I first started blogging back in 2009. Since then I have written over 500 posts, but many have all but been forgotten – out of sight, out of mind.
Therefore, I have gone back and picked several of my favorites from the first couple of years and listed them below. I hope you will have the time to look at a few, especially the ones specifically dealing with legalism (my pet subject).
“What to wear to church?” has consistently been the number one search entry leading people to The Recovering Legalist. What does that tell you?
If you’ve never read my thoughts on this before, this is the post all the search engines bring up. It was written back in 2010.
Clothing
Recently, I was asked to be the guest speaker at a larger, more contemporary church. Out of respect for each other, the pastor of that church and I jokingly discussed what I should wear. You see, he never wears a suit, while I almost always do. His congregation has become more “contemporary,” while my congregation remains more “traditional.” So, to make me comfortable, the pastor told me whatever I wanted to wear was fine. Therefore, I will compromise – I will probably wear a sport coat, khakis, and flip flops…not really.
The way I dress to go to church may not be the way you dress. My style may not suit your tastes, nor yours mine. But the fact of the matter is that unless you’re totally too liberal, or don’t go at all, you wear some kind of clothing to church, correct? Well, have you ever wondered if what you wear to church is appropriate?
Below are some of my thoughts on the subject.
It’s Not About You
If you are planning to attend a worship service where God is supposed to be the center of attention, don’t dress like a clown! Don’t dress like you are going to an L.A. premier of Lady Gaga’s new movie, It’s All About Me.
Some cultures believe people should come to church in clothing that could damage someone’s retina. Gettin’ “fancied up” is what’s expected. But it’s this type of clothing, in most cases, that draws attention to the congregant, not Christ. My advice is to stay away from neon suits and flashing bow ties. Church clothing should be a covering, not a calling card.
Show Some Respect
Some people think it is totally appropriate to wear enough jewelry and feathers to keep pawn shops in business and all geese naked. Others think it is completely acceptable to look like a drunk that slept in an alley all night (no offense to the drunk). Neither shows a sense of respect. The first steals God’s glory, while the second implies God’s house is no different than anywhere else.
Here’s a couple suggestions. Try going to a White House dinner looking like a hobo or a hippie from the 60’s. Receive an invitation to tea from Queen Elizabeth and show up looking like you just got out of bed and never took a shower. Unless you’re a bonafide rock star, security personnel may escort you to a private room to “get acquainted.” So then, if dignitaries of earthly kingdoms demand respect, why shouldn’t we offer it to our Heavenly King? Is God not greater than Obama? (clear throat)
Beware of Legalistic Standards
However, whatever you wear, don’t be too quick to judge another’s spiritual condition by what they wear. Only God knows the heart.
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. – Rom 14:4 KJV
Sadly, I have been around many believers who consider one style of clothing a sign of spiritual maturity, while another style a sign of spiritual waywardness. And you know what’s funny? It doesn’t matter which side of the spiritual tracks, there’s always somebody looking at another thinking, “They’re not right with God.”
Legalism cuts both ways, dear friend. For example, I have been to churches that ridiculed any woman who wears pants, or a man who never tucks in his shirt. On the other hand, I have been in congregations that blatantly condemned all dress and tie-wearers as right-wing, self-righteous, fundamentalist, nut jobs. In both cases someone judged another’s spirituality based on outward appearances, alone. In both cases one group’s set of standards were being used as a guide to what is spiritual behavior, and what is not. That’s LEGALISM!
Believe it or not, the most modern, non-denominational, praise-and-worship-style congregation can be just as legalistic as the narrow-minded traditionalist. I may not prefer to preach in blue jeans on Sunday morning, but I’m not going to condemn someone who does. Likewise, when I don’t wear a suit and tie on Sunday night, I am not going to condemn someone who dresses like he’s going to a funeral.
Context, Context, Context
Ultimately, how you dress should be determined by the context of your community. Small, rural congregations might not feel comfortable dressing for church in the same way a metropolitan First Baptist may. Similarly, churches in depressed economies may adopt different dress codes than upwardly mobile societies. The key is to be respectful, honorable, and considerate of the holy moment at hand. Whatever fits that bill is good enough.
Just keep this principle in mind: Grace accepts, Maturity develops, and Love constrains.
Don’t make appearances the only thing about which you’re concerned. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too important a message to be drowned in petty arguments about whether it is appropriate to dress up for church, or go dress-casual. Many people in the world have to worship Christ underground – literally. Dress codes are the least of their worries. Additionally, the drug addict who needs hope and help may not have any clothes left that he hasn’t already sold to get high. The single mother of five that walks into your church may have barely enough energy to survive, much less do her hair.
