How Much Should We Make of Baptist History?

I just read a pastor's Twitter tweet (We are living in crazy times when that phrase can actually be considered credible!) where he wrote, "It must be difficult for a pastor who thinks 1950 is ancient history to truly appreciate our heritage as Baptists." I understand where he is coming from. Many of today's Baptists went to just enough school to figure out what makes for acceptable preaching points in their circle of peers. They will be so busy building their ministries and so focused on following those who have built large ministries that they will have little time or inclination to be students of anything. They will devote themselves to their movement's leaders because that is the simplest way to practice successful Christianity and they have much too much to do to explore beyond those bounds of the faith that they already know.

But there is an observable issue in the case of nearly every Baptist I know, who does choose to break out of those bounds; they almost always also reject the traditions they were taught within those bounds. In doing so, they come to focus on and embrace things they believe old Baptists held to that their teachers do not. They are, in my opinion, looking for justification for their rejection of those landmarks their own fathers in the faith had planted.

Now here is the thing about Baptist heritage; it is very difficult to find anything definitive about Baptists previous to 1600 AD. So much so that many of these boundary breakers conclude, with the Protestants that Baptists began in the early 1600's and are just one of many Protestant denominations that formed about that time. Then, assuming they are only Protestants, they make another leap and accept Protestant doctrine, namely Calvinism.

Although there is very little evidence that remains of the Baptists prior to 1600, there is enough to be assured they did exist. What we do know is that they were significantly diverse and that there are only a handful of doctrinal distinctives that unite them together

• They were decidedly not Catholic (and predated the Protestants)
• They were a people of the Book
• They preached faith in Christ alone for salvation (not in the church)
• They would die rather than deny Christ, indicating their faith in life beyond the grave
• They believed in soul liberty and worshipped God according to how they understood the Bible and not how the state church enforced worship
• They would not baptize infants into the Catholic Church and were very often persecuted for it

Beyond these, we are merely inserting into history what we choose to insert. There is no real proof one way or the other.

I propose that we embrace what I think is a key to ancient Baptists,

• They were decidedly anti-Catholic (which in my estimation means decidedly anti-Protestant also) and
• They practiced soul liberty

They gave each man the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Of course in order for a church to be organized, there has to be some agreement. This means that every Christian is responsible to know what it is he believes well enough to discern if the practice and teaching of a particular congregation or a potential new pastor is in harmony with his own.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Why I Am Opposed to Reformation Theology in a Baptist Church

1. Reformation theology denies the perpetuity of the church as taught by our Lord in Matthew sixteen.

2. Reformation theology assumes that Baptists embraced the doctrines developed by the reformers.

3. Reformation theology leans upon the doctrines of Catholicism.

4, Reformation theology obliterates the evidence of a great cloud of Christian witnesses that never united with the corruptions of Catholicism.

5. Reformation theology leads modern Baptist pastors into a quagmire of false doctrines.

6. Reformation theology is thoroughly universal church.

7. Modern Reformation theologians are reckless socially.

  

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

North and South

I have been watching a series, actually several series of documentaries on the American Revolution and the Civil War. They are more closely connected than I imagined as the issue of the Civil War was in effect something that the founders of our nation chose to ignore for the sake of an early union. Slavery was a volatile hot button even before the War for Independence but men who knew it was wrong chose not to stand. It could be said that their lack of action was the cause of the six hundred twenty five thousand men, women and children who died eighty seven years later.

Today I heard the words of a confederate soldier who wrote that he had heard a sermon and the preacher had lied. The preacher said that God had fought all their battles and had led them in victory. The soldier wrote, "If God is fighting these battles why hadn't they promoted Him to general?" Wow, there is some insight! We are so quick to use His name but so slow to let Him be General. 

That got me to thinking about the Baptist preachers both North and South. How could they have justified their differences? It occurred to me that they were trapped in their cultures. A Baptist preacher in the south would have fairly been committing suicide to have preached against slavery during the Civil War. But they had already divided from the Baptists in the North back in 1845 when the Northern Baptists refused to endorse missionaries who owned slaves. The fact was that all the way back to the Revolution a Baptist in the South had to support slavery if he wanted to be effective in the South. The culture of his region of ministry impacted his preaching and practice, even his practical interpretation of the Bible, if not his theology.

I doubt that it is possible for us to divorce our culture from our interpretation of the Bible but we had better be aware of the problem and resist it with all our being.

The Missions Church

I got started as an independent Baptist in a missions church. The first Sunday I attended church, shortly after I became a believer, was the second Sunday of the church's existence. Cornerstone Baptist Church, all approximately ten people in it, was a missions church sent out of Bible Baptist Church in Selah, WA. I quickly learned that independent Baptists practice this principle of "churches make churches." In other words, the authority to begin a new church is not in a man, but in the local church. To preserve the integrity of doctrine, a church authorizes a man to

• Plant a church
• Evangelize a community and
• Baptize those who are converted
   

I also learned that most young preachers want to free their fledgling missions church from her sending authority as quickly as possible. I used to think that was because we were aggressive servants of the Lord. I have come to believe it is more because our sin nature does not like authority over us. Any authority; even the authority of a sending church. We view it as a sort of necessary evil. We would condemn a man for planting a church without this sending church, exclaiming his "church" as no real church at all. But we will shed our own selves from the shackles of this mother church at the first possible moment.

I propose that this needs to be addressed and changed. Some ministries would be better off as missions ministries, possibly indefinitely. Depending upon circumstances, it could be that they should be missions ministries permanently.

