One of the most maligned words in the current religious glossary is the term “fundamentalism.”  Mostly the term is misused, even by people who ought to know better.  The dictionary definitions of fundamentalism all acknowledge its original use in reference to what they call “a twentieth century movement in Protestantism” which emphasized “the literal interpretation of the Bible.”  According to the proper use of the term, there is really no such thing as “Islamic fundamentalism.”  Fundamentalism is a distinctively Christian movement and a specifically Christian idea.  Thirty years ago, academics began to connect the label with the conservative wing of any religion.  A PBS series featured reports on Jewish, Hindu, and Islamic fundamentalism, as well as the Christian variety.  This way of defining fundamentalism has found its way into the dictionary, although it makes no more sense than would “Islamic Lutheranism” or “Jewish Methodism.”  Fundamentalism was and is a grassroots movement in the Christian churches to oppose the influence of so-called “liberal theology.”

But it is more than that.  Fundamentalism is first an idea, and it is perhaps the most important idea in the world today.  It is based on the fact that there is an absolute and inherent difference between right and wrong, between truth and error, between good and evil, between light and darkness. The philosophy known as Postmodernism, and also a great variety of newer trends that have gained acceptance in some of the churches, actually deny the conflict between right and wrong, and refuse to divide light from darkness.  Fundamentalism is based on the idea that what is true and what is false must be distinguished and divided.

The Scriptures, from beginning to end, continually divide the light from the darkness, as recorded in Genesis 1 in the description of the creative activity of God on the First Day.  God spoke light into existence, pronounced it good, and then immediately “divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4).  And so He always does.  Sinful man had to be banished from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24).  Worldly Lot had to go his way while spiritual Abram went another way (Genesis 13:8-18).  The child of the bondwoman (“born after the flesh”) as well as his seed were divided from the child of the freewoman (“born after the Spirit”) and his seed (Ishmael and Isaac, Genesis 21:10 and Galatians 4:21-31).  God’s people were divided from the Egyptians in the plagues that brought their deliverance from bondage (Exodus 8:20-23).  The clean and the unclean are distinguished throughout the ceremonial laws of Israelite religion.  The history of Israel is filled with accounts where God requires His people to separate themselves from evil.  King Jehoshaphat failed the Lord by failing to follow this rule (Second Kings 3:1-27 and Second Chronicles 18:1-19:2).  The books of Ezra and Nehemiah both end with the issue of separation needing to be addressed.  The parables of Jesus recorded in Matthew 13 promise that, although good and bad are usually mixed in the present world, the day is coming when God will finally “sever the wicked from among the just” (verses 49-50).  New Testament believers are told that “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts” (in Second Corinthians 4:6), and that “ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord” (Ephesians 5:8).  On the basis of this truth, we are commanded to “walk as children of light” and to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:8 and 11).  “What communion hath light with darkness?” the Bible asks, and then it tells Christians to “come out from among them [unbelievers], and be ye separate” (Second Corinthians 6:14-18). In the book of Revelation, God’s people are commanded to “come out” of the wicked city of Babylon before she is judged.  The righteous are forever separated from the wicked at the judgment of the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-15). The whole Bible is a Book about God dividing the light from the darkness.

Fundamentalists say that truth must be distinguished and separated from falsehood.  The original fundamentalists insisted that Christianity is defined in terms of certain essential (fundamental) doctrines.  Christianity is not correctly defined as a spirit, or a way of life, or as affiliation with an organization. Christianity is at its core the acceptance and application of the Gospel of Christ.  The Gospel teaches several truths that are essential to what it is saying. According to First Corinthians 15:1-3, the Gospel of Jesus Christ says that

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…”

The truths preached in the Gospel include the authority of the scriptures, the deity of Christ, His vicarious atonement for man’s sins on the cross, His bodily resurrection from the dead, and justification before God by personal faith in Him (the chapter says that men are saved by receiving and believing this message).  Without all of these doctrines, the message preached is not the Gospel, and the religion taught is not Christianity.  See how the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians insists that the Gospel and what it says is the heart of the Christian religion (read it at least through verse 22).  Christianity is based on certain facts, certain truths, certain doctrines, which are fundamental (essential) to it.  Fundamentally, this is what fundamentalism says.

Now “evangelicals” believe in these doctrines, but not all of them are fundamentalists.  The fundamentalist not only believes in the fundamentals of the Faith, but he also insists that they are fundamental to the Faith. In other words, he won’t acknowledge any teacher as Christian who does not first affirm all the fundamentals.  Many evangelicals today (the term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word for the Gospel and means to accept the truths of the Gospel) will in one way or another allow that churchmen who deny the fundamentals are Christians.  A theological liberal is one in the church who denies some of the essential truths of the Gospel.  Usually he emphasizes social salvation over individual salvation, and minimizes the importance of the doctrines of orthodoxy.   Some evangelicals will say (for example) that although the liberal denies the historical accuracy of the Bible, he still may be a good Christian.  A fundamentalist can’t do this.  He insists that believing in the authority, and therefore absolute infallibility, of the Bible is an essential part of Christianity.

So a religion that finds mistakes in the scripture is not really Christianity.  A distinction must be made, the fundamentalist says, between what is the Gospel and what is not.

The kind of evangelicalism that claims to believe the Gospel but allows that a Christian can reject some of it is not consistent with the concept that there is an absolute difference between right and wrong.  Whether it is preached and practiced by a conservative in a denomination that welcomes, includes, and even hires theological liberals, or by an independent church that cooperates with liberal pastors in community Holy Week celebrations, this kind of evangelicalism is not really consistent or rational.  The evangelicals who treat liberals as wolves in sheep’s clothing are the fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a separatist concept because it recognizes and respects the difference between what is Christian and what is not, or what is true and what is not.  Fundamentalists are not just trouble-makers.  They are people who try to be consistent in dividing light from darkness.  They expose liberals and part company with them because they must.

No other concept of Christianity does this.  The New Evangelicalism wants to let the light shine, but does not care to divide it from darkness.  By joining with liberals in religious activity they are saying that their false teaching is in the arena of true Christian thought.  The Contemporary Church movement will not divide the light from darkness in the realm of culture and behavior.  Their pragmatic approach to growing churches denies the difference between Christian living and the ways of the world.  Even liberalism arose from the attempt to conform the light of Christianity to the darkness of modern thought.  Churches fail in their mission when they blur the line between right and wrong in an attempt to stay relevant.

Often unbelievers can see the problem here.  Churches may attract some by accepting practices that the Bible condemns, or refusing to reject ideas that conflict with Bible principles, but in the long run they offend many who see the gross inconsistency of their ways.  Those outside of Christ often expect the churches to be true to the truth they preach!  We live in a world that says with Pilate’s scorn, “What is truth?”  Only Christian fundamentalism says with courage and consistency, “This is the truth!”  That is why it is the most important idea in the world today.

Yet it must be conceded that Christian fundamentalists are not in every way true to the concept they espouse.  But to mock the idea that fundamentalism is the answer to the needs of the world because some fundamentalists are grossly inconsistent is to miss the point.  Is Jesus Christ the Divine Savior of the world?  Is the Bible the divinely-inspired, infallible Word of God?  Does the Gospel bring men redemption?  Fundamentalism answers these questions in the affirmative, and has the courage to walk the truth as well as talk it.  It scatters the fog of Postmodernism, and honors the Gospel by acting and talking as if it is true.  Those who proclaim the truth while acting as if denying it is the same as believing it undermine its credibility.  Although the number of those who wear the fundamentalist label has diminished, fundamentalism at its core is more vital to the deliverance of mankind than it ever was.

BY DR. RICK FLANDERS

“Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world…”

(Second Timothy 4:9-10a)

Some of the final words written by the Apostle Paul under divine inspiration dealt with the subject of loyalty, and particularly the loyalty or disloyalty of certain preachers to himself.  Second Timothy 4 speaks of Demas as having forsaken Paul (verse 10), of Luke as remaining with him in his last days (verse 11), and of the fact that at his trial “no man stood with me, but all men forsook me” (verse 16).  Standing with Paul or forsaking him certainly appears as a theme of this his final epistle.  In the first chapter, he admonished Timothy with these words:

“Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner..”

( Verse 8 )

His son in the ministry was to stay loyal, not only to the Gospel, but also to his mentor.  With sadness, later in chapter one, Paul says,

“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me…”

(Verse 15)

Their misdeed was turning away from Paul.  In the following verses he commends one Onesiphorus for coming to him in his prison cell, and for not being “ashamed of my chain” (verses 16-18).  He prays that the Lord will “grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day” as a reward for staying loyal to Paul.  The chapter concludes with the apostle reminding Timothy (about this man) “how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.”

Timothy is again reminded of the connection between his relationship with Paul and his relationship with the truth the apostle taught.  “Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them,” says Second Timothy 3:14.  One of his last requests before his death was that Timothy “come shortly unto me” (Second Timothy 4:9), bring his cloak and books (verse 13), and try hard “to come before winter” (verse 21).  There was a friendship between Paul and Timothy, as well as the loyalty appropriate in a real friendship.

Somewhere along the way, the friendship and appreciation that ought to accompany relationships in the Christian ministry has been lost to many now serving together.  Deference, love, and loyalty are surprisingly absent among the members of the church “staff.”  This serious flaw has come upon us with the breakdown of the family, and is unquestionably caused by how little those who train Christian workers understand the value of basic loyalty.  But loyalty in the ministry should be learned, even it is learned late.  Here are principles of loyalty that ought to be followed by people in the work of God.