Do all things to the glory of the Lord, but keep things in perspective, OK?
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism [or be legalistic]. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? – Jam 2:1-5 NIV
The following piece is meant to be informative, not critical, even though I may criticize a little, and I apologize in advance for the length. All in all, I hope that it will help lead people away from unhealthy, legalistic, and abusive churches by helping them recognize “red flags.”
Not all pastors are abusive megalomaniacs. The ones that are should be called out and held accountable, for their poor witness harms not only the Church, but the world to which we are called to be witnesses.
Hissy Fit
Several months ago a video was posted on YouTube. That video shows Dr. Jim Standridge, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Skiatook, Oklahoma, publicly chastising members of his congregation.
Since its release, the video has gone viral with over 700,000 views, so far. I was made aware of this video a couple of months ago when friend on Facebook posted it to her wall and created a stir. It was originally posted on a website called Stuff Fundies Like.
Personally, I think it is a shame that something like this has been put out for all to see, for it damages the reputation of all who sincerely follow Christ. I even have problems with the website that originally made this widely available. But since it is out there and not going away, I feel it should be addressed.
Context
It is important to look at things in their proper contexts before we come to conclusions. That is why I wanted to find the video of Dr. Standridge’s entire sermon. I found it on Immanuel Baptist Church’s website and watched the entire thing, making plenty of notes.
Those commenting in defense of this video have said things like: “You shouldn’t judge a man based on this one video…we don’t know what led up to him talking this way.” In an interview with The Christian Post, even Dr. Standridge said, “…you can’t judge a man by one message.”
But is that entirely so? During the time it took to watch the hour-long sermon I noticed several “red flags” that told me this was probably not an isolated incident.
Full Sermon (see if you can spot the red flags)
NOTE: The video was taken down, so I’m glad I reviewed it when I did!
The term “red flag” is used to describe a warning sign. The following are some of the red flags I noticed while watching the full sermon preached by Dr. Standridge on May 19, 2013.
1) The need to express self-importance, along with possessiveness.
In less than two minutes into the sermon (1:13), Dr. Standridge first addresses the boy that was to fall asleep. He says: “Son, look at me – I’m the man, baby.” Later (39:23), he addresses the boy again and says: “I’m somebody…now you might do your English teacher thataway [sic], but I’m not teaching English…”
To the same boy he says, “I’m not some little hireling” (20:55). Then, at the 48:20 mark: “I don’t care…I do care, but I don’t care…It’s like that young boy right there, he don’t know who I am.”
In the infamous part where Dr. Standridge talks to Mr. Cox, the man in the video room, he says: “…you don’t care about what I want to do right…if you loved me, and you submitted to me, you’d know what my heart is and my message is…(43:00). Then, at the 47:25 mark he says: “You may be the best sound man…but that’s my sound room before it’s yours!”
Towards the end Dr. Standridge confronts a girl named Wendy (1:01:39) and plays the guilt card: “You count my life as something, well, very secondary, if anything.”
2) Belittling others.
In one hour Dr. Standridge manages to put down skateboards, comparing them to witch’s brooms (1:13; 4:39), texting (54:35-55:20), secular college education (1:01:39), the right of a mother to be upset (48:11), a woman’s needs (3:50), and a wife’s spirituality and intelligence (6:50-7:25).
3) Threats
In several places Dr. Standridge threatens to leave the church if the congregation doesn’t want to hear what he has to say. “Now if you don’t want me…”(40:50).
4) Publicly announcing church members’ faults.
What gets Dr. Standridge into so much trouble is where he calls out Mr. Cox in the sound/video room and the young couple about to get married (as seen in the YouTube clip). But where some want to say that was just an isolated incident, the reality is that he did this from the beginning to the end of the sermon!
The fact that he would say in front of the church that a young man was “one of the sorriest church members” and “not worth 15 cents” (39:50) was completely inexcusable. And, telling Angela, a young wife, that she should quit questioning her husband and start submitting to him (6:50-7:25) was completely out of line.
