstood a purpose that God has imposed on our lives. You see, we do have a commission, and that is to spread the Gospel. Mark 16:15 does not implore us to build a church organization that blankets the world. We are told to let our lights shine to a lost world, not to stay holy by shutting the world out.

We seem to have lost some of this vision. For all of our scriptural scholasticism, we've lost some of the remedial principles that define Christianity, at least as a group. I am not worried about this however because even when the dispensation during which God is using a group is over, there will remain a remnant who will keep the faith and not lose out, and sometimes that remnant, because it has had so much artifice stripped away from it, can be used by God in a greater measure than the group that it came out of if for nothing else than because of a greater willingness to be used. In every age God sustains a remnant that will stay true to Him and praise His name as it should be. One day God will call a remnant out of our group as well. Actually, we teach this, though perhaps not in exactly the fashion that I have laid out to get to this point.

I'm almost done, but before I close I want to circle around to address one final aspect of this question that needs to be addressed, and that is why I personally stay with this group. I've called this group a good group and a special group, and although that has been questioned, I stand by what I've said that this is a special group. I have a reason for believing this, and that is because I still see the covering of God on this group of people. I still see God moving in and out of our midst, and that is just not able to be said of every group of people that attaches to themselves the name of Christian. Understand though, it is for no other reason than that God's covering is on us that I call us special. It's nothing that we have done, nor is it a quality that is intrinsic to our people. It is a transitive quality that will only remain on us while we choose to remain under the covering of God. Even still, if we do eventually move out from under that covering, I believe that there will remain a remnant, and if that is where I am supposed to reside, so be it.

Finally, to those who just do not find any alternative and decide that they still must leave, I leave you with these words:

Put Jesus first, first in your life,
He is a true friend unto the end,
Just take Him with you wherever you go,
Put Jesus first in your life.

There Must Be Change

Our group is a special group, I don't question that. We have it pretty good in this fellowship of assemblies. It's not a terrible place to be as some would say, neither is it a cult as some have claimed. We are made up of the children of God, people striving to do what's right as a result of the work that Jesus has done in their lives.

To say that we are the restored church however is just not true. I think that the majority of people in this group believe that we are striving for restoration, but we're just not there yet and this is a good goal (Phil 3:12). It brings a sense of purpose to our group and yearning for more than we have today when we consider ourselves this way. I don't know anyone who believes that we are already where we need to be, have everything we need to have, and are already the restored church made manifest. Simply put, we all have a way to go to get to where God wants us.

The truth in the last two paragraphs can be summed up by saying that to get where we need to go, we will have to change. Does anyone deny this? I don't know really. Are we welcoming change? I think not. In the Des Moines meeting last year, several ministers spoke out about fearing change, being slow to change, or being cautious about changing. I realize that some change is negative, and change just for it's own sake can often be exactly that, but if we adopt a spirit of intransigence, we will miss out on the leading of the Lord.

I'm reminded of the person trying to hold sand in his hands. The tighter he bears down, the more sand slips through his fingers. We are at this phase as a group. We are trying to hold on so hard to the things that make us special, the blessings that still have are starting to just slip away. We need to be willing to change.

I'm also reminded of the children of Israel in the wilderness who were always looking back to how good things were in Egypt and never how good things were promised to be in the land of milk and honey (Numbers 11:5-6). If God is going to lead us into a full realization of a restored church, He can't do it if we are stuck defending our position, unwilling to change. Let me take that a step farther. If God is going to lead our leaders into a full realization of a restored ministry, He can't do that if they are stuck defending their position, unwilling to change either. Bro. Atwell said in a sermon way back in 1983 that if in our Christian walk we can look around and see the same issues around us that we have always seen, it's because we have stopped journeying. I don't ever want to get stuck in a position where I've stopped progressing and the only positive thought I can think is how good God used to be when I was still under His covering.

We sing a song about wanting to move when God moves if we move, but I ask everyone in our group, is that what we're doing? I submit instead that we are either waiting to move or don't really have moving on on our agenda. I want to be willing to move on with Jesus, and the only way for that to happen is for us to allow it to happen.

Brothers and Sisters, There Must Be Change.

Order, Organized, Organization

I've heard people in our group say that we don't want to be an organization for as long as I can remember. It is almost a motto or mission statement of our group that we spurn man's organization and instead we submit to God's order. There is nothing wrong with the way that we mean this, but I wonder if just saying a thing that is good is enough. I want to take a closer look at our order and see if we are following God's order or not.

First of all, I'd just like to state that the differences between how we use the words order and organized are not nearly as large as we make them seem. I wonder if for some people the whole difference between order and being organized isn't just the use of an approved word. What is it we are really talking about? Maybe a good place to start is to describe what we aren't talking about.

