I am coming to believe John
Adams may have been the greatest of our founding fathers.
Adams, the only of his
siblings to be afforded the opportunity for an education, at first entertained
training for the ministry. His father’s first advice to him was in that
direction. For whatever reason, Adams, who was a believer, chose to study law
instead.
Adams’ leading role in the
founding of our country is without question, unparalleled. His genius was, to a
large extent, responsible for:
- · The introduction of principles of liberty in the discussions among the Congress
- · The engagement of George Washington to establish and lead the Continental Army and
- · The authorship of the Declaration of Independence
After the war was won,
however, Adams’ influence began to wane. Adams served as Ambassador in France,
negotiating[1]
for French support of the War. After the War, he was America’s first Ambassador
to England. Can you imagine the difficulty of that assignment?
Once the Constitution was
written, something in which Adams had little part, his name was proposed as the
first President of the United States. Those in the know at the time only
considered two men to be obvious choices for the position. Washington, of
course, won the election and Adams became Vice President, serving under
Washington two terms. By the time Washington refused a third term, Adams had
lost much of the respect of his fellow public officials. He narrowly won the
office of Presidency, becoming our second POTUS, but lost a bid for re-election.
he is one of only a hand full of Presidents not elected for a second term.
Adams was fiery, passionate
and brilliant. But, they say, he had one huge fault; he was unbending. He had a
difficult time compromising. And compromise is the grease that makes politics
work.
Compromise - the very idea
of compromise rides on one philosophical platform; none of us are perfect.
Because we are not perfect, it would be impossible to believe one position is
right and another wrong. Our ideas, according to the doctrine of compromise,
are just - ideas. It’s probably a very good philosophy to employ in politics.
Compromise is however, a
terrible problem in Christian ministry. If the preaching of God’s Word rests on
the platform of imperfection, if we grease the wheels of Christian ministry
with compromise, we guarantee that ministry to a slide downward until it is
irrelevant. If we introduce politics into the work of God we will watch it
spiral downward until it is no longer of any use.
This is where the value of
the local church is found. Every sort of ministry that is outside of the local
church must, of necessity, operate on politics. There are
- · Too many factions, with
- · Too many opinions proposing
- · Too many options
for the organization to
function without compromise. There has to be give and take. One doctrinal
position must be avoided in order that another doctrinal position not be
offended. We see this in:
- · Conventions,
- · Fellowships,
- · Conferences,
- · Christian colleges and
- · Para-church organizations
Doctrine comes to be viewed
as imperfect because doctrine comes to be seen as destructive to the
organization.[2]
The local church is the
answer to compromise. Within the local church the preacher is free to preach
passionately and unbendingly what he sees in the Word of God. Believers of like
faith are free to gather into the local church whose doctrine is consistent
with their own. If the doctrine in this particular church is not in harmony
with a believer’s own understanding of the Word of God, and if the preaching of
that doctrine offends the conscience of the particular believer, he is free to
unite with a different local church where the doctrine is in keeping with his
own convictions. There is no compromise.
It is the local church and
only the local church that is:
- · Instituted in the Word of God,
- · Has the sanction of the Holy Spirit and
- · Provides Christians the atmosphere of passionate worship without compromise
Marvin McKenzie
In the fields
[1] In many ways unsuccessfully
- others were much more successful. Adams had as many run in with his peers in
France as he did with the French.
[2] Some of the most
influential and well known “fighting fundamentalist” Baptists have recently
taken to preaching messages on why we need to get along, making light of what
they consider to be divisive doctrines held by many Baptists. Their agenda is
obvious; they are trying to build a larger following for their college or their
convention and these doctrinal peculiarities are getting in the way.