5) Following abuse with “You know I love you.“
It was really hard to keep track of how many times Dr. Standridge followed a stinging comment or snide remark with something like, “You know I love you, don’t you?” He said this to Mr. Cox and put him on the spot with a hug (39:50ff) right after telling him he wasn’t worth 15 cents! He even asked the poor skater boy: “Have I convinced you I love you? You better nod your head yes.” (39:23ff)
Even more, his love comments were commonly used as a justification to the congregation for his actions: “I love that boy right there” (1:13); “Now, let me tell everybody here how much I love these kids” (referring to Mr. Underwood and his bride to be). This is what abusive husbands do, not pastors.
Scripture
1 Timothy 5:20 says: “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” The only problem with using that verse to justify what Dr. Standridge did/does is that this verse was meant for elders…Pastors (vs. 18-19)! I cannot see any reason why it had to come to a point where the pastor of a church called out so many people for their supposed sins and inconsistencies.
Long before any of the people chastised by Dr. Standridge should have been publicly reprimanded, Jesus set the pattern for how to deal with church issues…privately, with one or two, then before the church.
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. “But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ “And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17 NKJV)
So much pain and embarrassment, both for the individuals involved and the church in general, could have been spared had Dr. Standridge heeded the wisdom of Solomon: “He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends.” (Proverbs 17:9 NKJV)
Final Thoughts
As I see it, Dr. Standridge should have been asked to resign after this sermon, but as with any abused wife, the congregation defends what he said. When I spoke of it to my congregation, they agreed that if I had done anything similar I would be looking for a job.
Not all pastors are like Dr. Standridge, even on a bad day; those who are should be called to the carpet (1 Timothy 5:20). Sure, we make mistakes and say things we regret, but most of us aren’t arrogant and abusive. We love our flocks to the point of laying down our own lives (John 10:11). The last thing we want to do is embarrass and shame people; we want to see them restored, edified, and molded into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).
This weekend I went with our youth pastor, Daniel Ziegenmier, to Conclave 2013, “a training conference to equip and rejuvenate your youth ministry team.” The great thing was that it was here in our home town, not across the country.
While strolling through the exhibit hall where various ministries had booths and displays, I came across this neat fake camp fire. The flame in the middle was made of a fabric that fluttered above a silent fan and colored light. From only a few feet away it looked real.
It would have been nice to have one of these back in 1984. There would be less emotional scars.
High School Play 1984
In my junior year of high school the junior/senior speech class wrote and performed a Christmas play. I had a part in everything, from acting to writing and prop design. It was the prop design that had serious flaws.
The Stage
The play was held in the auditorium of Hamill Road Baptist Church in Hixson, TN. The set took up the entire stage where the pulpit usually sat, along with most of the choir loft. It was a big production in a very nice, carpeted church.
Hamill Road had light blue carpet…really nice, comfortable, flammable carpet.
The Set
In one of the scenes the cast went Christmas caroling, so there was a set complete with houses and front doors.
Following the caroling, all the cast went to a house to sit around and talk about the Christmas story. There they drank hot chocolate as they sat around a fire place…
…a fire place in church.
The Prop
It essentially came down to 2 or 3 other guys and myself. We had to figure out how to build a fireplace that looked real enough, but didn’t actually burn wood or gas. Unfortunately, we had no prior special effects experience.
I don’t know if it was Jeff DeHart, Brian Gibson, or myself who decided it was a good idea to take a candle, lay it on its side, notch it out, and expose 3 to 4 pieces of wick. I don’t know who it was, but one of us thought that we could light a candle in front of tin foil, surround it with dry wood, and make it would look like a burning fire place.
Did you know that when you notch out a candle, pull out the wick, light it, and let it burn during a 10-minute scene that the flame would eventually burn through? Nobody told us!
The Fire
I was proud of all of us. Like true professionals, when the fire hit the carpet…that beautiful, baby-blue carpet…we were able to smack the floor with our hands to the beat of another Christmas carol. Nearly in a panic, knowing our semester grades were on the line, not to mention our eternal souls, we put the fire out with our bare hands. Our parents didn’t have a clue.
Providentially, the next to the last scene involved the death of a character and a real casket. Without going into much detail, the layer of smoke created by the fire became a special effect worthy of an Oscar! It was beautiful!
For some reason the air conditioning system didn’t come on, and the smoke spread out like a sea over the congregation. When the rented spotlight in the back came on, the exposed smoke made the congregation look like an eerie cemetery full of dressed-up headstones. I got chills.
Epilogue
Well, we got a standing ovation and an “A” for the project. Unfortunately, because the play was so well-received, we were asked to do an encore.
