Church Voices

This article was written over 50 years ago and the truth of it still applies today.

Every major denomination that comes to mind hires almost exclusively from the colleges that were founded to serve their respective denominations. This has a lot of obvious advantages. After all, a minister is far more effective if he has actually been trained in theology, homeletics, history, and other academic subjects. Any church that has the option between a minister who has gone through seminary or a minister with no seminary training is going to select the one with training. Not only that but it is advantageous to the church at large to have educated men representing her to the world.

However, there is a danger in this. It makes it quite easy for apostasy to become orthodoxy. The Restoration Movement has approximately 6 million members. It doesn’t take convincing all 6 million members that a heresy is correct, it only takes convincing a few dozen people at a couple of colleges, and these people will then begin churning out ministers who will spread the heresy to the faithful. This happened once before to the Restoration Movement (and to other denominations) in the early 1900s. But why read my words when you can read Dr. Foster’s?

It was keen strategy for the radicals to strike first at the colleges to capture the source of supply for the pulpits. Churches which have no means of training future leadership, are doomed. The downfall of the colleges is a pathetic record. Swift and terrifying was the change that swept the colleges into the hands of infidels. It was all accomplished practically within the first two decades of this century. Trusting brethren were easy victims of the practiced deceit of the modernists. The old ruse of the Trojan horse was worked again with ridiculous ease: shining doctors of philosophy suddenly appeared without the college walls and were promptly hauled in by unsuspecting brethren who did not realize the German rationalism on the inside or the fearful carnage that would ensue with the fall of darkness.

The end result of all this was the foundation of Cincinnati Bible College in 1929. The apostasy in Restoration colleges had become so untenable that it necesitated the foundation of a new college in order to produce faithful ministers. And through the grace of God for the last 70 years it has done so. But that history doesn’t mean it will continue to do so.

There are no external checks on the teaching or the type of teachers in our colleges and seminaries. The hiring is done from within, as is the curriculum (with of course the appropriate guidance from accrediting bodies). What’s to prevent our colleges from being turned into apostate bodies yet again? Obviously the faithfulness of the past is no guarantee of continued faithfulness in the future (I think that’s a major point in the Old Testament). Is it even possible to put checks into place on our colleges?

Of course what this comes down to is a trust in God. It may be that someday the Restoration Movement abandons the gospel entirely. That will hardly be the end of the gospel. One day it may be the son of Stephen Chikwati (a missionary my church supports) will himself be a missionary to the godless heathens in America.

Of course, if this ever is the end result never let it be said that the faithful didn’t go down swinging.

Evangelical Oupost will be running a Christian blog awards contest. If you’re at all interested check it out.

Lashawn Barber renders some excellent advice:

Contrary to smooth Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and his supporters, who made the nonsensical claim that a man’s personal life is separate from his professional/political life, a person is who he is in all areas of his life. Unfaithfulness is a character flaw, and that flaw affects the whole man, not just the “personal” one.

As an aside, here’s a little advice for women in the audience. If you’re seeing a married man and he leaves his wife for you, it has little to do with you, despite what he says. While you’re feeling special and better than she, understand that one day he’ll probably do the same thing to you. Your man’s low character will manifest itself again when the next pretty young thing crosses his path. So don’t act surprised when he serves you divorce papers — if he marries you, that is — at the most inopportune moment.

No matter what particular gender you happen to fall into this is an excellent observation. The character of the person you marry will affect every facet of his or her life. If that person has negative traits while you’re dating they will have them when you’re married. If that person treats others badly, eventually, they will treat you badly.

I urge everyone who isn’t yet married to consider this piece of wisdom very carefully because if you choose poorly then there’s a lot of heartache coming your way, heartache that could have been avoided.

As long as I’m rendering marriage advice (or should I say stealing Lashawn’s marriage advice) let me just comment very quickly on the topic of money. Fiscal responsiblity goes a long way towards making a happy marriage. Make sure that your future spouse is on the same page as you when it comes to money, because if one spouse is trying to be fiscally responsible and one is not, chances are that there’s a divorce coming down the road. If you only talk about one issue in marriage counseling make it about money (obviously you should be talking about more than one issue, but you see my point).

This Sunday morning in class, (exposing my slight aversion in referring to it as “Sunday school”) we talked a lot about death, dying, and the intrigue of one’s last words. With a healthy suggestion of charismatic postmortem insights, it brought me back to something I had written not too long ago in the midst of my depression, geared toward the same topic.

Having thought much into the deep fissures of death, the concept still eludes me at times. But, given the reassurance of life from the One who “gives it more abundantly” through Himself, after having conquered death, it has altogether become an even more fascinating meditation; one that excites in me a compelling desire to speak God’s truths.

I’ve made use of this meditation by revising an old journal entry I wrote on July 12, 2004. The revision turned out with shocking and cool contrast between the assurance of faith and the lewdness of skepticism. To illustrate the differences, I’ve paired the two juxtapose with italicized words in the revised version in which the main contrast is focused. The premise is obviously built off of Descartes’ famous presuppositional punch line from Discourse on Method, “I think, therefore I am,” classical reference. Anyway, I just thought that was worth making mark of this day’s philosophizing.

Written July 12, 2004:

If I were to commit suicide, my last words on a bloodstained shard of paper would say this:

It is said, “I think, therefore I am.” But I say to you, “I am, therefore I love.” And because I love, I’ve critically made the choice to take my life due to the improbability of finding love within it. I’m venturing into a world where I’ll either find the love in which I so desperately yearn, or not. These odds far surpass those of that in this world. As you read this, know that I’ll either have found something new or lost something old. Regardless, I think, therefore I am. I am, therefore I love. I love, therefore I seek.

Revised January 16, 2005:

When I am to die, my last words written on a carefully folded note found hidden behind the cover of my first Bible would say this:

“It is said, “I think, therefore I am.” But I say to you, “I am, therefore I love.” And because I love, I’ve critically made the choice to give my life due to the probability of finding love outside of it. I’m venturing into a world where I will meet the love in which I’ve so desperately yearned. This assurance far surpasses the doubts of that in this world. As you read this, know that I’ve immersed with that which makes all things new, having restored all things old. Regardless, I think, therefore I am. I am, therefore I love. I love, therefore I sought.

Within a generation, without some sort of drastic change, the Restoration will have been absorbed into the banality of American evangelical protestantism complete with ridiculous phrases like “accept Jesus into your heart”, the strong belief that theology is irrelevant, and the unquestioned belief that worship style is the defining characteristic of a church (all you hymn singers are going to hell, I asked Bill Hybels, sorry guys). Needless to say I’m not exactly thrilled with this development. So what exactly makes the Restoration Movement different from the mush evangelical churches it probably will become?

1. The commitment to “restoring” the church to its New Testament roots. That’s sort of where the name came from. One of the key elements in the formation of the Restoration Movement was the notion that Christians should come together as Christians, free from denominational ties.

2. Baptism. There are several different theological issues which differentiate the Restoration Movement from American protestantism but by far the biggest is the issue of baptism. The Restoration Movement has historically taught that baptism is the point in time at which God chooses to bestow salvation. This is in marked contrast to American protestantism which defines baptism in a variety of ways but almost invariably these definitions regard baptism as an act which occurs after salvation. This places the Restoration Movement theology of baptism/salvation much closer to denominations which have a sacramental view of baptism than it does to American protestant denominations. Its also the reason I heap scorn on phrases like “ask Jesus into your hearts”, partly because I’ve always wondered if Jesus resides in the left or the right ventricle.

3. An emphasis on theology as important. Lets be honest, when it comes to theology American protestant denominations and non-denominations all tend to get a little vague when it comes to anything more complex than “Jesus loves you”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that they got that bit right, but scripture goes a little bit deeper than that. Traditionally the Restoration Movement has put an emphasis on theology (which is why we’ve been accused of not playing nicely with others in the past). Two denominational splits later that’s no longer the case, at least not over the entire movement. Unfortunately the general trend of the Restoration Movement has been to de-emphasize theology in favor of relational ministry. That is the relationship becomes the central focus of the church rather than the gospel, and this generates such a shallow theology that a change in worship style is considered a definitive statement of theology.

Unfortunately, these three attributes, which in the past have separated the Restoration Movement from the rest of American protestantism are quickly being eroded from the movement as a whole. I believe in a generation they will have eroded so far that there will be no discernable difference between the Restoration Movement and any other American protestant denomination, or non-denomination.

I don’t mourn the loss of the Restoration Movement because its where I grew up and where I currently am. I mourn it because it will mean the loss of something superior to something inferior. Call it arrogance if you must, but I firmly believe the three attributes I listed above make for a far better church than lacking them. You’re free to disagree of course, but you’re wrong ;).

There is nothing I can add to this.

Fewer Than 1 in 10 Teenagers Believe that Music Piracy is Morally Wrong –

“The study shows that born again Christian teens are not much different than are non-born again teens in terms of holding an anti-piracy moral position.
Read the rest of this entry »

The interneting, blogging, and on-line discussions held by so many Christians with non-Christians is futile. A waste of your time and theirs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Dr. James Smith is a professor at Cincinnati Bible College. I’ve been in more than a few of his classes. Judging by some of his comments we disagree mightily in matters of economics. But one place we agree is on the economics of Biblical translation. The reason translations are created is to generate money. Oh yes, although I’m sure some translations are pursued out of virtuous motivations the fact is that without a profit there would not be any translations. This also means that decisions about translations, from the philosophy of translation down to the way specific words are translated, are made with an eye on sales figures. For example, when Dr. Foster was on the translation committee for Luke and Acts for the NIV he pointed out that the word “baptism” should be translated as immersion. And he was right. The word “baptism” isn’t an english word, it was transliterated from the Greed word baptizo. And there is no other way to translate the word. It means “immersion”. However, there was no way that the NIV would ever be released with baptism translated as immersion. Why not? Because that would immediately reduce the potential number of buyers to a very small number. Which brings me to my point. It is essential to understand the philosophies behind the translation you are using. Translations are tools to help you understand the scriptures. And if you don’t know how a tool works there’s no way you can use it properly. If you can’t tell me the differences between the NIV (New International Version), the NASB (New American Standard) and the NLT (New Living Translation) then you need to go to Bible Shop Class and learn what your Bible does well, and what your Bible does not do well. Until you do that you’re not going to be able to properly use it.

Many Christians in American churches today (and probably for the past 50 years) do not know how to share Christ. That is a serious problem. Christians are unwilling (or possibly unable) to tell people what Christ has done for them. I firmly believe that the generations that have come before us as well as many local congregations have caused much of this problem. Among the brotherhood of Christian Churches especially, we rely heavily on the church as a whole, the preacher, or even a worship experience to “bring people to Christ.” Not because we don’t want to see people saved, and not because we don’t love those people; but because we have not been trained, shown, or discipled in personal evangelism. Thus many people have never had an evangelistic experience.
Read the rest of this entry »