1. When a man has been invited by a pastor to join the paid staff of the church as his assistant, his primary loyalty (other than to the Lord) is to that pastor.  He works for the preacher, and only indirectly for the church or any church board.  Timothy had a subservient relationship to the man who had invited him to join his evangelistic team.  “Him would Paul have to go forth with him,” says Acts 16:3 about Paul’s recruitment of Timothy.  This leader/assistant relationship continued to the end of the apostle’s life.  There are several examples in First Timothy of Paul telling Timothy what to do.  Some of these statements are exhortations that could be applied to anyone, admonishing someone to do the right thing.  Others are clearly direct orders to Timothy: “I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus” (1:3); “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto the shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself” (3:14-15); “These things command and teach” (4:11); “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (4:13); “Drink no longer water” (4:23).  Then the second epistle tells him, “Do thy diligence to come before winter” (Second Timothy 4:21).  The whole Bible puts forward the follow-the-leader arrangement as usually ideal, and as how God works among men.  The godly submit themselves to individuals.  Godly wives are subject to their husbands.  The godly child honors and obeys his father and his mother.   One who works for a preacher, should seek to please him and meet his needs and expectations.  Follow the exhortation to servants given by Paul through Titus concerning their dealings with their superiors: “Please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity” (Titus 2:9-10).  You were hired to help the preacher.  That’s why you are where you are.  Some day you may be the leader, but now you are the follower.  God may promote you if you do well as someone’s assistant (remember the stories of Joseph, Joshua, and Timothy).
2. An assistant pastor (or associate evangelist) should support the position, person, and policies of his superior before other people.  Remember that your calling, under God, is to assist the pastor.  It is not your calling to criticize him, undermine his leadership, or upstage him.  You may know a better way to do things, and when you pastor your own church you may get a chance to show us your better way, but now your role is subsidiary.  The ideal situation would be for the pastor to open opportunities for the assistant to express his ideas to his overseer.  If pastors hold regular meetings with the staff during which co-workers can respectfully present ideas and suggestions for even serious changes.  But these discussions will happen behind closed doors.  The idea is to improve the ministry, to put it on the right track according to the leading of the Lord.  A helper doesn’t help by expressing to others his disagreements with the leader.  When the Lord let me serve as assistant to a pastor, I decided that I would publicly support everything he wanted done.  The word “support” does not necessarily mean “agree” in every case.  I hoped that the preacher would let me privately point out mistakes we might be making, but he could count on me to back publicly what he favored.  Every successful assistant pastor follows this policy.  If my pastor were to follow a course I could not conscientiously support, I would be honest with him and take steps to leave my post quietly.  Of course, there can be exceptions to this policy of leaving quietly.  The assistant must not be part of the cover-up of serious wickedness.  However the normal stance of a co-laborer is that of a supporter as well as a helper.  A young preacher who has been trained to take a stand for the right should learn to consider humbly whether or not he is in a position ethically to take a particular stand.  Is it your place to question openly what kind of toothpaste the pastor uses or whether you think his tie goes with his suit?  You may be discerning enough to have a right opinion on such matters, but you have no right to go public with it.  Of course, I am speaking in jest about toothpaste and ties, but the principle applies to more serious issues, too.  Don’t stab the preacher in the back.
3. Loyalty is a positive quality, and not simply a negative one.  Let’s notice that Paul’s friends are commended for refreshing him, for seeking him out, for ministering to him, and for staying with him or for coming to him in a time of trouble.  Being loyal is not just not being disloyal.  Of Timothy, Paul wrote in another epistle, “Ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel” (Philippians 2:22).  Of Titus, Paul wrote in Second Corinthians 9 that “he is my partner and fellowhelper” (verse 23).  One is not a loyal assistant or a loyal friend simply because he has not acted or spoken disloyally.  Loyalty calls for positive support and effort, as well as support, as much as possible.
4. Any preacher should give every other preacher the benefit of the doubt.  In First Timothy 5, the ministerial “son” of Paul is told not to receive an accusation “against an elder” (verse 19) unless the accusation can be proven.  Elders were what we usually call pastors in our time.  It is amazing how often the grape-vine carries unsubstantiated accusations against preachers.  Don’t we know that the Devil has aimed his guns at the men who represent God and the Bible?  Why are we so gullible about believing the scuttlebutt when it targets a fellow preacher?  A wise policy is to express doubt and dismay when we first hear some gossip against a pastor or evangelist.  Most of the time, if the accusation does not come from an eyewitness or someone else with clear knowledge of the facts, the tale is at least partly false.   But in the few cases where the bad news turns out to be at least partly true, you will have acted as one who follows the Golden Rule, and as one with charity that “thinketh no evil” (First Corinthians 13:5).  Preachers should be loyal to their calling.  There are crooks, whoremongers, liars, and dictators among the clergy, but a far smaller number by percentage of preachers is guilty of this kind of hypocrisy than of other professions.  Stand by your preacher friends unless it becomes apparent that they have fallen, and then stand by them to bring them back to God.
5. Any preacher should show grateful respect for every preacher who helped and trained him in his early years.  We owe people a great deal.  We should be very grateful to our parents, our teachers, our friends, and to many others who have contributed to our lives.  It was Paul who wrote in Hebrews 13:7, “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow.”  The preacher that led us to Christ and that led us by word and example to follow Christ in full dedication ought to have our loyal gratitude.  How much we owe to the preachers who mentored us and counseled us and taught us the Bible!  It is righteous gratitude that gives a preacher loyalty to the older preachers God has used in his life.  The time may come when we disagree with those who trained us on some important matter, and it may occur that we have to take a stand on the other side of an issue in opposition to a man who nurtured us in the ministry, but we should maintain a degree of loyalty to him.  There are things others may say about the man, but not the one who is his son in the ministry.  There ought to be obvious pain in the heart of a preacher when he has to express disagreement with the direction his spiritual father has taken.  The latter years of preachers who have invested their lives in the ministries of younger men should be blessed with repeated expressions of gratitude even from those who think they strayed in some way.  Loyalty is not just for the time when you draw a salary from his church.  It lasts throughout life in the bosom of the man who loves God and loves God’s man.
6. Healthy fellowship between preachers is always based upon the truth.  First and Second Timothy teach ministerial loyalty.  It is not only the Lord of which Timothy ought not be ashamed, but also of His prisoner, the apostle with whom he had been associated for so long (Second Timothy 1:8).  It was not only loving this present world of which Demas was guilty, but also of forsaking Paul (Second Timothy 4:10).  The spiritual man is loyal in the proper sense of loyalty.  But there is also an inappropriate, perverted kind of loyalty that is unspiritual.  When the Corinthian Christians divided the church with such slogans as “I am of Paul” and “I am Apollos” they were being carnal (read again First Corinthians 3:1-7).  Carnal loyalty is purely human, based on old friendships, similar tastes and style, mutual college or seminary experiences, or personal appreciation.  The right kind of loyalty is based on the same thing that enables healthy Christian cooperation: agreement on the truth.  When fellowship calls for somebody to give up or back up on some conviction in the interest of maintaining harmony in the group, sort of fellowship tends to corrupt the men involved in it.  Healthy cooperation is based on mutually received truths.  When organizations of preachers suffer from doctrinal disagreement, sometimes it would be better for the thing to split and for the preachers to work more closely and more often with men who agree with them.  Of course, believers need to learn how to receive those who disagree with them (according to the wonderful teaching in Romans 14), but the healthiest interaction we have with other preachers is based on and not in spite of the truth.  This principle shapes all aspects of correct loyalty.  I may find myself loyal to some brother because of his investment in my life, but at the same time careful not to endorse where he is clearly wrong.  I will be loyal to those over me in the ministry, while still faithful to the truth I see in God’s Word.  But I may not be able to stay in a position if being faithful to the truth while serving there becomes increasingly difficult.  Yet before and after I leave, I will not harm the good being done by hurting that predominantly-scriptural ministry.  Be loyal in the way that God wants us all to be loyal.

]]> http://drrickflanders.com/2011/09/ministerial-loyalty/feed/ 0 http://drrickflanders.com/2011/08/he%e2%80%99s-leaving-fundamentalism/ http://drrickflanders.com/2011/08/he%e2%80%99s-leaving-fundamentalism/#comments Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:47:06 +0000 Brad http://drrickflanders.com/?p=377

By Dr. Rick Flanders

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

(Proverbs 26:4)

Once in a while we will hear about a preacher who has announced that he is “leaving Fundamentalism.”  This is never good news, and it provokes several questions.  It also calls for a response from those who are wiser.

The book of Proverbs contains in its twenty-sixth chapter two precepts in consecutive verses that seem to contradict each other.  Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, and verse 5 tells us to go ahead and answer a fool according to his folly.  Of course these divinely-inspired wise sayings do not contradict each other but instead present two legitimate responses to a fool’s folly.  One way to respond to folly is to reject the very premises upon which a fool’s statements are based, “lest thou also be like unto him.”  The other way is to accept for argument’s sake the wrong premises of the fool and then turn his foolishness back on him.  We find examples of both these approaches in the recorded words of Jesus responding to inquirers and critics.  We also find both approaches in the New Testament epistles.  The first approach, not to answer a fool according to his folly, is the right one for dealing with the “leaving-Fundamentalism” kind of foolishness.