Recently, I was asked to be the guest speaker at a larger, more contemporary church. Out of respect for each other, the pastor of that church and I jokingly discussed what I should wear. You see, he never wears a suit, while I almost always do. His congregation has become more “contemporary,” while my congregation remains more “traditional.” So, to make me comfortable, the pastor told me whatever I wanted to wear was fine. Therefore, I will compromise – I will probably wear a sport coat, khakis, and flip flops…not really.
The way I dress to go to church may not be the way you dress. My style may not suit your tastes, nor yours mine. But the fact of the matter is that unless you’re totally too liberal, or don’t go at all, you wear some kind of clothing to church, correct? Well, have you ever wondered if what you wear to church is appropriate?
Below are some of my thoughts on the subject.
It’s Not About You
If you are planning to attend a worship service where God is supposed to be the center of attention, don’t dress like a clown! Don’t dress like you are going to an L.A. premier of Lady Gaga’s new movie, It’s All About Me.
Some cultures believe people should come to church in clothing that could damage someone’s retina. Gettin’ “fancied up” is what’s expected. But it’s this type of clothing, in most cases, that draws attention to the congregant, not Christ. My advice is to stay away from neon suits and flashing bow ties. Church clothing should be a covering, not a calling card.
Show Some Respect
Some people think it is totally appropriate to wear enough jewelry and feathers to keep pawn shops in business and all geese naked. Others think it is completely acceptable to look like a drunk that slept in an alley all night (no offense to the drunk). Neither shows a sense of respect. The first steals God’s glory, while the second implies God’s house is no different than anywhere else.
Here’s a couple suggestions. Try going to a White House dinner looking like a hobo or a hippie from the 60’s. Receive an invitation to tea from Queen Elizabeth and show up looking like you just got out of bed and never took a shower. Unless you’re a bonafide rock star, security personnel may escort you to a private room to “get acquainted.” So then, if dignitaries of earthly kingdoms demand respect, why shouldn’t we offer it to our Heavenly King? Is God not greater than Obama? (clear throat)
Beware of Legalistic Standards
However, whatever you wear, don’t be too quick to judge another’s spiritual condition by what they wear. Only God knows the heart.
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. – Rom 14:4 KJV
Sadly, I have been around many believers who consider one style of clothing a sign of spiritual maturity, while another style a sign of spiritual waywardness. And you know what’s funny? It doesn’t matter which side of the spiritual tracks, there’s always somebody looking at another thinking, “They’re not right with God.”
Legalism cuts both ways, dear friend. For example, I have been to churches that ridiculed any woman who wears pants, or a man who never tucks in his shirt. On the other hand, I have been in congregations that blatantly condemned all dress and tie-wearers as right-wing, self-righteous, fundamentalist, nut jobs. In both cases someone judged another’s spirituality based on outward appearances, alone. In both cases one group’s set of standards were being used as a guide to what is spiritual behavior, and what is not. That’s LEGALISM!
Believe it or not, the most modern, non-denominational, praise-and-worship-style congregation can be just as legalistic as the narrow-minded traditionalist. I may not prefer to preach in blue jeans on Sunday morning, but I’m not going to condemn someone who does. Likewise, when I don’t wear a suit and tie on Sunday night, I am not going to condemn someone who dresses like he’s going to a funeral.
Context, Context, Context
Ultimately, how you dress should be determined by the context of your community. Small, rural congregations might not feel comfortable dressing for church in the same way a metropolitan First Baptist may. Similarly, churches in depressed economies may adopt different dress codes than upwardly mobile societies. The key is to be respectful, honorable, and considerate of the holy moment at hand. Whatever fits that bill is good enough.
Just keep this principle in mind: Grace accepts, Maturity develops, and Love constrains.
Don’t make appearances the only thing about which you’re concerned. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too important a message to be drowned in petty arguments about whether it is appropriate to dress up for church, or go dress-casual. Many people in the world have to worship Christ underground – literally. Dress codes are the least of their worries. Additionally, the drug addict who needs hope and help may not have any clothes left that he hasn’t already sold to get high. The single mother of five that walks into your church may have barely enough energy to survive, much less do her hair.
Do all things to the glory of the Lord, but keep things in perspective, OK?
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism [or be legalistic]. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? – Jam 2:1-5 NIV
I want thank all the people in Lookout Valley who attended our annual community-wide Thanksgiving service held at Lookout Valley Baptist Church. At least seven (7) different congregations from 4-5 different denominations were represented. It was a great evening of fellowship and friendship.