Consider what would qualify a church as indigenous:
Some would say it is the ability to support their own pastor.
I have seen this qualification cited a number of times but often neglected by men who will organize as independent living off of mission support from dozens of churches.

Some would say it is having a pastor and deacons.
But pastors sometimes move. Sometimes they move after only a brief time. Deacons, the biblical mandate for deacons only happens when church is of sufficient size that the pastor can care for the daily ministry by himself. Deacons are never seen in the Bible as leaders but as servants. The very fact that someone suggests a church isn't well organized until they have deacons suggests they have an unbiblical view of the office.

I have personally suggested that a church is not ready to be organized until it has ten faithful and tithing families.

I took the idea from the Jewish practice for their synagogues. However I have also seen this practice manipulated by getting friends and family to move to the town in order to get the ten and get out from under the sending church. (Frequently they still want money from the sending church, just no subjection to it.)

I want to suggest a different tact, I want to suggest that,

A church is ready to be indigenous when it is capable of keeping the course over generations.

• When the church has members who are longstanding citizens of the area in which the church is planted and who are convinced and committed to the doctrine and practice the church planter was sent to propagate,
• When there is a plan in place and agreed upon by members of that church to keep the church on course at the untimely demise of the current pastor (whether by death, departure or depravity),
• When those who are spokesmen in the church when the pastor isn't looking are as committed to the doctrines and practice of the sending church as the church planter claims to be

then the sending church may well consider organizing the missions church as an indigenous work.

By the way I would also propose that organization should always be upon the suggestion of the sending church and not the church planter.

The sin nature of the church planter will always be to get free of authority and that should never be the motive of independence.

This plan could only work with a shift in the current practice of using a sending church as a formality rather than a functioning relationship. The sending church ought not to be a preacher's friend from Bible College days or some big and well known church in the fellowship, but a vital part of the church planter's spiritual life, the best case scenario would be the church where he was saved and baptized and brought up in the faith.

I know there are problems with this plan too; many of them the result of pastors of potential sending churches not being stable enough themselves to stay in one place and be mentors to younger men in the faith. However we would be stepping in the right direction if we began addressing these subjects with both the young would be church planter and the more mature potential sending church pastor.

Are We Asking for the Wrong Thing?

As long as I have been a Christian the churches I have attended have held revival meetings. The evangelists have all prayed for God to send heaven sent revival and the pastors have longed for that type of revival in their churches. I confess to having spent years

• Praying for that sort of revival
• Reading about many of the great revivals of the past and
• Preaching to the church I pastored about revival

I still hear many pastors looking for a revival like those of old days, I think often motivated by the desire to have a large church congregation. (I wonder if the men who pastor large churches feel as compelled for revival as those who pastor struggling churches?)

But as the years have moved on and I have studied the Bible and church history  more, I have noticed:
That those revivals of the past were drastically not Baptist.

The Baptists of that era even opposed them. For the longest time I assumed it was because there was something wrong with those Baptists. But that couldn't have been completely true because, although the Baptist's would not take part in the revival meetings themselves, their own churches grew as a result of those who were genuinely converted searching Scriptures and ending up in Baptist churches because they were the ones preaching the Bible. I am beginning to believe, there was more wrong with the revivalists than the Baptists and perhaps the reason modern Baptist pastors now so quickly side with the revivalists is because we are hungry for the large crowds we envision accompany revival.

That revival is not the norm of the Bible but the exception
God did grant "a little reviving" here and there through Israel's history. But with the exception of the book of Acts the New Testament is devoid of revival type language; and you have to make some assumptions to call Acts a revival era. It is more of a beginning than a reviving.

This all leads me to question whether we are asking God for the wrong thing. Maybe we dream of something that has never been the priority of God. Maybe that statement I have so often heard that “God is more interested in revival than we are” is not, in fact, true. I am coming to believe that the work that brings glory to the Lord is that

• Long term
• Consistent
• Stick by the stuff
• Day in and day out

growth in Christian graces as we look for the blessed hope kind of Christianity. Any other seems to tend toward compromise or the work of the flesh in order to get large groups.

Maybe we should stop asking for revival so that our church can grow bigger and start asking for a Christians to grow in faith and doctrine. Can any seriously deny that the average Christian in America is a hobby Christian at best? What we really need are some pastors who will roll up there sleeves and dig in to the hard work of building believers in the most holy faith instead of building their churches. 

Clearing Up Some Confusion

I've had two conversations this morning.

• Both had to do with sin of the most unspeakable sort
• Both involved a professing Christian as the offender
• Both parties asked how they should respond to such sin

In the one conversation my inquirer had been the one to lead the offender to a profession of faith. He said to me that he was confused; how could he be a saved person and still commit such atrocious sins?

• Is the offender a saved man?
• Had he really gotten saved?
• Did my inquirer make some sort of mistake in how he went about leading him to Christ?

My answer was this:

First, there are, in the Bible, such things as false professors of faith and such things as Christians who are sinners.

Second, we can never know the heart of a man, whether his is saved or not.

A false professor, we are told, will go back to his wallow. A Christian who lives in habitual sin will either:

• Come under conviction or turn from the sin
• Be chastened of the Lord until he repents of the sin or else
• Be removed from this life that he may not sin again

Because we do not know the heart of men, we can never know which a person is. Some who appear to have gone back to the wallow may come under conviction and return by and by. Some who we think are the hardest of hearts may be struggling with their sin more than we could imagine.