Now nobody has a right to call someone else a fool.  The Lord made this clear in Matthew 5:21-22.  However, His point was not that there is no such thing as a fool.  Very many Bible passages describe fools.  He was saying that nobody has a right to say to his brother, “Thou fool,” because everybody plays the fool from time to time.  Even the human writer of the Proverbs played the fool.  So we do not have the right to belittle others by calling them fools.  However we have occasions to rebuke folly and hope to recover people from it.

There is folly in “leaving Fundamentalism,” and we ought to examine it in the light of the wisdom of God.  What shall we say to such an announcement, whether it comes from a preacher, from a young man entering the ministry, or from a Christian family leaving a church?

So What?

First of all, let us recognize the veiled pride in such an announcement, and respond by saying, “So what?”  Why is it important for us all to know that this person is making such a change in his life and ministry?  What great consequences will result from his change and his announcement, and why should the Christian world sit up and take notice?  Perhaps we have made too much of the unhappy defections from the truth we have witnessed in the past.  Perhaps some immature souls are attracted to such things because of the attention it brings to those who commit them.  But defection from the truth is no new, cataclysmic event.  It is as old as the story of Demas.  Defections happen, but they do not hinder the truth.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

(Second Corinthians 13:8)

“There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.”

(Proverbs 21:30)

“The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.  The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.”

(Psalm 33:10-11)

Defections only hurt the defectors, and those who pay attention to them.  If a believer for conscience sake must leave an organization, withdraw approval from a ministry or a minister, stop cooperating with somebody, or take some stand, let him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism, a legitimate spiritual movement, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39).  One man’s “leaving Fundamentalism” will do no harm to Fundamentalism itself.

Doing What?

We wonder what the brother means by saying he is “leaving Fundamentalism.”  Although there is a human religious movement called the Fundamentalist, and also distinct movements legitimately labeled Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth.  A hundred years ago there was a grass-roots uprising in the evangelical American denominations to oppose the infiltration and influence of Liberal theology in their churches.  Those who joined the protest were called Fundamentalists.  They spoke out based on the premise that Christianity is not defined by a certain spirit, or by certain experiences, or by a certain way of living, or even by the teachings of Jesus as they apply to society, but rather by certain fundamental doctrines.  These doctrines are the tenets of the Gospel, as spelled out in First Corinthians 15 and other New Testament scriptures.  They are not only truths to be believed, but also the pillars on which Christianity stands.  The Fundamentalist insists that the doctrines of the Gospel (including the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His bodily resurrection, and justification by faith alone) are fundamental to Christianity.  In other words, without all of them, religion is not Christianity.  Machen correctly contrasted Christianity and Liberalism.  Something that is fundamental to something else is essential to it.  Fundamentalism is the insistence that the fundamentals of the faith are fundamental to the faith.

It is the scriptural approach to dealing with heretics who have “crept in unawares,” according to Jude 3 and 4).  We are to “earnestly contend” with them.  We are to reject them from the Christian family, and refuse them Christian recognition (Titus 3:10-11).  Evangelicals believe in the pillars of the Gospel, but not all of them insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel.  Those who do are properly called Fundamentalists. Evangelicals who are willing to recognize Liberals as
Christians are not Fundamentalists.  Years ago “New Evangelicals” began saying that although they believe in the tenets of the Gospel, they recognize that some true Christians do not accept them all.  This is why the New Evangelicalism refused the label “Fundamentalist.”

Men and movements are properly defined by their actions as well as their words.  We are to “walk in the truth” (Second John 4 and Third John 3 and 4).  Evangelicals who treat Liberals (who by definition reject certain of the fundamentals) as Christians by yoking with them in denominations, ministerial associations, evangelistic efforts, public declarations, and joint services are not Fundamentalists even if they will argue with you about it (Second Corinthians 6:14-18).  Fundamentalism is the dividing of light from darkness, and is nothing but a good thing.  Is that what our disillusioned brethren are leaving?

Now, as we have noted, there is a movement correctly labeled Fundamentalist.  However it is not the monstrosity invented and mislabeled by academia and media.  About twenty years ago, anti-religious teachers and writers began calling the conservative wing of any religion “fundamentalist.”  The P.B.S. broadcast a series of programs on what they called “fundamentalism,” which according to these shows is basically a mental illness.  They diagnosed Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalism as a mindset of fear, suspicion, anti-intellectualism, hatred, and fanaticism.  It is and was an unfair and untrue definition of an historic and specifically Christian movement in the United States.  Now the media calls the violent radicals of Islam “fundamentalists.”  In a strictly historic sense, there is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism is a distinctly Christian movement.  The new and popular way of defining Fundamentalism is intellectually dishonest.

It is also dishonest to define Fundamentalism by just one of its many fellowships or networks.  The Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century has evolved and splintered into many diverse but truly fundamentalist movements.  Some who think they are “leaving Fundamentalism” are actually disassociating themselves from one grouping of Fundamentalists.  Their mistake is understandable because some such groups try to define Fundamentalism itself as their own group (see the warning in Luke 9:49-50).  What are you saying when you say you are “leaving Fundamentalism”?  Do you mean that you are quitting a fellowship, or renouncing a Bible college, or disagreeing with a church or ministry?  If that is what you mean, just make the break you need to make (according to Ephesians 5:11), and don’t give the impression that you are leaving the truth of the Gospel and of separation to the Gospel.  There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, although the men who have espoused it have been flawed, and the human movements that have promoted it have sometimes gone astray.  The men and organizations you have defined as “Fundamentalism” are not what you are calling them.  Fundamentalism is a far greater thing.

Too Bad!

Whatever the people are doing who are “leaving Fundamentalism,” it is bad.  “Leaving Fundamentalism” inevitably means backing off from policies and principles that have characterized those who stood most faithfully for the Bible in our lifetime.  The mainline denominations have not stood for the Bible or the Christian faith.  Broad evangelicalism has not really stood for the Truth, although they work to spread it.  Fundamentalism is contending for the faith, and good men have paid a great price to follow it.  The ministries and crusades of men like Torrey, Riley, Shields, Ketchum, Jones, McIntire, Vick, and Clearwater ought to be honored and appreciated by all who love the truth.  What a man is leaving if he leaves Fundamentalism is something he should not leave.

In some cases he is rejecting separatism in some form of its application.  Let everyone beware who considers abandoning Biblical separation.  It is a scriptural principle, and walking away from any policy that has been based upon it should not be done without considerable study and seeking of counsel.  Just because a non-separatist challenges separatist policies does not mean that his criticisms are valid.  Our spiritual forefathers had amazing insights, and none of their policies or practices should be discarded lightly.

In some cases he is rejecting personal separation while holding on to some degree of ecclesiastical separation.  Men who are doing this want to call themselves “historic fundamentalists,” pointing out that the original Fundamentalists fought over such cardinal doctrines as the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, and the Inerrancy of Scripture, and not over such comparatively small issues as dress, music, drink, amusements, and Bible versions.  They like to label those who do fuss over these issues “old-time fundamentalists,” using the label in a condescending manner.  They like to label issues of personal separation (holy living) as “non-issues” because the Fundamentalists of 1910-1930 never wrote about them.  But the scripture says that there are kinds of behavior which “become [are becoming or suitable to] sound doctrine” (review the epistle to Titus).  Early Fundamentalists did not argue for modest dress, but what did their women wear?  They did not denounce sensual music in church, but what kind of music did they use?  They did not make an issue over English translations, but what version of the Bible did most of them use almost all the time?  Because they did not preach sermons on these issues does not mean that the original Fundamentalists would have gone along with the horrible changes in practice that the past hundred years have brought into the churches.  And these smaller issues actually do relate to the great issues, and are legitimate matters of concern.

In some cases the defector is parting from evidence of carnality in some of the Fundamentalists he has known.  But Fundamentalism should not be rejected because Fundamentalists need revival.  Tell us what you mean.  Surely you do not mean that you are giving up truth because men who have taught it have been found to be less than spiritual all the time.  Many Fundamentalists are sincere and holy people, although some have been found to be less than so.  Fundamentalism should not be abandoned just because Fundamentalists need revival.

In some cases, the one making the change has come to view certain issues in ways contrary to his former views.  But he is not really “leaving Fundamentalism.”  However, he may be making the big mistake of abandoning the wisdom of the godly of former days and jumping to conclusions that are wrong.  Paul warned the Corinthians not to take lightly the issue of male and female hair-length and head-covering because the change in policy some wanted to make was contrary to the “custom” of the “churches of God” (First Corinthians 11:1-16).  We are not to “despise [belittle]…the church of God” (First Corinthians 11:17-34) or its customs.  Give the views of Fundamentalists and the practices of the Fundamentalist churches the benefit of the doubt.

Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible.  Nobody should leave it now for any reason.  If Bible-loving people will yield their lives to the truths they believe, we will see a revival sweeping the family of God all over the world.  Don’t leave.  Kneel and pray with us as we seek the blessing and power of the God of our fathers!

Dr. Rick Flanders, Evangelist

drrickflanders@gmail.com

989.863.0784

Revival Ministries

6061 Maple Road

Vassar, MI 48768

Thank you again for spending time and energy praying for us this summer, and for the revival so badly needed in the family of God today.  I’ll make this report brief, partly because I recently sent many of you an unscheduled report, and also because I would like us to get quickly to praying for the ministry God has given me in the next months.