Each year our community has a Thanksgiving service in which all the Christian churches are encouraged to attend and participate in some way. I guess, others in the community would be welcome, but the overall emphasis of an evening like this was to give thanks unto God, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, for all of His blessings. As believers in Christ, we have more reasons to be thankful than anyone else. Besides being blessed beyond measure by being allowed to live in a country such as ours, we have been forgiven of our sins, made heirs of the Kingdom, and have become part of a universal family of God. A Thanksgiving service like this is more like a family reunion around the dinner table of the Father.
Pastors Bill Akers and Anthony Baker (United Methodist and Southern Baptist)
This year’s speaker was Pastor Bill Akers, from Wauhatchie United Methodist Church. During his sermon he shared his testimony, gave thanks to God for sparing his life, and even gave out some peanut M&Ms. To be honest, I have never seen a Methodist preacher with so much energy. I don’t even move around as much as he does.
Last week I tried to encourage my congregation to attend the service last night. I wanted them to do the best that they could to show a spirit of familial love, which shouldn’t be too hard, considering we were all part of the same spiritual family. Jesus Christ Himself prayed that we would do no less when He prayed to His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane.
John 17:20-23 I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in Me through their message. May they all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You. May they also be one in Us, so the world may believe You sent Me. I have given them the glory You have given Me. May they be one as We are one. I am in them and You are in Me. May they be made completely one, so the world may know You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me. – HCSB
In the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays for several things, but one thing that He repeats is the desire that we all be unified in the Father and the Son. Through this unity, as Jesus prayed, the world may see the love of the Father towards Jesus, and believe on Him (vs. 21 & 23). Sadly, it would seem that so many believers in Jesus want to keep this prayer from being answered. How sad is this, and how ludicrous?
It is possible for a prayer of Jesus to be denied?
If Jesus prays, then you know His prayers get answered. As a matter of observation, the only one of the requests made in chapter 17 that has not been fulfilled is the request that we be made one. Does this mean that Jesus’ prayer will never be answered? I don’t think so, but we should really think about this seriously. What is it going to take for this prayer to be answered? Will it happen after we all reach heaven? Then what would be the point of doing it so the unbelieving world could see?
I think that it is a crying shame when certain groups cannot look past minor differences in secondary doctrines, even for just one night. There were at least two other congregations in our community that did not participate in our community service. Both were Baptist. Both were independent. Now I can understand the Church of Christ not coming. Many of them believe that the rest of us are going to hell, anyway, so why meet with us. The same thinking persists with the Adventists, also, because we’re anti-sabbatarians. But for the Baptists, you would think that just because your brother or sister in Christ uses a different Bible translation, or wears pants instead of a dress to church, one night wouldn’t be so hard; but not so. The doctrine of Separation is much, much more important than honoring the prayer of our Savior.
One day, I fear, there may come a day in this country to rival those in other countries around the world. Here, we are so spoiled and pampered that we can afford to be separate. We have the option to spend all of our money on different denominational specifics. We have all the space in the world to plant a new congregation every time we disagree with each other. We have all the freedom of speech and the freedom of time to harp more on our differences than work together to fulfill the Great Commission. If we ever wind up having to worship underground, we won’t have it so easy. Denominational monikers will become a thing of the past.
Are there differences between some of our denominations that are serious? Of course. I am not denying that we have doctrinal issues worth debating with passion. I am fully aware that there are some out there that call themselves believers in Christ, but are actually sheep in wolves’ clothing. However, aside from that, we are still a family that needs to stick together whenever we can. We have the same Father. We were washed in the same blood of the Lamb.
After all, we are going to be spending eternity together.
What is it going to take for us to make an effort to put some of our petty things aside so that a lost and dying world would see Jesus? I am just so glad that there are a few churches in Lookout Valley that love Jesus more than arguing 100% of the time over unknown tongues, eternal security, election, translations, or conventions. We can do that 90% of the time. The least we can do is give God His 10% in a tithe of brotherly love and unity.
Back to the basics…or at least one of the reasons for this blog.
My formative years were full of instruction in the ways of legalism an legalistic thought. Because of this, my view of the Body of Christ was limited. To me, if you weren’t Baptist (Independent, that is) you were probably not going to heaven. At the least, and I do mean very least, if you were not Independent Baptist, or if you used any translation of Scripture other than the King James Version, you were a liberal awaiting the chastising hand of God. I did not work well with other denominations.