Third, we make a mistake when we focus too much on the results or the fruit of Christian living.

Ours is to remain faithful to the truth regardless of the absence or appearance of fruit. If we focus on people,

• Whether they are faithful to the Lord or not,
• Whether they are seeing glorious amounts to reward for their service
• Whether they have somehow become something different than what we thought

we will always be disappointed. Men are unknowable to us. We will always only guess about what is or isn’t true in their hearts. But if we focus on the Lord, the truth of His Word, the purpose He has given us, we can never be disappointed. He only is our Rock. He alone is constant and unmovable.

The Fundamental Fundamental

Job 19:25-26 KJV

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Psalms 17:15 KJV

As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

Romans 8:18 KJV

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

I have been thinking upon these verses and those verses that echo the message they teach.

These are really the fundamental passages of fundamental Christianity.

• Everything rises or falls upon whether these verses are true
• Every Christian stands or falls upon his convictions concerning these verses

• If it is not true that we shall one day awake with His likeness
• If the sufferings of this present world are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us
• If there is no resurrection after which we shall see God

Then truly Christians, as Paul testified, are of all men most miserable.

Modern Christianity has preached a different kind of religion. They have tried to convince their followers that God’s plan is for them to be wealthy and prosperous in this world’s things. They have offered them the kingdoms of this world and people have chased after them by the droves.

Fundamental Christianity, Bible Christianity preaches an entirely different message. We preach that the followers of Christ are not to lay up for themselves treasures on earth but lay up instead treasures in heaven. To have a treasure in heaven must mean that we forfeit one on earth.

• If Paul was wrong
• If the Psalmist was wrong
• If Job was wrong

 Then we have sacrificed for nothing.

This is fundamentally fundamental; it is the basis for all Christian faith and conversation. This one truth, that there is a resurrection from the dead, that eternal heaven awaits the believer and that it is more glorious than this earth can imagine, motivates men and women of faith.

Or else means nothing to those who are false professors.

Marvin McKenzie

In the Field

One Thing Worth More than a Soul

As long as I have been a believer I have heard that the soul of just one man is of inestimable worth. And I believe it. It was for the soul of man (and I am convinced even just one man) that God gave His only begotten Son. It was for the soul of man that Christ gave His own life on Calvary, holding His peace at the mocking and restraining the angels for defending Him at the violence of His death.

It is the value of the soul of man that has led Christians to sacrifice comfort and family to preach the gospel in far off lands. The value of a soul has led millionaires to give away fortunes and the impoverished to sacrifice food on their family's table so a missionary may be sent. Preachers have pled for souls to be saved, knowing the value of that one soul. Some with right intentions have employed phrases such as "The Main Thing is to Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing" and "Win the Lost at Any Cost" to stir Christians to make the winning of lost souls the main thing in their lives. This perceived value of souls has also (I believe) misled some Christians to employ pragmatic means to "reach" lost souls at the expense of separation, doctrine and Christian methodology. I mean to point out today that there is one thing that is more valuable than even the soul of man; truth.

By the word truth I mean something deeper than simple verifiable facts. I might go so far as to question whether those are real truths at all. Verifiable facts are merely that; fact. Truth carries with it something more substantial, something moral. Truth is and originates with God.

That truth is more valuable than a soul seems apparent to me in that, when Adam and Eve fell, God did not overlook it. God gave Adam and Eve and indeed, the soul of every man the opportunity to choose his own soul or truth. That a soul ever ends in hell is evidence that God places more value in truth that in a soul. If He had chosen, God could have set truth aside and let all souls enter heaven. God chose truth over the soul.

• God chose truth over the souls of the pre-Flood generation committing thousands and possibly millions of souls to perish rather than allow them to continue living in rebellion to his truth
• God chose truth over the souls of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, raining fire and brimstone upon them and dooming them to eternal hell
• God chose truth over the souls of Pharaoh and his armies drowning them in the Red Sea and condemning their souls to eternal torment
• God chose truth over the souls of individuals in Israel, slaying them for their sin with Aaron's golden calf and condemning an entire generation to die in the wilderness.

I do not mean that God did not care. I am convinced that God grieves over the souls over every sinner who chooses his sin over God's truth. However God places such value on truth that, regardless of the cost, He always chooses truth over the soul.

Modern Christianity would do well to take a clue from God. The current pragmatic kind of Christianity that allows practically anything to go so long as we are seeing assemblies gathered together and souls supposedly being converted is contrary to the very nature of God.

The soul of man is of inestimable worth. Truth is of far more value than that.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

A Comfort Gone Bad

John Gill makes a comment on Job 32:1 that's worth consideration. He writes, "His three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, who came to visit and comfort him under his afflictions; but unawares were led into a controversy with him, …."

How often good intentions turn into something very wrong.

• We mean to say something cheerful but we say something hurtful
• We mean to be helpful, but our effort turns out harmful
• We mean to be a blessing, but the blessing turns out bad

Very often the person we hope to comfort is in such pain that they misunderstand our intentions and our comfort goes bad. At other times their pain causes them to misspeak and we take it wrong and react and the comfort goes bad.

Much too often the well intentioned contribute to the pain of a suffering soul when they are led unawares into a controversy with the suffering.

Here's the thing; I can't imagine it should ever be considered the suffering soul's responsibility to set this controversy right. Those who have come to comfort need to be prepared to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and to forgive and let whatever reactions the suffering soul has roll off.