• Just let me say that we saw important decisions made among the saints this summer in Rockford, Illinois (where I also got to visit the grave of Jacob Knapp—note my article on this amazing man);  at Granite City Baptist Church of St. Cloud, Minnesota; at a family camp with the people and pastor of Mukwonago Baptist Church in Wisconsin; at the Teen Revival Conference under Dr. Jim Van Gelderen; at the wonderful Fellowship Baptist Church of South Bend; at Reese Baptist Church in Reese, Michigan; among our friends at the Ann Arbor Baptist Church in Michigan; at Northwoods Baptist Church of Clare, Michigan, on the night their pastor, Jim Shuster, was ordained to the ministry; at Gospel Baptist Church in Poland, Ohio.  We also saw people saved in June at Rockford, and in July at Reese and in Ohio.  It has been a great summer so far, and it is all and always about God working.  Praying is the key, and we thank you for praying.
• God has opened the door for remarkable opportunities in the weeks ahead.  Please pray for my preaching in these places at these times.

1. First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, Michigan, on August 2, in their Summer Preaching Conference.  Pray for me as I speak on revival in my home church on a special night (7 p.m.) when the meeting is open to and often draws folks from other Michigan churches.
2. Northern Michigan Baptist Bible Church up in Burt Lake, Michigan, August 7-12, in a revival campaign.
3. Broadview Heights Baptist Church, Broadview Heights, Ohio, August 14-18.  I am to preach here all day on Sunday, and in the annual Revival Conference, Monday through Thursday.
4. Grace Baptist Church of Eaton Rapids, Michigan, August 21-25, in a revival campaign.
5. Wilton Baptist Church of Wilton, New York, September 3-7, in a revival campaign.
6. Faith Baptist Church of Corona (Queens), New York, September 8-9, in a revival conference.
7. Lone Rock Baptist Church in New Lisbon, Wisconsin, September 11-14, in a revival campaign.

We do appreciate your faithful support in prayer.  Whether you include us on your daily prayer list, mention my ministry in family devotions, engage in special seasons of prayer for me in regard to particular divine appointments, or just pray for us after you read the update, we know God is moving in response to your petitions.  Expect to hear from me again in September.

By Dr. Rick Flanders

”And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…”

(Ephesians 4:11-12)

How many of us have ever heard of Jacob Knapp?  In his day, he was one of the best known preachers in America.   Often titled “Elder” Knapp because of the Baptist teaching that the senior officer of the local church is the bishop/elder/pastor (see Titus 1:5-9 and First Peter 5:1-4), this man has a unique place in the history of Baptist work in this country.  Evangelist-historian Fred Barlow spoke of him in these words:

“Rare will be the reader who will recognize the name of Jacob Knapp, and rarer yet will be the Baptist who will identify him as the individual who is considered to be the first of that now long line of elite worthies—Baptist evangelists!”

Born in the state of New York in 1799, Elder Jacob Knapp was converted to Christ as a teenager.  However, his family’s Episcopalian church affiliation and the temptations of youth soon drew him away from his first zeal to be a true disciple and brought him into a period of confusion and backsliding.  But then several circumstances ordained by Providence, along with renewed study of the Bible, brought Knapp back from wandering and up to the point where he recognized immersion as the scriptural mode of water baptism.  He then submitted to scriptural baptism and united with the Baptists in 1819.  In 1822 he answered God’s call to the preaching ministry, and entered college at Hamilton, New York.

Knapp’s preaching ministry spanned over fifty years, and forty of those years he was engaged in itinerant evangelistic work.  He led both local-church and cooperative evangelistic campaigns that brought thousands of people to Jesus Christ.  Since the Great Awakening in the previous century, the Baptists had not had a prominent evangelist, but Knapp’s “protracted meetings” brought him into prominence, and changed the way they thought about revival and the winning of souls.  In our time of confusion and controversy over revival, Baptists need to get re-acquainted with their first “great” nineteenth-century American evangelist, Jacob Knapp.

He had an amazing ministry.

His success in revival work was so phenomenal that it is surprising how little attention church historians have given to Jacob Knapp.  Not that the record has completely ignored him.  Torbet notes in A History of the Baptists that he “was a successful evangelist” and also “responsible for the impetus to converted drunkards to organize… the famous temperance fellowship known as the Washington Society.”  James Beller states that “his revivalist work…ranged widely over New York, New England, and the Western States, including California.”  He calls him “the great Baptist evangelist of the mid-Nineteenth century,” and devotes much space in one of his Baptist histories to Knapp’s ministry in St. Louis in 1858.  Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopedia says that “his power over audiences was remarkable, and the fruits of his long toil in his chosen sphere, while not always genuine [a criticism leveled at Knapp sometimes by his critics], were believed in many cases to be so, and always abundant.”  Knapp is referenced repeatedly in Henry C. Fish’s well-respected Handbook of Revivals, always in a positive way by this contemporary of his.  David Cummins notes the date of Knapp’s ordination in his well-loved This Day in Baptist History, and says that “wherever Jacob Knapp was invited to preach, great results followed.”  Brackney’s Baptist history includes a record of Knapp’s evangelistic work, and states that the best attended of his campaigns were in Rochester, New York (1839), New York City (1840), Boston (1841), and Washington, D.C. (1843).  At the meeting of the Illinois Baptist Pastoral Union held the year he died (1874), it was said that “no man in America ever equaled him in the number of his meetings, and the extent of the territory they covered.”  The great Baptist historian Thomas Armitage described Elder Knapp with these words:

“His statements of truth were devoid of all attempt at the rhetorical finish, but he was unusually fervent and fluent.  He mind was marked by strong logical tendencies and his sermons were full of homely illustrations, apt passages from the Bible, and close knowledge of human nature…Crowds followed him, whole communities were moved by his labors and great numbers were added to the Churches…The writer heard him preach many times, and judged him, as he is apt to judge men, more by his prayers than his sermons, for he was a man of much prayer.  His appearance in the pulpit was very striking, his face pale, his skin dark, his mouth wide, with a singular cast in one eye bordering on a squint; he was full of native wit, almost gestureless, and vehement in denunciation, yet so cool in his deliberation that with the greatest ease he gave every trying circumstance its appropriate but unexpected turn.”

Knapp was not formed from anybody else’s mold.  He was himself, filled with the Holy Spirit.  Accounts of his words and works always record some of his humorous or startling deeds.  At the Mulberry Street Baptist Church in New York City, an arrogant unbeliever stood up and called on the congregation to pray for the Devil.  Without hesitation, Knapp from the pulpit responded calmly, “Brethren, this young man has asked you to pray for his father.”  There are several stories of Elder Knapp’s straightforward and startling remarks bearing wonderful fruit.  One comes out of the revival at Brooklyn, New York, late in 1838.  One night, Knapp preached, as he had previously announced, on the subject of atheism.  In that sermon he said that atheism is “the little end of nothing whittled down to a point.”  He was referring to atheism’s obsession with denial.  The statement struck one particular atheist who had come to hear the sermon in a profound way.  Instead, however, of angering him, it humbled him and caused him to reconsider his devotion to denial.  For days he suffered mentally from his plaguing doubts about atheism until at a prayer meeting he stood before the gathered Christians and asked their forgiveness for his loud and repeated insults of them and their religion.  When Jacob Knapp asked him if they could pray for him, the man said that he was past saving, and would surely be damned.  After the evangelist spoke loving words of entreaty and gospel truth to the unbeliever, he went home.  However, that night he turned to Christ, and came back to the meetings the next day a happy Christian.

The books say that Jacob Knapp was used of God to win over 100,000 people to Jesus Christ, that he preached over 16,000 sermons, that he influenced hundreds of men to enter the ministry, and that he brought into Baptist work the practice of holding “protracted” revival campaigns.  He ought to be one of the best-known and most-appreciated figures in Baptist history.

His first full-time ministries were pastorates of two churches in his native state of New York.  After he began his itinerant preaching, Knapp based for fifteen years (1833-1848) in New York State, and then the following twenty-five years (1849-1874) in Rockford, Illinois.

He was an evangelist.

It was during the time when Jacob Knapp served as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Watertown, New York, that he was convinced of God’s call in his life for him to begin travelling as an evangelist.  In the Bible, the evangelist plays an important role in the program of God.  The term means “one who proclaims or announces good news,” and it was a role first filled by Jesus Christ Himself.  He was an itinerant preacher who went from place to place proclaiming the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom.  Others who filled this position in the New Testament were Philip (whose name in the original Greek of the Acts of the Apostles is associated many times with the words for evangelism and the evangelist) and the Apostle Paul (who describes his work in the Greek New Testament as that of an evangelist).  The itinerant evangelist played a very important role in the American “Great Awakening” of the eighteenth century, but the only evangelists of any prominence in Knapp’s day were Presbyterians or Congregationalists.  Pastor Knapp had no living mentor or role-model in the work of a Baptist evangelist when he set out to do this work.  But he was convinced of the need.  So he left everything behind that he had known and began preaching in revival campaigns and evangelistic efforts at the invitation of pastors across New York State.  Historian Edward Brand said that he eventually became “one of the greatest evangelists of modern times.”

He lived by faith.

Materially and financially things did not go well for Knapp in the first months and years of his evangelistic work.  God was teaching him to live by faith in Him for the supply of his physical needs, and those of his growing family.  Soon he saw the financial trials as an important part of what the Lord was doing in his life.