Since that time, I have learned that the Christian church is not limited to Independent Baptists,
…but is comprised of many other denominations, also. Some of these denominations I have yet to even learn of, for there are so many smaller ones in other places of the country and the world. It is true that denominationalism (the tendency to seperate into various factions) has hurt the Church. The unbelieving world has used our schisms as evidence that the True Faith is not even real. Some even say that the many different, competing, and even warring denominations are proof that Christianity is nothing more than man-made. That being said, however, just because people within the Body of Christ choose to operate differently in their own context, one should not automatically assume that Christian group “A” is that much different than group “B,” at least not until the particular core elements of the faith are examined. For that matter, just because a congregation claims to be Baptist, does not mean that they hold an orthodox view of Christianity…just look at that group from out west that protests funerals (I will NOT associate with them!).
Well, in an effort to battle against the legalism and denominationalism of my past, I continue to reach across the divides to other brothers and sisters in Christ with an offer of fellowship and understanding. Does this mean that I have become Ecumenical? No, it does not. What it does mean is that I want to reunite family. I want to consolidate forces. I want to bring healing and strength back to the Army of God which needs to unite in spiritual battle (and I did say, “spiritual”). This applies even to churches within the same denomination who may fear competition (competition is not a good thing in this case).
In our community of Lookout Valley, there are several churches of various denominations. Most are very supportive of each other, but a few still maintain strict adherence to the Doctrine of Separation (see my post on this doctrine). The ones that feel freedom in Christ to participate have come together each year to hold a community Thanksgiving service. Today I met with a small room full of other pastors in order to plan for this service. Present were Baptists, Church of God, Assembly of God, United Methodist, and Presbyterian. Not an unkind word was spoken. Each shared in prayer for our community and for each other. Coffee was even provided by Troy Walliser, the pastor of Lookout Valley Baptist, who has a taste for the “foo-foo” stuff (I just had to get that in). We had a good time and look forward to worshipping together on the 23rd of this month, along with our congregations.
Why do I bring this up? I say all of this because Christians have a common Enemy. That enemy, Satan, is always in the process of uniting his forces in league against God’s church. The battle lines are drawn on many different fronts and his forces are continually amassed and reinforced, waiting for orders. The school prayer thing is just another example of a unified front. It is at this time when the true believers in Christ Jesus, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, put on the whole armor of God and come together to make a stand. The example of Nehemiah 4 is alway relevant. Our forces will never be more than Satan’s. We will always have to come to the aid of our fellow soldiers in their time of need. But just as that is true, so is it also true that where we gather to stand against an enemy attack, “the Lord our God will fight for us.”
I thank God for the pastors of Lookout Valley who know that though we may have our differences, we are still on the same side.
Last night I had the honor to participate in an event of community prayer. I was invited to speak by Shelton Brown, a student at Soddy Daisy High School. If you don’t know what happened, a whole bunch of people gathered together in the park to celebrate our right and freedom to pray, even though it was recently mandated that prayer be stopped before football games. This meeting was organized by students who decided enough was enough.
In my closing remarks (I spoke for 7 1/2 minutes) I brought up the story of Nehemiah, specifically a part in chapter 4, verse 20. Nehemiah, in response to threats from enemies intent on stopping them from rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, set people on the wall as lookouts. Being that the wall was big and spread out, and being that there were few people, Nehemiah came up with a plan. He said :
The work is great and extensive, and we are separated far from one another on the wall. Wherever you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us.”
To me, and I am just little ol’ me, there should have been a lot more people present last night. Why? A trumpet was sounded for the body of Christ to come to the aid of not only Soddy Daisy, but for all of Hamilton County. An attack on our freedoms, as both Christians and Americans, has come to our soil. Why is it that our schedules and programs and our own sections of the wall are more important than stopping the enemy somewhere else?
Last night was your typical “Wednesday night prayer meeting” night. Besides the fact that prayer is rarely the object of attention at most of these meetings, what would have been wrong with jumping in the church bus and heading to where the trumpet was sounding? Where there may have been 500+ at this event last night, there should have been 1-2000. Why were they not there? Because it was more important for local congregations to remain safe and snug in their own little sections of “the wall.” Here was a prime example of LEGALISM in action, for many did not want to participate in an event that featured speakers that weren’t of a particular denomination. Here was a prime example of LAZINESS, for it may have been difficult to get people together to go somewhere on a weeknight, especially if it wasn’t to Ryan’s or the bowling alley. Here was a prime example of DENIAL, PRIDE, and APATHY, for there were others that did not attend because they either didn’t think there’s a problem; it wasn’t their idea; or they just really didn’t care. Folks, what has been “typical” needs to be trashed.