Forgive one another.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Baptist Heritage May Not Be What You Think

 One of my first experiences in church, once I became an adult was an issue over Baptist heritage. My friend, the man who brought me to a Baptist Church the first time, had loaned me a book by John R. Rice. Rice wasn't a strong Baptist though he was a strong Fundamentalist and thus accepted by the better part of those Fundamental Baptists I was aware of. Rice's book seemed to cast doubt on local church authority which led me to speak to my pastor. After a conversation with him, and reading The Trail of Blood, I became interested in Christian heritage and Baptist heritage in particular.

One of those lessons I learned is that Baptists don't agree on Baptist heritage.

• There are those who believe squarely that Baptists had their beginnings with John Smythe in England in the early 1600's and 
• There are those who believe (as did the author of the trail of Blood) that Baptists trace their roots through Anabaptists to John the Baptist

The two camps tend completely deny the veracity of the other's view. In truth there is some veracity to both schools of thought.

• It is undeniable that some Baptist congregations had their beginning with Smythe but 
• It is equally undeniable that others can trace their roots much further back. It is not an either or situation but a both situation

And herein lies one great rub amongst those who claim the broader title of  Baptists. We keep trying to tie our lineages together when in fact we are two separate systems of spiritual faith as diverse as  Methodists would have been to Presbyterians a century ago. These two schools, even if each claims to be fundamentalist, are unique, diverse, and in very many respects, incompatible.

Notice that I did not say un-christian. I am not advocating that we oppose one another but only that we acknowledge that we are not the same. The distinctives between us are, I believe, important enough to demand that we remain separated lest those distinctives be lost altogether.

• There are distinctives in the ordinances
• There are distinctives in heritage
• There are distinctives in doctrine 
• There are distinctives in emphasis

The melding of our respective camps, whether it be out of a desire to present unity in the world or a misunderstanding of our relationship given we claim the same name, has only served to create

• Confusion among the outside world
• Division within the Baptist community and 
• Compromise of important doctrines

I am thankful for those Baptists who, while being charitable, have begun to call Baptists to separate and identify their family of faith within the broader camp called Baptists.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

The Gold's Up Higher

Psalms 119:127 KJV

Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

Our recent family vacation was spent in Winthrop, WA and the Methow Valley, the heart of Washington gold country. Even now hobbyists and more serious prospectors are bringing gold out of "them thar hills!"

Thanks to Bohannan, my oldest son, we got a small taste of gold prospecting while we were there. Placer gold is that which is scattered down a river stream by the current of the water. It's recovered either by panning or dredging the gold river's bottom and running it through a sluice to sift out the gold from other sediment.

Here's the applicable part for us; since the gold is scattered down the river through the current it stands to reason that the farther you get from the source, the smaller will be the pieces of gold. There are huge amounts of gold all the way down to the ocean, but it's so fine it is almost impossible to sift out. If you want the bigger pieces, you have to go up river, high into the mountains where the nuggets that are too heavy to be carried away in the current are deposited.

Of course, the higher in the mountains a person is, the greater are the hardships of being there.

The same is true in the spiritual life. The greatest treasures of Christianity can only be gleaned by being very close to the Lord. The problem is, it's a challenge to get there and once there you'll find that the world will bring hardships upon you.

Paul said any sufferings he endured in those higher elevations of the spiritual life could not be compared to the glory which would be revealed in him in heaven.

The gold that's available from a close walk with God is obvious worth the hardships of that spiritual life.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Vacation and Services

I didn't grow up going on a lot of vacations per se. My dad was a professional rodeo cowboy and we went somewhere almost every weekend. Often if we weren't staying in the camper at a rodeo arena we were camping in it at a lake, fishing trout in the early mornings.

In my earlier years of ministry I modeled my family off times more like how I grew up. We didn't ever take a vacation as in a week or two unplugged and away. We did travel almost every month to a preachers' fellowship meeting and we always turned some portion of that trip into an adventure for our kids. We also camped a lot as Oregon's largest state park is just outside of Astoria, where we lived in the earliest days of our ministry.

Things changed when we moved twelve years ago to Puyallup. Bible Baptist offered a vacation package as a part of my benefits so we began modeling our down time a little more like how my wife grew up.

The first year was two full weeks out camping. We decided that was much too long. The next year was a week long trip to Lake Louise, Canada. It was a bit hurried, but the most significant challenge was attending church. We attended a good church Sunday morning and headed into Canada thinking we could find a church to attend where ever we stopped for the night. We stopped early on purpose so we could get cleaned up from traveling in time for church. What we found was that no church in town held a Sunday night service. I was even willing to attend an Episcopalian service if necessary. No open church whatsoever.

The next several years were no better. We went on an Alaska cruise one year. The timing was such that we left after the morning service so we missed church that evening and there was not church in Skagway, where we spent Wednesday so we missed that service too. Apparently a lot of preachers have no problem missing services to go on a cruise because a lot of them recommend cruising.

Another year we planned to take a train from Seattle to New York and back. I made reservations for a sleeper car. The whole vacation was going to be the train. Just ride it to New York and back (taking different routes each way). My (by then) adult children and their wives drove us to the train station. On the way one asked where we would stop for church. It was not until then that I realized that we would not be able to attend a single church service the entire way. My kids tried to justify their parents' lack of church that week but by the time we arrived at the train station I had come to the conclusion that I could not set that example for my kids. I canceled our trip and ate the cost.