“I looked upon my last eight years of ministry [as a pastor] as comparatively wasted,” he later commented.  “I felt I had turned aside for ‘filthy lucre.’  My motives seemed to have been impure.”  After a period of anxiety about the predicament he faced, he made some firm, life-transforming decisions.  “I broke from all worldly concerns, and consecrated myself anew to the service of God.  I viewed the unconverted as toppling on the brink of hell, and many of the churches, and ministers too, as sleeping at their post.”  The need for his preaching and influence, and the genuineness of his call, were undeniable in his mind.  He must keep at his work, and trust God to take care of the problems. “Yet it is proper to state, that I did not reach this conclusion without counting the cost.  I saw that I should be cutting myself loose from any certain and regular source of support.”  Beyond and in addition to the financial trials he faced, Knapp also faced a trial of faith due to his encountering unexpected and severe criticism for what he was saying and doing.  “I was called on to encounter great opposition, alike from professed Christians and the avowed enemies of Christ, even from ministers of the Gospel…”  “About this time, also, I met with several severe losses in pecuniary matters, so as to render my reliance for support still more precarious,” he later testified.  “But in my distress I cast my burden on the Lord.  I sought to know the will of God.  I cried unto the Lord and, blessed be His name, very soon He made known His ways, and lifted upon me the light of His countenance.  After spending one whole day in fasting and prayer, and continuing my fast until midnight, the place where I was staying, was filled with the manifested glory of God.  His presence appeared to me, not exactly in visible form, but as really to my recognition as though He had come in person, and a voice seemed to say to me, ‘Hast thou ever lacked a field in which to labor?’  I answered, ‘Not a day.’  ‘Have I not sustained thee, and blessed thy labors?’  I answered, ‘Yea, Lord.’  ‘Then learn that henceforth thou art not dependent upon thy brethren, but on Me.  Have no concern but to go on in thy work.  My grace shall be sufficient for thee.’”  Then he made his decision.  “I made up my mind, when I started, to make no demand, to do nothing, to say nothing, in reference to the matter of compensation, but to leave it entirely with God and the people.”  So have many Baptist evangelists since that day, and God has not failed them.

He stood up for revival.

Much of the controversy Knapp encountered in his ministry was over the errant theology that dominated the Baptist churches in his part of the country for some time prior to his ministry.  He referred to these unscriptural ideas as the “hyper-Calvinistic tenets which constituted the staple of pulpit ministrations.  Resolving all questions of religious experience into the decrees of divine sovereignty, believing that the salvation of the elect was determined by an eternal purpose, irrespective of agencies, our fathers taught that an attempt to instruct an inquirer, or to plead with an impenitent person, would be a presumptuous interference with the inscrutable purposes of God.”  In his autobiography he explained that “these views prevailed throughout the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland.”  Although the nation had experienced revival in a very powerful way in the past century, many of the current-day Calvinists insisted that revival comes as a sovereign act of God, and cannot be obtained by anything done by the saints.  They believed that revival should not be sought, even through repentance and prayer.  “The idea that God’s people could do anything as a means of promoting a revival was scouted as an impiety,” Knapp remembered.  This view was contrary to what Knapp believed and preached.  He understood that the Bible teaches that believers can be revived and filled with the Holy Spirit if they will humble themselves and seek God’s face.  He pointed out that revival is promised by the Lord to those who turn from their wicked ways. Revival can be sought and found.  He not only saw this exciting truth in the Bible, but he also saw it regularly in his ministry.  To Jacob Knapp it was obvious that God will revive the saints when they look to Him for revival, just as He will save the sinner who will repent and turn to Jesus.  Based on these convictions, he was one of the evangelists who used the so-called “anxious seat” and the inquiry room and called on people to repent right on the spot.  We call this practice the “altar call” or “public invitation.”  The preacher concludes his sermon by calling on penitents to leave their seats and come to a designated bench or room to get help in finding the Lord.  Knapp was criticized for giving public invitations, especially by the strict Calvinists.

Jacob Knapp tells the story of a place where Calvinism had a particularly bad influence, but where he was welcomed to preach.  One night, the results of the altar call persuaded one of the Calvinists!  “As I was preparing the way for the inquirers to come forward to be prayed for, brother Duncan Dunbar stepped up to me and whispered in my ear, ‘Brother Knapp, it will not do to call sinners to the anxious seats in this city; the prejudices of the people will not admit of it.’  I replied, ‘I will not be crowded into the gutters by the prejudices of the people; I am going straight through, let the consequences be what they may.’  The invitation was then given; upon which some thirty souls came forward, weeping and begging for mercy.  Brother Dunbar, seeing this expression, at once arose and seconded the appeal, when several others came forward.”

Another subject of controversy with which Knapp had to deal was the matter of Christian holiness.  He believed in the power of Christ to make sinners free, and the capacity of Christians to overcome the domination of sin in their lives through living by faith in Christ.  However, when confronted with those who taught with the Wesleyans that Christians should experience a “second work of grace” that would eradicate their sinful nature and enable them to live in a state of sinless perfection, he opposed the doctrine.  Yet he also opposed some of those who opposed that doctrine, but also seemed overly antagonistic to the concept of victorious living.  He said, “As for myself, I was never troubled with too much holiness; my difficulty has rather been the want of it.”

He was a Baptist.

Like many evangelists that preceded and followed him, Jacob Knapp often cooperated with evangelical churches which were not of his own denomination.  Some great harvests of souls were reaped in these broad-based cooperative campaigns.  He loved soul-winners of all groups, but he himself was a convinced Baptist.  He held that New Testament Christianity includes believers’ baptism by immersion, autonomous local churches, separation of church and state, personal soul liberty, and other “Baptist distinctives,” and these convictions eventually led him to change his views on cooperative evangelism.

“I usually called in the aid of all evangelical denominations, namely, the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational.  All labored together, and I was content to leave the division of the spoils with the pastors and churches after I had gone.  But I found this method fraught with serious evils,” he explained late in his life.  “My conscience was not at ease.  I was commissioned to go and ‘teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’  I asked myself, ‘How can I give a good account of my stewardship, if I do not fully carry out my commission?’”  “At length the subject came up before me in this form: ‘Suppose I should die tonight, and at the judgment Jesus should call me to Him and say, “My servant, Jacob, have you carried out your commission, preached my gospel, discipled, and baptized?”  I should be compelled to reply, “I have preached thy blessed gospel as faithfully as I knew how; made many disciples; sometimes I have baptized, and sometimes I have not.” “Why did you sometimes not baptize?” I imagined my Savior to ask; and I supposed myself obliged to say, “Well, Master, my Pedo-baptist brethren [those who practice the christening of infants] had adopted the recent custom of sprinkling, and I could not carry out my commission without giving offense.”’  I concluded that it were better for me to go to the stake, than be under the necessity of meeting my Lord and Savior with a lame reply like this.”  The long-standing difficulty that Baptists have in working with even godly evangelical pastors who are wrong about baptism, church polity, and various doctrinal controversies brought a man who had worked in harmony with many of them for years to the point where he gave up the practice.   And he gave interesting advice to fellow-Baptists who want to reach the masses for Christ.  “I think that if all Baptists would carry out the commission in the right spirit, and turn not to the right or to the left in all revivals, and on all occasions; baptize converts as fast as they believe; never cringe, never exult, and be a little more patient, all the children of God would soon be led to see their errors; abandon infant baptism, and adopt immersion; then we are all substantially one.”  He held to unity based on sound doctrine, not unity based on minimizing doctrine.

He bore fruit to the end.

Jacob Knapp’s evangelistic preaching won souls to Christ in great numbers.  Many of his campaigns extended over several weeks, and brought hundreds into the churches.  One revival in a local church in New York City in 1835 saw two hundred saved and baptized.  In the campaign in Boston in 1841, organized by Baptists, multitudes were converted.  Similar efforts in Washington, D.C., bore much fruit.  At Washington, a delegation from Richmond, Virginia, begged him to come to their city and help them win the lost there.  However, they stipulated that he must not preach against slavery in Richmond because of the trouble his preaching on this subject would cause down in Virginia.  Knapp treated slavery as a sin, a violation of the Royal Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (James 2:8), and he insisted that men should repent of it.  And he would not be bound by a commitment to avoid preaching against a particular sin.  So the invitation was turned down on this basis.  However, some weeks later the Richmond brethren contacted him again, and agreed for him to come without any restraint on his preaching.  Knapp’s Richmond campaign resulted in much good, but ended in a firestorm that brought it to an abrupt end.  He always regarded the justification of slavery as a hindrance to revival, and faced similar situations in other places south of the Mason-Dixon Line!

In 1858, the great year of revival just before the Civil War, Jacob Knapp was summoned to the Second Baptist Church of St. Louis, and played an important role in the promotion of that revival in that city.  The Baptist church received 150 new members before his departure, and St. Louis was powerfully affected by his sermons and influence.

As noted above, Knapp moved to Rockford, Illinois, in 1848.  That is where he and his wife Electa are buried (in the Greenwood Cemetery).  Some said that the peak of his effectiveness as an evangelist had passed (although there is much evidence to the contrary), but his move was prompted by invitations from friends and relatives in the First Baptist Church there and by his interest in working in the west.  When he first arrived in Rockford, the church was without a pastor and Knapp was asked to fill the pulpit.  He served as “stated supply” from November 1848 to June 1849, during which time the church experienced revival, and a great harvest of souls.  Under Knapp’s preaching, the church “saw the largest ingathering of souls they had ever experienced.”    They received 62 additions to the membership by baptism, and 17 by letter.  When the congregation called a man to be their regular pastor, Knapp continued his membership there, and was invited to speak as a guest preacher in the pulpit of First Baptist many times.