This past Sunday I told my congregation that I would be in Soddy Daisy on Wednesday night because a trumpet had been sounded. I went to stand in the gap with my brothers and sisters that cared enough to make a public stand against the tyranny of a few over the wishes of the people. In the future, when other trumpets are sounded, I pray that the churches of our county and our country will rally together in defence of the few walls we have left in this nation that, for now, claims to be “under God.”
May our God truly fight for us, for we don’t seem to want to fight for oursleves.
…Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses. – Nehemiah 4:14
I will never forget the phone call I got from a church in Rome, GA about 14 years ago. Someone on the other end of the line was part of a search committee looking for a new pastor. They had gotten my resume and were impressed enough to give me a call. Everything was going well until they asked a very pointed question, “Bro. Anthony, does your wife have a spouse that is still living?” I responded with a cold, clinched-teeth, squinted-eye “Yes,…..ME.” Unfortunately, this would not be the last time something like that happened.
What I encountered on the telephone that day was not unusual, nor unexpected; but it hurt. You see, I had chosen to marry a woman who had been divorced, even against the wishes of our (then) pastor, who said marrying Valerie would “put the final nail in the coffin” for my ministry. However, even knowing that many disagreed, we married, anyway. I was aware of the Scripture (1 Tim. 3:2) being used, but I was also in the process of becoming free from the legalism that had bound me for so long…legalism that oozed with a self-righteousness that wanted to limit me based on another’s determination of my spirituality, not Biblical truth (and it didn’t hurt that the late Dr. Spiros Zodhiatesgave his approval).
Let me be clear about a few things…
First, I have never been divorced, so for me the whole argument of 1 Timothy 3:2 should be moot. Second, my wife was abandoned and left with no choice but to divorce (she was the innocent party), and it happened before she was a believer. Thirdly, her ex-husband remarried and divorced again before I even met her. By all accounts, both she and I were clear from any “adultery” issues. Also, I am the husband of one wife, and Scripture NEVER said “must be the husband of one wife who was the wife of one husband ever.”
What DOES Scripture say?
1 Timothy 3:2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” Also, verse 12 says, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife...” The difficulty with these verses is not what is being said, but how it is interpreted. Is Paul telling Timothy that in order to be a pastor or deacon or elder in a church, you must have only been married once? Could it be possible that Paul is even saying that a man of God MUST have a wife, because being single would disqualify one from ministry? These are things that have been debated for centuries. Some believe that a pastor or deacon or elder should have never been divorced (or married to a divorcée) . Others believe that in order to be a proper leader, one must be married. Still, many commentators believe that the proper rendering of the Greek is “one-woman man,” implying faithfulness and character over the number of wives. What the Scripture says is one thing, but as William D. Mounce put it, “The Greek gives us a range of possibilities, but our theology is going to determine our interpretation.” (http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/03/can-an-elder-be-divorced.html#comment-captcha)
I think there’s another way to look at it…
Take a look at 1 Timothy 3. Read through verse 12. The best I can figure is that there are between 16 and 17 qualifications for the bishop, and between 6 and 8 for the deacons. All of these are preceded with a literal or an implied “must be,” as in “must be blameless,” or a “must have.” How does this affect the argument that an elder must have only been married once, never remarried, or never divorced? Well, think of any great pastor that you know of. Think of any great man of God that has stood behind the pulpit and faithfully proclaimed the Word of God. Has he always been blameless? Has he always been on his best behavior? Did he ever get drunk, covet, lose his patience, or curse his wife or children in anger? Was he ever a novice, a beginner subject to pride? If so, then according to the logic of some, he should never be able to preach or lead in God’s church, for just as a man “must be the husband of one wife,” so he also must be “blameless, vigilent, sober, well-behaved, given to hospitality, patient, never greedy, and always in control of his house and children.” Do you see it? If your interpretation leads you to believe that the bishop must have only had one wife ever, then the same hermeneutic (the study of the principles of interpretation) should apply to the other “must be’s.” “Must be the husband of one wife” = never divorced. “Not a novice” = never been a beginner in the faith. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
1 Timothy 3:1-12 is in the present infinitive tense (i.e., must be / dei einai). The requirements listed are ones that describe a man of character and faithfulness, of sobriety and gravitas; not a beginner or one untried and unproven. What I see is a list of requirements that may not have always been present in a man, but should be NOW, after God has done a verifiable work in his life. In other words, the Bible says a bishop “must be,” not “must have always been,” or “must have never done.” Paul said, “and such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:11
Here’s my point…
I believe that there are plenty of men and women (especially men) that are sitting back or hiding out because someone has convinced them that they are used up and un-usable. For instance, I can think of men right now, who because of whatever reason, are divorced. Yet these men, now Christians, are sold-out, God-fearing, faithful, Spirit-filled fathers and husbands with proven testimonies and unimpeachable character. Sadly, however, because of mistakes made when they were young, unsaved, and stupid, they cannot serve as deacons, much less as pastors. On the other hand, I can think of several pastors today who were once murderers, drug dealers, fornicators, extortioners, and abusers of mankind (gay, for those of you in Rio Linda). They are accepted and given full reign as leaders in the church, but not the ones who were divorced. So, like I said in a previous post…
if the Pharisee and the Publican sat down with a pulpit committee in the average Baptist church, which one do you think they would hire?