This year we secluded ourselves in the North Cascade Mountains no more than one and a half hours from four Baptist Churches of like faith and practice. Still trouble attending church. It turned out that 

• One is a church plant and does not yet have mid week services. 
• Another advertised just a children's outreach for the mid-week (turns out their web site needs a little updating. They did have a preaching service on Wednesday.) 
• Another held their mid week service on Tuesday instead of Wednesday. I know that many do Thursday instead.

Here is the thing, it's just about impossible to go on vacation and be faithful to worship in God's house. Oh, sure, almost every town has something that looks like a church but those with a little biblical discernment know that most things men call church are just that, called of men and not the Lord. Trouble is that some who have the Lord's authority are shirking their obligations. Church needs to be 

• On a consistent time
• Well advertised and 
• Faithfully executed

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Compromise Is Always Loss

I admit it; I have been a "gadget junky" ever since 1992, when I got my first computer. It wasn't that long after I got my first cell phone and, Brother, I was hooked. I resist buying the latest and greatest, and I avoid updating software like the plague. But still, I enjoy the gadgets and many times have found them to be helpful to my ministry. I had a PDA early on in their history and remember telling my wife not would be wonderful if the engineers would design and cell phone/PDA in one gadget. When the smart phone came out I was early on the bandwagon. And I learned very early that those smartphones could be used for other things, like reading books. In the early days I found books posted on a website and read them right off the Site. Not long after my phone had the capability to read books in pdf format. Very shortly thereafter my phone was capable of reading almost any electronic book. And I used it for that.

It was a natural then, for me to become interested in the electronic readers like Kindle and Ipad. The first Kindle I purchased was actually a gift for my oldest son. At the time I bought the second one for my second born son, I was still reading with my smartphone. Two more e-readers and my wife and one daughter in law were equipped. Me? Still using my phone. Then it was my turn. I purchased an Ipad which I have thoroughly enjoyed. But there have been new gadgets to explore. I watched the gadget world after the Kindle Fire came out until I was able to buy a refurbished one for a discounted price. It has become my typical nightstand reader, replacing first my phone and then my Ipad.

I now find myself packing not one but three electronic gadgets. My problem is that each of the three does something so much better than the other two that, to give up any one of the three would mean to compromise some functionality.

My smartphone does the most.

Frankly, it comes the closest to being the go to gadget of the three. If I could only have one it would be the phone. But it is just too small for Web research and reading for an extended period.

The Ipad is a good research tool.

However it has no phone capability and it would be a catastrophe to give it that function. Also it's virtual keyboard is clumsy to me. It's just a little too big for regular use. I much prefer the thumbs only virtual keyboard on my phone. The Ipad is also large enough that it becomes uncomfortable to read with it for any length of time.

My Kindle Fire is an ideal reader.

I do not like it as a Web research tool, I hate its virtual keyboard, but for reading books, especially in Kindle's proprietary format, it is hands down the machine I like to grab.

To do without any one of them would be to compromise.

Here is the problem; compromise in its basest form, is always a loss. I know our government glories in the art of compromise but compromise means something is always lost. Washington sacrifices pork spending to pass a bill that one side of the house believes is essential. In order to get the legislative, executive and judicial branches to cooperate, many times the thing they cooperate on has been so watered down with compromise that it is in effect, ineffective. Compromise always means loss.

And when that compromise happens with eternal things the loss is very often of eternal consequence. God's Word gives us no room for compromise.

• We are either saved God's way or we are hell bound
• We are either at peace with God or we are at enmity
• We are either preaching truth or we are preaching heresy
• We are either walking with the Lord or we are apostate

There is no reasonable compromise between the gospel of works and the gospel of grace. The only option the Bible believer has is to contend for the truth as he sees it in the Word of God. He may stand alone. His might be few in number. But to compromise to gain a larger following or more acceptance among the religious crowds is to suffer loss of doctrinal integrity.

Compromise always means loss.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Courageous

I guess I am behind the times a bit. I just watched the film "Courageous" for the first time. I can see why so many have spoken highly of it.

• The acting and production has improved dramatically from "Flywheel."
• The story is compelling and emotional
• The conclusion is powerful and convicting.

It was a pleasure to watch.

That said, there were some things in the show that a Christian ought to give second thought to. This show claims a Christian message. For that reason it must be held to a higher standard than other things a person might watch. As much as the "message" of the show is preached, so too are some more subtle "mini messages" that we might not even be aware were preached.

First there was the issue of allowing a nine year old daughter to attend a party where there would be dancing. The daughter wants Dad to teach her to dance and the clear message is that he should have done it. I understand that Baptists are about the only people in the world who are opposed to dancing. But we have good biblical reason.

• The music is sensual and worldly.
• The context of dancing is sexual in nature.
• Those dances that involve an embrace are in direct violation of the Bible[1]
• The atmosphere of the dance hall is wicked.
• The conclusion of a dance is nearly always (especially in the heart of the worldly male) to find someplace to consummate what was acted out on the floor

This film's not so subtle approval of Christians dancing is an enemy of the cross.

Second there is a prosperity theology message promoted in the film. I commend the film for encouraging men to work and I certainly commend the film for encouraging workers to be honest. But Javier's story is the opposite of the message of the Christian classic "In His Steps" by Charles Shelton where the character does the right thing and losses his job because of it. The message of this film is that if we will do the right thing, God will reward us with a promotion and more money. That flies in the face of those millions of Christians of the past who did the right thing and we're burned at the stake or torn to pieces by wild animals. Where was God for them?