During his time living in Rockford, Jacob Knapp kept up a vigorous evangelistic ministry, more in the western states.  He even went to California to preach.  As he weakened physically, the Baptists of Rockford heard him preach more often.  The church minutes of that time contain notations about his sermons such as these:

• “Sunday, August 17, 1873—Preaching by Rev. Jacob Knapp.  House well filled with attentive listeners to the faithful preaching of the word of God.”
• “September 1, 1873—Elder Jacob Knapp preached today from the following verse, ‘The redemption of the soul is precious and it liveth forever.’  A very powerful sermon and probably or nearly the last of his sermons.  He will soon end his labors with us and his warning voice will no longer be heard by either saint or sinner.”

Jacob Knapp went to Heaven on March 3, 1874.

The need is great for the ranks of Baptist evangelists to be replenished with men of the dedication, intelligence, theology, faith, and power of Jacob Knapp.  The problems of our present world would be significantly diminished if the powers of darkness were challenged by an army of Spirit-filled evangelists, living by faith and fearlessly proclaiming the truth about sin and salvation to saint and sinner alike.  May God hear our prayers for such laborers to be called and sent into His harvest!

Find the Autobiography of Elder Jacob Knapp at Google Books.

“But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?”

(Luke 10:29)

He was a lawyer looking for a loophole.  Perhaps he felt boxed in by the Master.  The questions “a certain lawyer” asked Jesus had brought an unwelcome response.  He had asked Him, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”  The Lord answered by asking a question very appropriate for the consideration of a student of the law: “What is written in the law? how readest thou?”  When the man replied by referring to the two great commandments, to love God “with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind,” and to love your neighbor “as thyself,” Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.”  Clearly the lawyer was stricken by that response, taken by the conviction that he could never keep such high standards.  And that is why he came up with the question, “And who is my neighbor?”  He was seeking a legal loophole.

In answer to this lawyer’s lawyer-like question, the Lord Jesus Christ told the immortal Parable of the Good Samaritan (read all of Luke 10:25-37).  The focus of this response was on the question, not of who should be the object of one’s love, but rather of what kind of love one should have in his own heart.  The issue is not, “Whom shall I consider my neighbor?” but rather, “What kind of neighbor am I?”  It was a perfect exposition of what the New Testament calls later the Royal Law (see James 2:8).

The Royal Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is not only the primary moral principle of scripture regarding man’s relation to man, but it is also a profoundly significant principle in American culture.  It was this law that generated the kind of thinking that gave us equal rights as citizens and liberties far beyond those that have been recognized in other countries.  It was the influence of the Bible, through the beliefs of many of the first settlers and also through the powerful effects of the Great Awakening that moved the founders to affirm the equality and liberty of “all men.”  It was also this Royal Law that was behind Lincoln’s argument that “If I would not be a slave, I would not own one,” which emancipated the slaves.  Perhaps the profound influence of this principle is the reason its meaning is still subtly debated even in the more secular times in which we live.  What is it to love one’s neighbor as oneself?

In the last presidential campaign (2008) a remark was made to the effect that capitalism is based on selfishness.  Americans have sometimes been persuaded to accept certain aspects of socialism on moral grounds, that we as a nation owe government aid to certain people in certain difficult situations.  Our economic system is often criticized from what appears to be higher moral ground because it does not seem to be based on loving our neighbors.  Some liberal churches actually teach that the free enterprise system is immoral.

The first church in the world seems to have practiced some kind of communism.  The Bible records that the members of the congregation at Jerusalem “had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:44-45; see also Acts 4:32).  Was this communism, practiced on the principles of modern-day communism?

1. The truth is that communism and socialism are fundamentally the same, or at least expressions of the same idea.  The modern philosophy of communism did not germinate in Russia, but rather in the West.  And political expressions of the communist philosophy often have taken the name “socialist.”  Communism has the idea of owning all property communally.  Socialism has the idea of controlling the economy socially rather than individually.  The dictionary defines socialism as “a political and economic theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”  The presuppositions of both theories are the same.  It is not really wrong to call socialism communistic, or to refer to communism as a kind of socialism.  But for Americans the deeper question must be, “Is socialism/communism right?”  Is it the ideal arrangement?  Does the Royal Law call for it?

There are several characters in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  Which one represents the communist of our times?  Is he the Samaritan who sacrificed to help the wounded traveler?  Actually it is more likely that the communist would be the thief that “stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.”  The socialists/communists are the thieves, and their views amount to highway robbery.  A thief, like the communist, says, “What’s yours is mine, and I will take it.”  This is why socialism has decimated all the societies that have tried it long enough.  The twentieth century proved that socialism destroys economies and societies.  The great Soviet Union did not fall under nuclear attack; it collapsed under the weight of socialism.  This is what is happening to most of the countries of “free Europe” right now, and is likely to happen to us if we keep on traveling the socialistic path we have apparently chosen.  Socialism confiscates wealth either by direct pillaging, as the communists have done, or by oppressive taxation, as Western “liberals” practice it.  It is true that the motive is supposed to be redistributing wealth to the poor, but the poor are not the only beneficiaries of the collectivistic schemes.  The politicians who buy the votes (in democratic countries) or the favor (in dictatorships) of the people by giving them things also benefit greatly from supposedly imitating Robin Hood.  Without a doubt, the communists in the story are the thieves.

The priest who came by and saw the poor, broken man and ignored him is the pure capitalist.  The Levite who “came and looked on him” but did nothing to help him is the concerned capitalist.  Fundamentally they said and say, “What’s mine is mine, and I am going to keep it.”  Many Christians think that conservative politics and capitalist economics will meet the needs and solve the problems of the nation.  But they are wrong to think this.  Sound economic and libertarian principles are not enough.  Electing conservatives alone will not turn the country around.

The hero of the story, the Good Samaritan, “had compassion” on the wounded and robbed individual, went to him, bound up and medicated his injuries, and, at significant sacrifice to himself, took the man to a place where he could get help, and them paid for him to get the help.  His approach was, “What’s mine is mine, but I will use it to help meet the needs of the needy.”  The Samaritan’s charity was voluntary, and produced by love and compassion.  This was also true of the early church, and the cause behind their having all things common.  It was not communism; it was Christian compassion.  It was not mandated and forced confiscation.  It was willing generosity, prompted by the love of Christ in their hearts.

During the Second Great Awakening in America (1795-1845), the outpouring of compassionate love from the Christian community manifested itself in what history calls, “The Benevolence Empire.”  This network of thousands of Christian-based charitable and social-service organizations sought to meet the needs of the hurting in society, and achieved a great measure of success!  Historian Keith Hardman says, “The financial giving that supported such causes was enormous when we calculate the giving in terms of today’s [1983] currency.  By 1834 the annual income of the fourteen leading societies had risen to nearly 9 million dollars per year, or an equivalent of 135 million dollars in terms of today’s currency.  And this was for a nation with a total population of fourteen million.”  Some years, we understand, the intake of the charities exceeded the revenue collected by the federal government.  The needs of man were being met, not by socialistic government programs but by the compassion of Christian charity.  In those days, the voices of unbelievers cried out for the plight of the poor, just as they do today.  But, also as in our day, the non-Christians actually did very little to relieve the poor.  It was the revived Christians, transformed into their ancient counterparts by the awakening, which made the sacrifices to help those in need.  In 1855, the New York Observer commented that “Infidelity makes a great outcry about its philanthropy, but religion does the work.”

Socialism is going to destroy our country.  This is clear to almost any objective and informed observer.  But the path of destruction can be abandoned, and the problems averted to some degree if the government were to turn back to conservative principles.  The principles that underlie the capitalistic economic system are valid, as anyone who regards the Bible as the Word of God can discover.  The Ten Commandments support the concept of private property through the injunctions against stealing and coveting.  Clearly the God of the Bible has distributed property to individual people and to families, and supports their responsibility over these things with moral precepts.  In other parables, Jesus Christ vindicated the profit motive (read).  But the needs of hurting men will not be met by pure capitalism.  The injured traveler needs the Good Samaritan.  The problems of our country and of our world will not be solved apart from a widespread revival of New Testament Christianity.

There is something we can do to help the hurting around us.  It isn’t pushing for new government programs, and it isn’t electing conservatives to office.  What Christians need to do is begin seeking the face of God in earnest for the revival we need.  We will help the cause of truth by voting for proven principles on election day, but we will not address the heart of the real need until we return to Bible religion, the kind that springs from a heart transformed by the love of God.  Revival preaching and fervent prayers will do more to save America than anything else.