What we don't want is to become inflexible (Luke 5:37). I'm not sure whether that scripture is often used when speaking about order, but it is certainly applicable. You can't put new wine in old bottles as the bottles will break and be useless, and the wine will be wasted. When a group draws a line in the sand and sets themselves us as an established organization, we call that a denomination. When a group reaches this point, they have become old wine bottles, not fit for use with new wine. I'm not disparaging old wine, as Luke 5:39 says that old wine is better than new wine, but the fact of the matter remains that new wine becomes old wine, and when all that you have is old wine, after you use what you have eventually what you end up with is no wine. When these groups wine has been exhausted, these groups become empty bottles that can't be used again for anything new and they are left with the memory of how things used to be or more often they ignore it and just go on to something else that is just a carnal work. This emptiness, inflexibility and being unfit for use is what we fear.

What is our ideal when it comes to order? I've heard that we need to go back to the New Testament church order. I ask myself, is this really the answer? I want to explore the New Testament church just a bit.

Even the term New Testament Church may be a bit of a misnomer. Many churches existed during the time of the "Early Church". Paul wrote letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Colosse and Thessalonica. John lists the seven churches of Asia in as: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Rev 1:11). Acts lists the churches in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), Antioch (Acts 13:1), Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41) not to mention all the churches throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria (Acts 9:31).

To insist that these churches functioned as a unified front that should serve as an example for us two thousand years later may be a bit naive. I will admit that some of the people who made up these early churches were directly connected to Jesus as some of them knew Him while He was here and at the very least during the time of the New Testament almost everyone knew someone who did know Jesus. Still, this doesn't elevate that church above the church of today (John 20:29).

There were divisions in the early church just like there are today (1 Cor 1:12). There was sin in the early church (1 Cor 5:1). People in the early church lied (Acts 5:1-10). People abandoned the church for the world (2 Tim 4:10). If you look at the epistles as letters of correction, you can see that just about every one of these churches had problems. So why is it that we look back to these churches as a perfect ideal to live up to?

Could this possibly have something to do with a belief that life was better in the past? The belief that things were better in the "good old days" is a part of the human experience just like the belief that things will be better in the future. I'm not a sociologist, but I don't need to be to see the correlation that age has with these two beliefs. We start out leaning towards believing that everything will be better in the future and as we age we lean towards believing that everything was better in the past. Saying that things were better in the past or will be better in the future can be a coping mechanism for dealing with a less than stellar present. I wonder if there is a correlation to age among our people and whether they look back or look forward more often.

Seeing that our group both reveres the early church and the restored church that is to come, I ask myself if this isn't at least partially due to this completely natural tendency people have to revere the past and hope for the future. Furthermore, I wonder if we sometimes don't use this as an excuse for not having better order in the present because things will get better in the future, and we don't live in the past anymore.

If you think about this, you've probably heard this being said solely in reference to our group. Most likely you've heard references to how we had better order when Bro. So-and-so was still alive, either in local churches or across the entirety of our group. You've probably heard references to the "New Experience" at the campground in a way that makes you think that this was the high point of our group, even though this happened over sixty years ago and a vast majority of the people who experienced it are no longer with us. We revere our past, and I don't have a problem with this, just as long as we are objective. The same goes for when we look forward to the restored church. To look back fondly or look forward expectantly is well and good, as long as it doesn't take our eyes off of the present. An order that is only good either in the past or in the future is not a proper order for today, and because tomorrow becomes today it's not a proper order at all.

So we need an order for today. I'm not going to go into detail with exactly what I think our order should be today because I would get it wrong. What I will state is that Christ is the head of every man and man is the head of woman (1 Cor 11:3). Seeing that our churches are made up of men and women, it seems only logical to say that Christ must be the head of the church. We need to recognize Christ as our head and not any man. Does God use men? Yes. Does he need any specific man? No. Of course, I am not naive enough to think that Christ doesn't use people in the church, but at the same time I wouldn't want to implicate Christ in some of the things that men have done in the church either. Furthermore, do we need any specific man? No, otherwise no church would ever last beyond the span of that man, and it would have been their church, not Christ's. As a matter of fact, a church that has continuing problems dealing with the loss of a leader probably instilled to much confidence in that leader instead of instilling it in Christ.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the order that any church in our group currently has unless it is abusive, however, our order is far from perfect. We must realize this, and just like any ship on a long journey, when we discover that we are off course we need to make course corrections. We don't have a GPS or a sextant to chart our course, instead we have a book, the Bible. Our course corrections must be mandated from the Bible and not from a man (Prov 16:25). Furthermore, if we don't recognize the need to adapt and change, well then we have circled around to the beginning of this post and we are talking about old wine bottles again.

We need to take the order that we have right now and search out how we can make it better. We need to correct our course while at the same time never taking our sight off of Christ and we must never stop our journey. To remain exactly the same way that we are today is to stagnate and fester. Any organism that does not change is one that is dead. To deviate from a Christ-centered course is just a different manner of accomplishing the same thing. So in the end what we are left with is a simple choice. Progress or die.