It might seem like a trivial complaint but as a preacher I deal with the consequences of this false doctrine regularly. Americans have been led to believe that if they become Christians and obey the Bible they

• Will get raises at work
• Own the best houses and
• Raise the happiest families.

But that isn't the message of the Bible and years of reality have now led to a generation of people who do not trust Christianity because the (false) message of prosperity hasn't come to pass so they won't listen to the (true) message of salvation.

The movie is good. I do not deny that it is compelling and mostly clean. But the messages under the message are dangerous and Christians ought to take heed.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] 1 Corinthians 7:1

Hate Crimes

There has been much to do of late concerning the Fundamentalists' hatred of homosexuals. I want to go on record that I do not hate them.

• I do not wish anyone to be executed
• I do not wish anyone to be placed in prison
• I do not wish anyone to be persecuted

I will go on record as being appalled by the outlandish sentiments of those preachers recently cited as urging the above upon people in the homosexual community (I did note that among those cited were people of other than Independent Fundamental Baptists, though one of them was.)

I am certain there is much better preaching than the kind of preaching that incites people to hysteria over their pet peeves. It's pretty easy to get people stirred up over things that appeal to their sense of culture. Too much preaching serves no real purpose but to please the listener. To what value is it to preach to a room full of non homosexuals that you think that all homosexuals should be executed? Those in the room have no authority to practice your message and presumably have no need of repenting of the sin being preached against.

But it is not hateful to preach what the Bible says and the Bible does say that homosexuality is sin. The lifestyle is contrary to nature and to the purpose for which God has created us.

• To urge a congregation to practice the Word of God
• To encourage people to obey all of the Word of God
• To enlist a congregation to pray for those who are involved in a non biblical lifestyle

That is not hatred.

Those who have wrongly applied the Christian message have incited a different kind of hatred than against homosexuals; they have stirred up the hatred of those non Fundamentalist Christians against not just Fundamentalists but everyone they choose to label as Fundamentalists. Several articles and blog pieces have suggested that Fundamentalism will soon be illegal because of the kinds of sermons they have cited in the last few days. Here is the thing; Bible believing Christianity has been illegal for the better part of Christian history. To be sure, there has been a long history now of a particular form of Christianity that has wielded popularity and politic power, but a good part of those who have claimed to be Christians have always been

• Hated,
• Imprisoned
• Persecuted and even
• Executed

by both the non Christian and the established kind of Christian world. Such attacks upon Fundamentalism will not stop it or change it; it will just refine and define who in it really is Fundamental.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Only Church

I have a friend who is struggling in his work today and it is because, though his work is a ministry, it is a ministry that is necessarily outside of a local church and thus requires an organization other than a local church in which to function. Such organizations exist and in some cases, with good reason and I believe a degree of justification:

• Many missions fields are closed to those who are not a part of an agency
• Colleges, in order to provide a well rounded education, need teachers whose experience is beyond one local church (even those churches who have college ministries use pastors from other churches or at the very least, recruit students from other churches)
• Preachers need some means of fellowship among each other for encouragement, support and perhaps a work larger than themselves

But here is the problem and here is where my friend's trouble comes in, invariably these non church organizations begin applying Biblical mandates that have only Scriptural authority to the church upon those who are a part of their organization. They assume that what is true for the church is true for their organization too. They begin thinking of themselves as God thinks of His church. They begin making expectations of those who are in their organization that only their local church ought to expect.

And very frequently (and I think the worse thing about them is that ) these expectations create a conflict for their associates between their local church and the organization. The organization demands loyalty to it even above their local church. The non church organization begins to, in effect, usurp authority over that person's local church.

I do not believe the problem is answered in those ministries that are under the authority of a local church large enough to house a nationwide or worldwide effort because in every case, those ministries usurp authority over those smaller churches that cooperate with them, in effect creating something worse than a para church organization; an ecclesiastical hierarchy. The answer is a call to arms. the answer is a reminder that we are soldiers and our enemy is our own flesh. The answer is to constantly and continually mortify the tendency of self to demand loyalty to anything other than that thing God has created, which is the independent, local (and I am convinced) Baptist Church.

To expect and demand a Christian's loyalty to anything other is to pressure them into idolatry.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Sheep Don't Bite

I read a short blog the other day that has been stuck in my craw. The writer was attempting to encourage pastors with a list of quips concerning the ministry. One of those quips was, "Sheep bite; they just do." or something like that. Though I confess that I am unable now to find the blog to reference it, I was able, through a simple Google search, to find several Web sites that contain articles about sheep biting. The idea of course is that Christians, who are characterized as sheep in the Bible often hurt there pastor, who is characterized as their shepherd or one another.

This is interesting and I think addresses a flaw in our definition of who exactly is a sheep. The fact is real sheep do not bite. Their teeth and their palate is designed to graze and bite off grass. They so not bite. Not one another; not their shepherd. This isn't to say that sheep are perfect.

• They do wonder off
• They do get ill  but
• They don't bite

Sheep are a unique animal that has no chain of authority. There is no alpha sheep in the flock. No one in a flock of sheep is fighting to be lead. It is against their nature.

Dogs, or rather biblically, wolves bite. They bite each other and they bite anything else in their way. They are pack animals and the leader must always assert and defend his lead because every other wolf in the pack is waiting for its chance to assert itself and become lead.

All of this reflects on the current concept of what constitutes a Christian and what the role of the pastor is. Today's model sees anyone who attends church or makes any sort of profession of believing as a child of God. We view Christianity as a life choice today so anyone who chooses to may claim the status of "sheep." consequently a shepherd's job in today's Christianity has the role of coaxing as many self professed sheep as possible into choosing his flock and then managing those "sheep" well enough that they won't go looking for another shepherd and some other flock. The shepherd of this sort of flock, the contention is, must expect to get bitten once in a while. It is the nature of the sheep.