• At the beginning of May, I was in Lancaster, California, at the Lancaster Baptist Church (where Dr. Paul Chappell is the well-loved pastor) to participate in their commemoration of the 400^th anniversary of the first publication of the King James Bible.  They had me preach in church on Sunday night the first, and in chapel for the West Coast Baptist College on Monday the second.  I really did sense that the Lord was helping me as I brought two unusual messages, about the preservation of scripture on Sunday, and about the power of the words on Monday.  It was a blessing to meet a West Coast student back at our church in Bridgeport at the end of the month who told me that my preaching helped the folks there.  I think you can get recordings of these sermons at their website.
• May 8-11 I was in Baldwin, Michigan, to preach in a revival campaign at the Baldwin Baptist Church.  My long-time co-worker, Bro. Dean Bryan, contacted me a few days before to let me know that he used to live in that part of our state, and that he would be praying for me.  We had some really good meetings here, and explained the basic truths about revival.  Several made mention of truly remarkable experiences they had that week through decisions God helped them to make.  Pastor and Mrs. Dave Stiles have become friends of mine, and I am praying for them that they will be used to bring the people forward to revival, and to help some we prayed for to turn to Christ.
• The last two weeks in May we spent in the beautiful state of Maine.  Toni and I had never been there before, and were honestly thrilled with all of it.  We were set to preach in back-to-back revival campaigns, in Sedgwick on the coast at the Eggemogin Baptist Church the fifteenth through the twentieth, and at West Sumner in the mountains at the West Sumner Baptist church the twenty-second through the twenty-seventh.  They are wonderful churches, both with good standards of holy living and people with a heart for God.  In both places we saw God revive people and meet their needs.  Both pastors, Bro. McFarland in Sedgwick and Bro. Thurlow in West Sumner, were able and devoted men of God who want to see revival.  Down in Sedgwick (an old town rich in Baptist history) we were blessed to see a man and his elderly mother saved.  A number of times we held prayer meetings in both places, and saw God answer.  The plan is for Toni and I go back to Maine next year for more time to serve this needy area and these earnest believers in Christ.
• After we got back to Maine on May 28, we went to our home church on Sunday, and then I headed down to Indianapolis to teach the History of Revival course at Indiana Baptist College.  On my way down, I planned to stop at the Faith Baptist Church of Angola, Indiana, for the evening service, and encountered severe weather as I got there.  The rain and wind came as I ran into the church, and very soon all the lights went out.  There was a tornado watch in effect at the time, which this year makes people especially nervous.  The good pastor, my friend Dr. Arnold Fair, led us to go on with the normal men’s prayer meeting and with the service, even with attendance down quite a bit, and with the electricity still off.  When we went into the auditorium for the service, Dr. Fair asked me to say just a little about revival a bit later.  I prayed about it and decided to focus on the prayer of Psalm 85:6.  I would like to ask you to check with the Pastor and the others who attended about just what happened in that service (on May).  As the meeting progressed, it seemed to me that the presence of God was being more and more manifested, until, after the preacher’s sermon, the whole body was drawn to do business with God.  It was both phenomenal and wonderful!  How good was the Lord to us!  He was clearly preparing us all for the work of the week, which comes just before a revival campaign with Evangelist Paul Schwanke.  Let’s all pray for Faith Baptist of Angola this week and next, and expect God to do greater works!

It was a wonderful month of ministry and fruit, and God answered our prayers.  Now let’s be sure to pray for this revival ministry in June and beyond.  Here are highlights of the summer:

• In June, I will be teaching a class on First and Second Thessalonians at the Bible school at North Love Baptist Church of Rockford, Illinois (home of R.U.), the sixth through the tenth.  I am also to preach in the church on the fifth.  I am to preach at the Granite City Baptist Church of St. Cloud, Minnesota on the twelfth and attend the Baptist Church Planting Ministry board meeting on Tuesday the fourteenth (in Rosemount).  I will be preaching at the Teen Revival Conference in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, June 22-24, and then at the Fellowship Baptist Church in South Bend on the next Sunday.
• In July, we will take some time to rest, but are also set to preach at several churches in Michigan: Reese Baptist Church (Sunday morning the 17^th), Ann Arbor Baptist Church (Sunday evening the 17^th), Loomis Park Baptist Church of Jackson (on the 21^st), Grace Baptist of Eaton Rapids (Sunday morning the 24^th), and Northwoods Baptist of Clare (Sunday evening the 24^th).  I am also to moderate an ordination council on July 21 for Pastor Jim Shuster, and to preach at the Gospel Baptist Church of Poland, Ohio, on July 31.  We will rest, but will be busy, and we need you to pray for us all month.

My next prayer update will probably not come until August, but I would love to hear from you any time.  May we abide in Jesus all summer, and bear much of His fruit (John 15:1-5)!

How much we appreciate, and how much we need, your labor in prayer in our behalf (Colossians 4:12).  Briefly, here is what happened in our work in April of 2011.

• Meetings in New York: On the first day of April, I flew from western Canada to meet my wife in upstate New York for revival meetings.  First we were with Pastor Jack Young at the First Baptist Church of Black River, April 3-5.  The church was renewed, so to speak, more than a year ago after having fallen into a poor state of affairs.  Now, under the new pastor’s ministry, it has all the appearances of health and strength and is growing.  Many of those in the church are military people stationed at Fort Drum.  There are strong believers, and there are weak and needy folks, but we can see how the Lord is meeting the needs through this diverse body.  They moved forward down the revival road in response to the preaching of revival truth, and we saw important decisions made from the very first service.  The second set of meetings was at the Heritage Baptist Church of Palmyra, which is led by Bro. Young’s father, Pastor Tim Young.  This pastor Young has had a long and respected ministry around the country, and we were happy to serve with him in a short three-day campaign (April 6-8).  Again the Lord worked, and these good folks responded to revival truth in a way that encouraged us to think that greater things are ahead.  Some significant history occurred in this part of New York a long time ago, and I got to enjoy visiting some of the famous sites of revival with each of the two pastors Young.
• Meetings in the South: On the 9^th, Toni and I drove over 800 miles to Taylors, South Carolina, for a revival campaign at Fellowship Baptist Church with Pastor Bryce Hager (April 10-15).  In these meetings, we got to see old friends: the Terpennings (who were members of our church at Juniata, but now live down in the Greenville area), the Secords (more Juniata people who were down to see their daughter and her family), a couple of BJU students, Pastor Roger Powell, Kim Goff (Secord’s daughter), Dr. Chris Shepler, Terpennings’ daughter Joyce, as well as several preachers with which we have had contact.  These were good revival meetings where definite needs among the members were addressed and met, and we are praising God for what He did.  Then on the sixteenth, we headed across Tennessee to Hopkinsville, Kentucky, where I was slated to preach in a Bible conference at Greater Cumberland Baptist Church.  On the way, we met up with our daughter Susanna, who is the registrar of the Bill Rice Ranch in Murfreesboro.  She had a week of spring vacation and met us in Nashville to take her mom “home” with her for those days.  I went on to Kentucky and had a productive and refreshing time with Pastor Ken Shaver and the people of their amazing church.  This congregation also has a ministry to military families, mostly from Fort Campbell.  A lady got saved after the morning service, and many Christians dealt with issues in their lives by letting the Lord have His way throughout the conference (April 17-20).  I am to go back to preach in next year’s conference.  The other speaker both this year and next is Pastor Terry Anglea, a fine man and a very helpful preacher of God’s Word.  I drove home on the twenty-first.
• Meetings in Maryland: I was home just a day or two, but we made all we could out of the pre-Easter opportunity to have fun with our kids.  As I said, Susanna was up, and so my wife and I took her and our son, Pastor John Flanders of Landmark Baptist Church of Clio, Michigan, to a Tiger game in Detroit on Friday.  We must have been crazy.  The weather forecast said that we could expect temperatures in the 40s and also rain, and we got both.  We left during the seventh inning, but felt we had had a good time.  At least our team was winning when we left.  The next day I flew to Baltimore for the Easter Bible conference at the Forest Ridge Baptist Church of Forest Hill, where Jeff Berg is pastor.  We started on Easter Sunday, the 24th, with good services all day.  I spoke to a combined Sunday school class on “Celebrating Easter” (by first-day gatherings, by believer’s baptism, and by the Christian life), in the big morning service on “The Announcement” (Peter’s Pentecostal sermon), and Sunday night on “Showing the Lord’s Death Till He Come.”  It was a holiday with both the usual advantages and the hindrances of a holiday Sunday, but we thought the Lord gave us a good start on a week of meetings which quickly took the form of a revival campaign as well as a Bible conference.  Thursday, the church hosted the Eastern Shore Preachers’ Fellowship, which was well attended by good men in the service of the Lord, as well as church members and wives.  We really had God meet with us in the preaching sessions that morning with sermons that seemed to complement each other and merge.  I got to preach on “Separation and Revival.”  The Lord led me all week in the sermons I preached to the church, I am confident, and significant things (I am told) happened in the lives of these people that week.  Then I flew to California from Baltimore on April 30.

The month of May will present some good opportunities to preach and teach both about and for revival.  Do remember to pray for me today as I preach at the Lancaster Baptist Church of Lancaster, California, May 1-2, in their conference to commemorate the 400^th anniversary of the first publication of the King James Bible.  Then, May 8-11, I will be in Baldwin, Michigan, for a revival campaign at the Baldwin Baptist Church.  Toni and I are to be in Maine May 15-27 for revival meetings in Sedgwick and West Sumner.  We serve first at the Eggermogan Baptist Church, and then at the West Sumner Baptist Church.  The next week, beginning on the 30^th, I will be teaching my class on the History of Revival at Indiana Baptist College.  If you are interested in finding out about this life-changing block class, contact the College at preed@indianabaptistcollege.com.   They have made arrangements for people in ministry to stay on the campus for the week.

2011 has truly been an amazing year in our life and service so far!  I have preached in Nairobi, Kenya; in Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Florida, Montana, New York, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Maryland; as well as in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada; and it’s only the first of May!  Although I usually am asked to preach to Christians about revival, we have seen somebody saved each month this year.  Join us in praising the Lord for His blessing, and be sure to pray for me this coming month.