There are so many destructive teachings that are simply corruptions of actual truth. One of those is the doctrine of separation. Practiced within the more independent and fundamental sects of Christianity, this doctrine is mainly derived from 2 Corinthians 6:17, ” Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you…” The idea is that if one group does not agree with another in all areas, then association is considered sinful, or at least liberal.
I personally believe that this has been taken way too far within the body of Christ.
A few Sundays ago I was at a church where a missionary was speaking. I really enjoyed hearing what he had to say. What disappointed me was what was on his prayer card. Listed on the back, in his statement of beliefs, was the “doctrine of separation.” However, during the message that he preached, he spoke of how it was good to be able to talk to a Charistmatic believer in Mongolia. He spoke of how it was good, in a land that so few missionaries frequented, to find anyone to talk to that was a Christian. But when it came to working together, that was a different story.
Years ago, in 1992, I was given the opportunity to travel to Romania for a month. Long story short, in order to do some first-time evangelical work in a small village, two other young guys and myself were priviledged to hire a young interpreter to help us. Actually, he was helping a Pentecostal church group rebuilding grain silos during the day. Because he was free in the evening, he helped us. He even helped us make friends with the Pentecostal group. We didn’t have services together, but we did get to have friendly contact. Ultimately, because of this unplanned cooperation (the Church of God folk paid the interpreter for us) around 80 souls came to accept Christ as their Saviour in one week.
When I got back to the U.S., thoughts crossed my mind about how Baptist missionaries could develope ways to work together with other Christian missionaries in third-world countries, especially where the work was great. Pooling local resources and manpower for mutual benefit seemed something totally logical to me; but not to BIMI, the mission agency with which I had traveled. Unlike Southern Baptist missionaries, independent Baptist missionaries have to raise their own funds to reach the field and to stay there. To me it seemed that being able to work with other Christians to accomplish like goals was a no-brainer, but not according to the doctrine of separation which BIMI held true to, as do most independent Baptists with which I have been aquainted.
The belief that Christians cannot work together, worship together, or evangelize together to reach a common desired goal is crazy. There are areas that make Baptists (of which I am) different from other denominations, and rightfully so. These differences, however, are more often than not of little eternal significance. Baptists believe in baptism by submersion, for instance, while Presbyterians normally do not. Is that worth saying that when it comes to winning the lost for Christ that we must remain separate in all things? Even if a friend of mine is a five-point Calvinist, does that mean that I can’t walk down a street with him as we both preach salvation through Jesus alone? I like what article XIV of the 2000 edition of theBaptist Faith and Message has to say on the subject:
“Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extention of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.”
When it comes to the legalists and the Pharisaical crowd that promotes separation to the extent of mutual exclusion, finger pointing and self-glorification (i.e., “I am right with God and you are not, because you don’t believe the same as me.”), maybe isolation isn’t that bad. More people than not, I truly believe, think that working together for the greater good of the Kingdom is biblical. Only a small minority of so-called “fundamentalists” within the Christian faith feel otherwise. However, the problem is not so much that we believe that working together is good as long as there is no compromise, it’s getting us to actually DO it. Let the “separatists” stay separate if they wish, but let the rest of us unite where possible to form a true Nation of Christians, the body of Christ.
Say what you will about the “herd mentality,” but it is the loners that the lions and wolves look for first. There truly is strength in unity.
I first started blogging back in 2009. Since then I have written over 500 posts, but many have all but been forgotten – out of sight, out of mind.
The Recovering Legalist 