I have a different idea. It sounds to me like that kind of shepherding isn't shepherding at all; I think that's just managing a wolf pack. Anyone working with wolves of course has to be careful of being bitten. That is not true of shepherds. Our trouble today is that we accept that wolves are sheep just because the wolf says he is a sheep. The Bible warns that wolves will enter among us. The Bible warns that there will be many false professors. We would do best to remember that and warn those who are prone to bite that they don't possess the character of their profession.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Influence In Theology

I read a blog recently entitled, How To Lose Your Influence In Theology. (reclaimingthemind.org) The author offered several points that he suggested would discredit the influence of the one practicing them in theology. Some of his suggestions have merit. But some were typical among the ecumenical kind of Christianity. Among his challenges were Insisting upon an inerrancy version of the Bible Holding a particular view of end times And do so with passionate relentlessness. It is not the desire of my heart to lack grace. However I do believe that his article must at least have an answer. First, I have some trouble with the goal of having "influence." I know that influence is an outcome of either preaching or writing about the Word of God. But influence cannot be our end. To make it so is to expose our work to compromise. The goal of influence can override our goal to be true to God's calling upon our lives, the convictions we hold and to the truth of God's Word itself. Our goal must be God; to grow on grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the only appropriate goal because that is the only goal we can pursue without risking compromise. As we pursue that, God will then gives us whatever influence He may please us to have. Secondly, the blog sounds like a rehearsal of the messenger's advice to Micaiah in 1 Kings 22:13, "Here is what all the other prophets have told the king. Tell him the same thing they said and you will have credibility." Micaiah wasn't as worried about having credibility or influence with the prophets or with the king as he was about preaching God's message. This man's blog is designed to dumb down the message of the preacher until every opinion about God is as good as the next. I am aware of the objections raised concerning the inerrancy of any particular version of the Bible (They mean the King James Version - it is attacked with a hatred similar to Jehoshaphat's hatred for Micaiah). I am aware that even the translators of the King James never ascribed to it infallibility. But I remind you that John nor any of the other penmanship (with some exceptions) of the Bible never ascribed that to their books either; it was concluded that they were the very Words of God at a later date. The translators did know that they had been given a rare opportunity. They engaged in their work with reverence and completed their work with confidence that God had permitted them this privilege. It has been since its publication that the obvious blessing of God upon it and the hatred of the word the flesh and the devil against it has demonstrated that it, above all the more modern translations is the very Word of God. Someone needs to say that God can intervene in the Work of man. Someone needs to say that despite all of the protests and objections of the so called learned, God is capable of and indeed has preserved for the world a Bible that is without error. Someone has to say that the devil hasn't left us with enough of the Bible but not a perfect Bible. Someone needs to say that the message of the Word is clear. That we are not left helpless to follow only those men who gather together to tell each other what to say. That because we have a perfect Bible and because the God is still at work today and because the Holy Spirit is still the true teacher of the Word, any man woman or child can pick up a Bible, and with some sanctified study, find what God says. -- Marvin McKenzie In the fields

INDIVISIBLE

I watched James Robinsons program this morning precisely because his guest was Glenn Beck. They said Glen's radio broadcast is the third largest in our country today. Beck makes no apologies for being Mormon. His program, though thematically a political one has taken on a heavily spiritual tone and Christians who are conservative in nature have embraced his conservative politics and in many cases have even unwittingly embraced his brand of religion. Robinson said that Beck had recently spoken in his home church named Gateway and that he was sure Beck knew Jesus. I have spoken to enough Mormons myself to know these two things:
One, they will claim to have accepted Christ as Saviour
Two, they do not mean the same person as the Bible describes as Jesus.

Robinson and apparently this Gateway Church and scores and thousands of professing believers have invited a different doctrine concerning Christ into their home.

Shame!
The were lots of playful jabs between Robinson and Beck today. Beck also made some playful jabs at the Bible that were laughed at by Robinson and his audience. Beck said he had been reading First John A lot this week. Then he backed up and corrected himself. He said he had been reading chapters one through four because the author gets off on chapter five. Everyone laughed.

• Is not First John inspired? 
• Is John's epistle just his opinion about Christ? 

Chapter five is then nothing to laugh about. It says he that hath the son hath life but he that hath not the son of God hath not life. It says that there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. That is nothing to laugh about.
 
Beck's politics may appeal to the conservative Christian today but his theology is damnable. Some careless Christians have endorsed his theology just because they like his politics.

Ones theology is so much more important than his politics we would be better off giving this country to the devil than giving one soul the false impression that Mormonism is a viable Christian faith.

--
Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Why Does The Lord Allow It?

Luke 14:10 KJV
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

I have been thinking that perhaps the reason that the Lord allows this world to so abuse the Christian faith and to mock spiritual principles is because if He were to make his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, so to speak, sinful man would pervert it into some sort of money making scheme or means of self advancement. We would take to our sinful heart those words in Luke 14:10, "then shalt thou have worship... "and we would fight for the lowest rooms, they would have to build more lowest rooms to accommodate the numbers making their way into them. Perhaps the Lord allows this world to get away with so much evil
• To prove those who will believe without immediate reward and
• To find out those who will do right even when no one acknowledges them for doing it.