RICK FLANDERS

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)

For some reason, writers and preachers who should know better have said for many years (in one way or another) that a New Testament church runs pretty much as a pure democracy. Have you ever heard congregational church government described in that way? But hardly anything could be farther from the truth. And confusion on this point has got many a church off track, and thus hindered the Cause of Christ in the world.

The English word “democracy” comes from two Greek words that together mean the rule of the people. A democratic government is one in which the people rule. Although there have been very few civil governments that have operated by pure democracy, the democratic principle, at least in theory, has been incorporated into the republics of the world for years, including our own. In the United States, the executives serving in the various levels of government, as well as the law-makers and some judges, are elected by vote of the citizens.

The Bible actually seems to address the concept of popular rule in the churches, but it does not endorse it. In the Book of Revelation a certain cult and its false doctrine are denounced as “Nicolaitan.” Although history sheds no light on just who the Nicolaitans were, the name suggests an evil trend that we know arose as Christianity moved farther and farther away from its apostolic beginnings. In Greek, the word means to conquer the people. The references to Nicolaitanism in Revelation 2 probably refer to the trend that gave pastors too much power. They began as shepherds, and deteriorated into lords over God’s heritage (I Peter 5:1-3). They were originally brothers who served as overseers for Christ, but became priests who held the souls of the members hostage to their whims and decrees. Nicolaitanism was and is a terrible heresy, which God hates (Revelation 2:6 and 15).

In Revelation 3 we find the church of the Laodiceans, which was lukewarm (verses 14-19). Although there actually was a city named Laodicea, we may gather something from the meaning of this name, too. In Greek it means the rights of the people. Neither the Nicolaitan way nor the Laodicean way is right for the church. The members ought neither to be conquered nor given rule. God’s way is different, and far better.

In his famous address to the elders of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:16-38), Paul gave important insights into how the church of Jesus Christ is to be run. His few words in verse 28 relate to other passages in the New Testament and draw a clear picture of the proper flow of authority and responsibility in the local church.

Christ the President
Jesus Christ, we might say, is the President of the company, according to the Word of God. He is Head of the church as His Body (Ephesians 1:19-23 and 4:11-15), Bridegroom of the church as His Bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), and Lord of the church as His Temple (Ephesians 2:19-22 and I Corinthians 3:16-17). Acts 20:28 says that He is the Owner, too, since He “purchased” the church “with his own blood.” As Owner and President of the church, He has the right to get His way about everything done in and by the church. Church members must never forget that Christ is the Head, the Monarch, the Boss of His own church. Nobody has a right to usurp His absolute authority over the affairs of the church. Whatever He said should be done, should be done! And His pronouncements about the way things are to be done in and by the church are all over the New Testament. The First Epistle to Timothy was written, it says,
“…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, this pillar and ground of the truth.”
(First Timothy 3:15)

The mission statement of the church is the Great Commission of Christ in Matthew 28. The method of maintaining peace and purity in the church is clearly stated in Matthew 18. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ tells us how His church is to be run. Christ’s church has no right to invent its own mission, to create its own system of operation, or set its own policies and standards. Jesus Christ is Owner and President of His organization, and must be pleased in all things.

The Holy Spirit, Executive Vice President
The Holy Spirit is in charge of operations in the absence of the President. Of course, the Head of the church is away on business. He is in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us. He has sent the Holy Spirit to administer the church in His place (See what Jesus said in John 14:12-18). The Spirit was recognized as the Administrator of the church in Jerusalem, according to the book of Acts. In chapter 5, the hypocrite Ananias is accused of lying to the Holy Spirit (verses 3 and 4) because he and his wife tried to deceive the church. In chapter 15, the Spirit is credited with being the One Who directed an important decision made by the congregation (See verses 23-29). One of the reasons the Spirit was sent is to lead the church in the absence of Christ. The truth is that, because Christ and the Spirit are both Persons of the Holy Trinity, having the Spirit with us is the same as having Christ Himself directing the church. The congregation must look to the Holy Spirit for guidance, power, wisdom, faith, unity, leadership, and strength. Churches grow and multiply through the “comfort of the Holy Ghost,” according to Acts 9:31.

Acts 20:28 says that the Holy Spirit is the One Who appoints the pastors of the churches. The word “overseers” in this verse is a title given to the church officer we call the pastor. It is strange how some churches go about appointing pastors today. Some churches looking for a new pastor will pass around questionnaires to the members asking what kind of pastor they want. Shall he be young, or old; have kids at home, teenagers, or an empty nest; have a seminary degree, a Ph. D., or what level of education; be from the north or from the south; be married to a piano-player or secretary or what? But the really the congregation has no right to decide what kind of man they will have as under shepherd. That is up to the Holy Spirit. So Pulpit Committees should be made up of praying men. The whole church should seek the guidance of the Spirit in a search for a pastor. He is the One Who chose the pastors at Ephesus! He is the One Who should appoint your pastor, too.

Pastors, Superintendents
The address of Paul in Acts 20 was given to the “elders” of the church at Ephesus (verse 17), and in verse 28 they are called “overseers.” Paul told them to “feed the church of God,” and the Greek word rendered “feed” is the verb that comes from the word for shepherd or pastor. Elders are overseers who pastor the church. First Peter 5 tells elders to “take oversight” of the flock (the church) and to “feed” (pastor) it. Sometimes the English Bible uses the word “bishop” for the overseer, and he is clearly both elder and pastor (Titus 1:5-9). Elder, bishop, and pastor describe the same office in the church. They are given their office by the Holy Spirit, Who leads them in how the church is to be run. So Jesus is the President of the church; the Holy Spirit is the Executive Vice President in charge in the absence of the President; and the pastors are superintendents (overseers, bishops) appointed by the Holy Spirit to exercise leadership at His direction. Their work involves both ruling and teaching (See Ephesians 4:11-15, First Timothy 5:17-18, and Hebrews 13:17). Normally they are paid for their work.
When I was a pastor, a young boy named Jamey came to me one Sunday and asked me a pretty straightforward question: “Preacher, who is boss of the church?” I replied, “It’s Jesus, Jamey,” and he said, “That’s what I thought.” Jesus is the only rightful Ruler of His own church. It’s not the pastor or any member of the congregation, or any group of members. He is the Boss, and He runs things by His Holy Spirit through the superintendents He appoints.

Without dispute, Spirit-appointed pastors have authority in the church. Read about it in Hebrews 13:17 and First Peter 5:5. But the obedience given them by the flock is a voluntary, consenting obedience, rather than the submission of a servant to a master. The word for “obey” in Hebrews 13:17 is a much softer word than the Greek word translated “obey” in Ephesians 6:1 or “be obedient” in Ephesians 6:5. It has the idea of “be persuaded,” rather than the force of taking orders. The pastor’s authority is based on the Word of God and the work of the Spirit. They “rule” by the consent of the family of God. First Peter 5:5 has the whole church submitting to each other in great humility as they submit to the elder. The church is to seek the will of Christ, and to find it coming by the Spirit through the pastors.

If a pastor seeks to direct the church contrary to the will of Christ, he is to be replaced. Such wolves are uncovered by comparing their words with God’s Word. Paul said that heretical teachers (“grievous wolves”) would arise among the elders at the Ephesian church after his departure (Acts 20:29-30). The New Testament tells us to reject such heretics (Titus 3:10-11). Failure to maintain the blamelessness required of a bishop as described in First Timothy 3 will disqualify a man from the position. Also the commission of a disqualifying sin, as described in First Timothy 5, will put the man out. It is the Holy Spirit’s way of firing a superintendent. But aside from such unusual circumstances, the congregation should esteem pastors highly (First Thessalonians 5:12-13), and regard their leadership as coming from the Holy Spirit.

The Congregation Cooperating
Some deal with the subject of church government (“polity”) as if various interests are in a struggle for control of the church. Who should run things? Shall it be a board of laymen, or an ecclesiastical synod, or the deacons (who are really to be servants that meet the needs of both the pastor and the church), or the preacher, or the majority of the members? But power struggles are not in the plan of God for the church of Jesus Christ (Read First Corinthians 1:10). The New Testament pictures the church as a wonderfully harmonious, unified body. Ephesians 4 teaches that God has given ministers to the church (evangelists and pastors) to fulfill a key role in His plan for Christ’s Body.

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God,…speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”
(Verses 11 through 16)

When the Body has to make a decision together, the authority/responsibility structure we are learning from Acts 20:28 goes into operation. Such a thing happened in the Jerusalem church, as we see in Acts 6 and 15. Notice in these chapters how the congregation cooperated with God in the resolution of a problem.

1. The congregation met.
2. The matter was discussed.
3. The pastors (led by the Spirit) made a recommendation.
4. The congregation concurred with the recommendation, believing that they were following the direction of the Holy Spirit.
5. Everything ended up in harmony and mutual rejoicing.

Power struggles revolve around, not the question of what should be done, but rather over who should make the decision. There is no room for power struggles in a New Testament church. Jesus Christ is always to have His way. When church members are given the opportunity to be involved in a decision of the church, either by vote or by some other means, they are to express their opinion in a way far different from the way citizens cast ballots in an election. At the polls, people mark the ballot according to whom or what they want. In church Christians express what they think the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus wants! Although the congregation is the ultimate seat of authority on the human level in the church, the whole Biblical set-up is designed to put Christ in charge. And when He is in charge, the church is healthy and prosperous! May God’s people put God’s Son in charge of His church, and cease rebelling against Him, for the sake of His matchless Cause in this world!