Moses Wrote This Song

Deuteronomy 31:19 KJV
Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:22 KJV
Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

One of the things a person picks up from the Bible concerning songs and music is that God's people used them for either worship or for education and not for entertainment. Moses wrote this song (recorded in chapter thirty two) and sang it the same day he was "gathered to his people"; he died. The song was not celebratory in nature, though Moses had written one that was after the soldiers of Egypt died in the Red Sea. This song was meant to rehearse what God had said to Israel.

Moses was inspired in his writing I know. But songs that entertain aren't generally written and sung the same day. The writer has motives behind his music that necessitate his care when first releasing the song. He needs music to be scored and rehearsals to be done. Why, the couple who sang America the Beautiful at the 2012 Superbowl practiced it a week before the actual performance: and that is a song they have surely known since childhood. Entertainment requires careful preparation.

No, Moses did neither write nor sing for the sake of entertainment. And I conclude from that that far too much entertainment emphasis is placed upon even spiritual music in our day. The purpose of music among the believers must be an act of worship and an expression of a spiritual truth. If it is not that, it is not Christian.

Greater Than John The Baptist

I came across a short quip from Tim Keller concerning Jesus remark that the least in the kingdom are greater than John the Baptist. I found it interesting because I had just written on that very subject last week. My piece at http://mckenzie-visit-with-god.blogspot.com/ is based out of Luke's Gospel rather than Matthew's, which is where Keller bases his piece. I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the perspective of a Protestant and a Baptist (who approaches the Bible from a fundamentalist rather than an evangelical perspective) on the person, ministry and mark that John the Baptist makes. Keller's article may be found at http://kellerquotes.com/john-the-baptist/. I encourage you to read it. As for my piece, I will repeat it in its entirety here.

"Luke 7:28 KJV
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

There is no doubt but that John the Baptist is a great character in the New Testament. Though his work was short lived, it introduced that which is eternal. John the Baptist, Jesus said, was the greatest of all prophets. But his ministry is much more than that, extending into the New Testament and introducing that ordinance which distinguishes the church of Jesus Christ from all others; baptism of
• A proper candidate (saved) for
• A proper reason (obedience, profession), using
• A proper method (immersion) and under
• A proper authority (a Baptist church)

Why would then Jesus say that the least in the kingdom would be greater than John? Does this mean, as many have preached, that John is not a New Testament preacher, that his message was in some way inferior? Not in the least. Consider the biblical lesson after this verse. John's baptism is the dividing line between glorifying God and rejecting God's counsel.

But what John began blossomed after his death. Like that grain of wheat that dies in the ground and then yields a hundred fold;
• After John the Baptist came the death burial and resurrection of Christ and
• After John the Baptist came the entirety of the New Testament
• After John the Baptist came not only the salvation and baptism of those in Israel but all around the world
• After John the Baptist has come two centuries of preaching that very message John preached.
True greatness inspires even greater greatness. It was his greatness that has led to greater things for Christ than he himself could have done. "

Now for a few thoughts between the two pieces:
First, I agree with Keller that these passages are overlooked. I think Protestants (even the ones who use the name Baptist) take a minimalist position concerning THE Baptist. Everything that can be done is done to make little of John the Baptist. Mostly he is just overlooked. Good on him for pointing that out.
Secondly, it seems enlightening to me that a Protestant took the Matthew eleven passage as his text rather than the Luke seven text. Luke seven places much greater emphasis on the importance of John's baptism.
Finally, I am happy with Mr. Keller's application to practicing the gospel ministry. We have got to get Christians engaged in our world. We have got to see the average believer make living his faith in the world his normal life.
Only then will our faith change our world.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

The Older Generation?

I just finished an article at Reformation 21 A Forgotten Text? Why Is That, I Wonder?. The author, Carl Trueman, makes some claim to have roots in fundamentalism or at least to have stood with those who laugh at them, calling our standards "unsophisticated taboos" and claiming that those who held to them were "the older generation."

First I would like to point out that, while I am beginning to approach being "the older generation" there are plenty of men who hold these standards who are not older. There are some very fine young men who embrace separation from the sins of this world. Our numbers may not be swelling in the same sense as the young restless and reformed, but we are doing pretty well thank you very much, at reaching this generation with the gospel and with our message of separation from this world.

Secondly I would like to suggest that Mr. Trueman's own fears over the lack of separation in the reformed crowd betrays the idea the reformation practices of liberty are overboard. What he calls legalism we claim as honest separation from the error of this world. We, whose doctrines of separation he calls "taboos" are fully aware that doing faithful Christianity is not a requirement of salvation and that certain actions we encourage Christians to avoid are not "cardinal sins". Those who cry out for liberty, it seems to me, are blinded by their selfish desire to get their own way and call it godliness.

Thirdly, I take some umbrage to the term unsophisticated. It implies that those of the reformed crowd have some how grown passed these taboos. As if sin changes with culture. What was sin fifty years ago is still sin today. Nothing has changed but the modern reformed crowds willingness to wrest Scriptures in order to get their way and find a following.

• It's time we return to standards of separation.
• It's time we take a listen to that older generation
• It's time we stop excusing our thirst for worldliness

I applaud Mr. Trueman's brass in confronting the fleshly tendency of the reformed crowd to use sex speech as a means to draw a larger crowd into their churches. I would suggest that he take it further. I would suggest that he also challenge them to rethink their positions on alcohol, modesty and etc.

But wait. If he does that he will fit in with the old generation better than the young restless and reformed.

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields