Would The Bible in Any Language Smell as Sweet?

Among the debates that arise over the issue of the preservation of the Bible, especially concerning whether that preservation is to be found within the pages of the King James Version, has to do with other languages. The argument would sound something like this, "Doesn't the person whose first language is Portuguese[1] have the right to have the Bible in his native language?"

The argument is not about rights, it is about:

• Purity
• Accuracy and
• Authority

I do not deny any man of any nation the right to have a Bible in his own tongue. I would simply suggest that no Bible, outside of the King James Bible, can demonstrate the same strengths in the areas of purity, accuracy and authority. 

In which other language has the Bible gone through such a process of refinement as has the King James? Remember that, previous to the King James Version, there had been a number of translations of the Bible into the English language. Each of those works was studied and compared and considered, along with translations in other languages in the work of the King James Bible.  Though there are Bibles in other languages, none of them have gone through the series of refinements that the King James did. (That refinement ended with the King James as all English translations following it rely on a different - and I contend, corrupt - manuscript.)

I would challenge the Bible students of the world to find a set of scholars reaching the credentials of those translators of the King James Version, whose working conditions would fairly represent those of the King James Translators. If we believe the Bible at all we must recognize that our world is not improving but becoming worse with each passing year. The influences tending to corrupt modern scholarship are such that it is difficult to conceive of any group of men with sufficient skills, who are not in some way corrupted by modernism and liberal ideas toward the Bible. Scholarship and humility these days do not go hand in hand. 

Regarding authority of the Scripture; in what other language is there even a claim toward having a perfectly preserved Bible? Every case I am aware of those who use their native Bible realize it to be flawed. Correcting their Bibles as they preach is as common as a modern American preacher using a "Good News for Modern Man." He does not pretend to believe his Bible is without error. 

Let's not beat around the bush on this thing. Either our King James Bible is the without error or it is not. If it is without error, if it is the perfectly preserved Scripture as I believe it to be, then any person from any land speaking any language would be spiritually bettered to learn to read and understand the King James Version of the Bible. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] Plug in any nationality and language you like

Are Discouragement and Depression Sins?

I do not believe they are for the following reasons:

1. The Bible nowhere calls it a sin

2. Many of the great characters of the Bible experienced both discouragement and depression

3. Neither David, Paul, Jeremiah nor others were rebuked for being discouraged

4. Discouragement and depression could be the weakness in which God is made strong in us

5. Charles Spurgeon, himself a well known sufferer if depression, once said, "Discouragement is the lot of the preacher. God will not share his glory."[1]

Though discouragement might lead a person to behave in a sinful way it is not necessarily so and it is not the discouragement that is the actual cause of the sin. As with any testing, a person has the ability to use that test to draw them closer to God or push them further away from God. Depression may be the tool used if the Lord to greatly use a man.[2]

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] I believe this quote may be found in Spurgeon's "Lectures to My Students." I would urge any preacher to read his "Lectures" in its entirety.

[2] Many of David's Psalms are written under the cloud of depression. How much poorer would we be without those great passages of pathos and tears!

We Must Not Persuade the Will

I have recently been taking an introduction to philosophy class offered online by MIT[1]. The first unit of the class looks at the arguments for and against the existence of God, and addresses what is known as Pascal's Wager. Pascal reasoned that it was in the best interest of men to believe in God because if you believe and God is real, you go to eternal heaven, but if you don't believe and God is real you go to hell. If God is real you have everything to gain and nothing to lose in believing and nothing to gain and everything to lose by not believing. If God is not real, you have lost nothing for believing. 

Now, I see many flaws in Pascal's wager. But the argument the course eventually presents is that a man cannot will to believe. The instructor says that we cannot turn believing on and off like a light switch. I find this remark intriguing on several levels:

It answers to the Bible truth that no man comes to God except that he is drawn by the Holy Spirit.

Faith is not a life choice. It is a calling of God. It is not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Heavenly Father

It also speaks to the work of the soul winner.

The word faith carries with it the idea of persuasion. A person believes in Christ because he is persuaded by another who already believes in Christ. Paul "so spake" that a great number came to believe or to be persuaded. But that persuasion must be something different than the transmission of facts and evidences; what the philosophers call epistemology. It is from the heart to the heart. Rather, the Bible teaches, it is from faith to faith. That is why the Bible is not a book of mere facts and proof. A man who looked at epistemological evidence and became persuaded would only be persuaded academically. God's target is not the head. It is the seat of faith for which He shoots, what the Bible refers to as our bowels. 

The soul winner must never allow himself to be trapped into a discussion targeted at the head. Even if he wins the persuasion he will have accomplished nothing. It's why philosophers love to analyze the argument of Pascal's wager but never really consider whether God is it not. The soul winner must learn to target his whole conversation on his faith and transfer that to the faith of another. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] https://www.edx.org/course/mit/24-00x/introduction-philosophy-god/888

Successful People Cannot Be Accessible People

That was the lesson of a event blog from Michael Hyatt, the successful Ex-CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishing[1][2]  and now successful author, blogger and Consultant to the masses of Christian writing on the internet. The plain fact is that the more successful a person becomes the fewer people that person can make himself available to. 

And it makes sense. Suppose a man's position gives him ten persons who look directly up to him. He is able to communicate to ten very personally very often. He can know them closely, know their families, know where they live. They can know the same about him. But as numbers grow he can only retain so much information. Sooner or later it is impossible for him to remember every persons address and he eventually cannot have close conversations with every person. 

One pastor I know visited every family in his church after every time he went out door knocking. It was his way to make them a part of his efforts, to hold himself accountable and to encourage the members to do door knocking evangelism themselves. He now has a congregation of many hundreds. He couldn't possibly report to each of them each time he is finished with door knocking. 

Another pastor tells how when his church was under one hundred, he knew every person by name and knew where every one of them lived. When the church reached five hundred he still knew them all by name but not where they all lived. When the church reached one thousand he knew recognized their faces and could remember many of their names. When the congregation reached five thousand he would see someone look at him in the store and wonder if he was a member of his church. 

When I worked as the Executive Vice President of Heartland Baptist Bible College a friend of mine called Pastor Sam Davison's office. He told Pastor Davison's secretary that he was a friend of mine. According to my friend, the secretary responded, "If you were Brother McKenzie, you could speak to Pastor Davison right now. But since you aren't you can't." She wasn't being rude. The fact is that if every person who ever wanted to speak to Pastor Davison[3] got to do so whenever they wanted he could never have gotten time to study and quietly walk with the Lord. 

But here is the problem. Whoever decided that a pastor should ever be so successful he can't be accessible? Certain men have developed ministries that are so large they could not possibly pastor the whole so they hire under shepherds to work for them. These under shepherds essentially pastor these sub-flocks within the larger church but they are not answerable to the Lord; they answer to the senior pastor. The larger ministry is a micro denomination even if the church claims to be independent. The members of the church who are not directly under the senior pastor are placed in the distinct disadvantage of not having a shepherd who answers to Jesus. 

A pastor ought to be accessible. The only way for that to happen is for us to stop trying to build empires and focus on planting local churches whose target is to please The Lord and minister to His children. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] http://michaelhyatt.com/about

[2] http://michaelhyatt.com/leadership-success-accessibility.html

[3] To be fair I would go on record as observing that Pastor Davison worked very hard at being accessible.

Thoughts on Paul Chappell's message Eight Calls to America's Pastors

Paul Chappell emailed me the link for this message, preached at his annual Spiritual Leadership Conference in June of 2013. It came along with the subject heading "I missed you at the conference" and an invitation to download his e-book "America Tomorrow." I downloaded the book (but have not yet looked at it) and listened to about 3/4 of the message which was delivered in what he called a "session."

The message begins early on with a sound bite from the most recent Democratic National Convention where it was voted (but was more like railroaded down the throats of the participants) that there would be no mention of God at the Convention. Chappell uses that as an appeal to his patriotic Baptist delegates that America is in trouble spiritually and suggests that this message is intended to give us direction as to how to help America in her time of trouble.

Some observations I have concerning the message:

It was certainly not expositional. 

Men like Brother Chappell insist that expositional preaching is the only kind of Scriptural preaching but they often break away from it when they want to say what they want to say. 

He pushed the concept of prayer and revival

This was first and foremost and gave the rest of his message a sense of legitimacy because he did the spiritual thing first. However I have come to question whether it is Baptist to believe in revivals (in the sense that most of us think of them) at all. The revivals all cited in the past were clearly without Baptist involvement and were promoted, reported and participated in by all but Baptists. Even quasi-Baptist Charles Spurgeon did not participate in the revival work of D.L. Moody and clearly had the opportunity to so. 

Chappell mentions a group of Baptists in the later part of the 1800s as the catalyst of the revival that happened afterwards. I would mention that by then Baptists, both North and South, were so influenced by Protestantism as to hardly count as a Baptist movement. 

Chappell's comments in this point are nothing short of Protestantism and Universalism. His appeals for men to stop criticizing and to start getting along and sets himself up so that those points he will bring following can hardly be challenged without the challenger being guilty of quenching revival. 

Chappell proceeds from there to give a number of points I commend:

• We must preach clearly biblical messages
• We must become men of integrity and report crimes rather than cover them up

He then makes the claim that, though the size of a church does not matter, the only thing that will save America is soul winning. 

A number of things come to mind from this segment of the message

First when did saving America (or any country) become the priority of the preacher? 

It certainly was not the priority of Jesus. It was not the priority of any of the Apostles. It does not appear to be the priority of any Baptist prior to the American Revolution, which was manifestly Protestant. 

Second this is a complete reversal of his first claim that America needs revival. 

Chappell wisely begins by claiming dependence upon the Lord but eventually ends up where religion always does; with man being the ultimate savior. 

Thirdly Chappell becomes what he had insisted would prevent revival

He embarks on a number of snide, rude and obnoxious remarks against those whose ministries do not reach the number of souls his does. He has fat jokes, jokes about proselytizing and etc. While he does not announce the number of people in attendance at his church he is sure to tell us how many people from his church go door knocking and how many doors were knocked the previous year, using that to make his mocking of others seem legitimate. 

He also claims that, though they do not publish the attendance of his church, the vast majority of people who attend were saved through his church ministry. I would like to see hard statistics on that. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Thoughts On the Work of Pastor James Altar

A couple of observations concerning Brother Altar's material here shared:

Brother Altar has done much to help the strengthen vision for Baptist history in our ranks. He is a passionate preacher, which is a blessing. I appreciate his zeal to tell Baptists not to quote from Protestant preachers but to do their study and research among Baptists. However,

He claims the book of Acts is transitional. 

While that view feels like it solves a few problems some have with Acts, i.e. provides a short answer to Pentecostalism, it also diminishes the authority of the book for New Testament Baptists today. There is no biblical authority for assigning it a transitional place in Scripture. It is rather a leap Altar asks his audience to accept without any real proof it is a Biblically credible. I instead see the Book of Acts as what it says it is; the Acts of the Apostles. I view it as a representation of what all of the Apostles were doing at the same time Paul was evangelizing in the Middle East and shores of Greece and Italy. 

Brother Altar claims that the Gospels are "Jewish" 

This also denigrates the authority of Scriptures for New Testament Baptists today. I would not deny that there are certain Gospel passages that find their primary application among the Jews. But I would deny that Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:18-20 and all of the Gospel references to John the Baptist are Jewish. These passages clearly relate to the church that Jesus founded in the Gospels with members all baptized by a Baptist preacher. 

I certainly do not mean to be argumentative but I do believe we at least need to hear from differing views that we may learn from them. 

(This is in response to the following e-mail sent to the GIBF forum. I have not sent this response but wrote it as an exercise.)

On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:11 AM, David Warner <dwarner@ctcn.net> wrote:

"Brethren,

Some may have already gotten these studies on Baptist History but it seems not everyone did. The link below allows you to download the studies AND the PowerPoints on Baptist History as well as two that accompany the Word Doc studies.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qwemie1q33mclpv/lwHl0vfk3M

The two main studies are the work of James Altar, Sidney, OH who is also the author of Ancient Baptist History.  If you are not familiar with his website, you should be.  He has great material and does tremendous work on our Baptist Heritage.

http://www.ancientbaptist.org/Index.html)"

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Baptism Before Membership

The practice of baptizing a person prior to membership into the local Baptist church is not a new thing. Jack Hyles practiced it in Hammond, Indiana. A considerable number of those who were followers of Hyles practiced the same. However it is now becoming an increasingly popular practice among those who are of a background different than those trained under and followers of Hyles. This has come about because of the failure to make the clear distinctions between those who leaned more heavily on the Protestant "fundamentals" than the Baptist distinctives. 

I do not question that many of these men are good and well intentioned men. But they are more Protestant in their doctrine and ministerial philosophy. On the West Coast we see their model of ministry being embraced almost without question and almost universally among Independent Baptists. Those Baptists are assuming more Protestant like doctrines and philosophies of ministry. 

Among those Protestant like doctrines would be the baptizing of individuals prior to membership and not as a door into membership. It is:

I. Blatantly Unscriptural

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 KJV

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

  

We read these verses and recognize immediately that baptism is the door into church membership. A person is baptized into the membership of that body.

Acts 2:41 KJV

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

   

These three thousand souls were saved, baptized and added to the church the same day. Baptism came after salvation and was both the prerequisite to and means of entrance into that church.

II. Manifestly Protestant

The only argument which can be made against 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 teaching baptism as the door into church membership is to deny:

• That the baptism here spoken of is water baptism (and assign to it the Protestant idea of Spirit baptism)
• That the body here spoken of is a local church (and assign to it the Protestant idea of an invisible universal church)

III. Inherently "Cain - onic" 

Just as Cain was happy to serve God as long as he could do so in the way that was most practical for his circumstance and self elevating in its nature, so is placing baptism before membership.

It is pragmatic in that it is a position that allows for the most results with the least resistance.

It is self elevating in that it allows for faster growth and higher "yield" in the church - making a man appear to have accomplished more than others (who were more conscientious with the Word of God).

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

Baptists and the Political Trap

It is difficult to deny that, previous to the founding of the United States of America, Baptist people had very little political involvement and in most cases refused political involvement. No wonder. The experience of Baptist people and governments had never been positive. Whether it was
·         The pre-Catholic secular Roman government or
·         The burgeoning Catholic system to
·         The multi-headed Protestant monster
Baptists have always gotten a sour taste from government persecution, leaving them to contemplate the place of government in the world of the Christian. Their conclusion was the now famous (some would say infamous) doctrine of separation of church and state.[1] 

It is not as though historical Baptists have never had opportunity to be a government sanctioned church. Indeed, the Netherlands considered it at one time and it was again considered in the early days of our nations founding. After Baptists strongly lobbied for religious freedom, the Constitutional Convention considered making Baptist the state church. In both cases the Baptists declined. In the case of our country's founding, they had lobbied for liberty of conscience. These early Baptists understood that government and faith were terrible bedfellows. 

But then came our constitution and religious liberty. For the first time in human history a government was created by the people and for the people. And for the first time in Christian history Baptists became involved in that government. At first it seemed like a godsend. Not only could Baptists worship according to the dictates of their conscience, they could get involved in the political process to ensure they would always possess this liberty. 

Baptists, the very people who crafted the concept of separation of church and state, began to ignore to the doctrine in favor of using the political process to ensure what politics has always striven to rob men of. Baptists, along with every form of American Protestantism, embraced instead the doctrine of Christian patriotism. That doctrine has been the demise of Baptists.

•  Just as the Waldenses compromised for the sake of their safety and are no longer a vibrant Christian faith
•  Just as the Baptists in England compromised their doctrines to seem more respectable to the Protestant government and lost the savor of their salt
•  Even so have American Baptists so stepped into the trap American politics that we are likely never to escape

Indeed many see no need to escape. 
First, we yoked with the Protestant Fundamentalists who were not Baptists, to fight modernism. 
Today few but Baptists accept the Fundamentalist title, but those who embrace it the strongest are far more Protestant Fundamentalist (in ecclesiology) than they are Baptists. The average Baptist is so unlearned doctrinally that he is unable to discern the difference between a Fundamentalist using the Baptist name and a true Baptist in faith and practice. 

Then we joined hands with Mormons and anyone else who would in the Moral Majority
A misguided and quasi-Baptist preacher led Americans of all persuasions, whether they were Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, or Baptists to extend to one another the right hand of fellowship so long as we each held to "Judeo-Christian" ethics.  Moral Majority has disbanded but many have never let go of the un-Baptist principles of the movement or the unscriptural associations that were formed.  It's a trap, a snare. And I fear that few will even attempt to flee its deathly influence.

Historic Baptists distrusted human governments and devices. They understood the danger of desiring a king like all the other nations. They poured themselves instead into: 

Knowing The Lord

Learning His Word and 

Evangelizing the lost

And left the kingdoms of this world to themselves.[2]

May God grant that some Baptist would see the trap before it us sprung and warn others to flee it.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] That modern Baptists are losing touch with this important doctrine is evidenced by the fact that one leading Independent Baptist pastor once tweaked the doctrine from separation of church and state to separation from sin.
[2] I am not suggesting that Christians in America may not participate in the political process. I am merely attempting to point out that, whenever we do, we set ourselves up to be trapped by it.

Scientific Proof of God’s Omnipresence

Science seeks to prove things as fact through the process of observation, measurement and repetition. In science, a man poses a theory, others conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theory and, when the findings are sufficient to warrant it, an authority such as a scientific journal publishes it.

This process is demonstrated in the Bible concerning God’s Omnipresence.

First

David poses his theory[1]

Psalms 139:7-12 KJV

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

The Psalmist asks the question, “Whither shall I go from [God’s] Spirit?”

• Is there any place where a man might go to hide away from God?
• Is there any place where the Lord does not exist?

After posing the question, he proposes his answer through a series of suggestions:

• Is God in heaven? Yes.
• Is God in hell? Yes
• Is God in the uttermost parts of the sea? Yes
• Is God in the darkness? Yes
• Is God in the night? Yes

He has given his question and proposed His answer.

Jonah tests His theory

Jonah 1:1-2:3 KJV

Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.

But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.

Then said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what people art thou?

And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.

Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous.

And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.

Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them.

Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee.

So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows.

Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

Jonah attempted to flee from the presence of God into Tarshish. Though the location of the city is uncertain, it is thought to have been in Spain and perhaps associated with the  lost city of Atlantis. It was the opposite of Nineveh, in what is now modern day Iraq and was then the power center of Middle Eastern Gentilism; across the ocean, an entire culture away. Perhaps God did not exist there.

What Jonah learned is that

• God is indeed in the midst of the sea
• God is certainly in the belly of the great fish and 
• God, he implies God is in the midst of our hell

David posed the question and suggested the theory that there was no place where a man could go from the presence of God.

Jonah tested the theory through personal experimentation and demonstrated that there was in fact no place he could flee that God was not already there.

God authenticated the findings

Amos 9:1-4 KJV

I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

In this passage the Lord, speaking through the prophet Amos, confirms what David had proposed and Jonah had proven.

Though science will no doubt deny the science of the Word of God there is, none the less, scientific proof that God is indeed omnipresent.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] I am speaking as a man. I understand that David wrote under divine inspiration and therefore it is no theory from the supernatural perspective.

Missionary Machinery

Everything degenerates with age. Even cheese, which is said to improve over time, can age too much. I wonder if the modern practice of missionary support has also degenerated? With the current ease of travel missionaries are able to canvass almost the entire country as they seek those funds needed to get to the field. And with the current economic circumstances in America, those same missionaries often find it needful to cover the whole country and then some to raise the support so vital to life on a foreign field.

Missionaries are often forced into accepting support from churches they are not in doctrinal agreement with (perhaps over the ordinances, the local church, or some philosophy of ministry) and find themselves quietly holding to themselves a conviction of conscience for the sake of the dollars needed for regular support. This quiet compromise may be at the root of the problem of so many missionaries having a surface relationship to practically no relationship with those churches that support them; too close of contact could potentially expose that there are real differences between the missionary and the churches supporting him.

This tension then leads to what I am calling a "missionary machine" mentality. Missionaries travel quickly from one church to the next. They keep their kids away from church kids. They attend one service in a church (either supporting or potentially supporting) and rush off after a quick meal to make the next church within driving distance. In their minds this makes perfect sense. After all, churches need missionaries to obey the Great Commission, missionaries need lots of churches to get to their field and close relationships with local churches will just keep them busy longer doing what they don't really want to do anyway.

• It's a machine
• It's a business
• It's nothing personal
• It's not scriptural and
• It’s not healthy

Our missionaries need to be more loyal to those churches that support them. They need to become personally involved with them. It will require more of an emotional investment on the part both parties but it is the only way we can get missions support back where it belongs; a ministry rather than a machine.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Separation, the Key to Unity

Separation is a dirty word in almost every Christian circle today. Christians have mistaken a few important passages of the Bible to mean that believers of all sorts and stripes should ignore our differences get along in unity. They would accuse separation as the culprit leading the world to despise the faith. They would urge us to tear down the doctrinal walls and get along for the sake of Christ.

I beg to differ.

I would argue that separation is, in fact, the key to the testimony of Christian unity in the world. To deny our differences and force ourselves together is tantamount to forcing two electrons together. All that can happen is a clash. They each have their place, but it is not together.
To recognize the nature of each element empowers us to use those elements for good purposes. To attempt to force them where they do not belong is a mistake of nuclear proportions.

So it is, I would argue, within the world of Christianity. As a Baptist I am thoroughly convinced that each man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience (and accept the consequences if he is in error). The last thing I would ever want to do is attempt to force someone to believe something they do not believe or worship in a manner that is contrary to their own understanding. On the other hand, I would be loathe to allow someone to interfere with my own understanding of worship and faith. I allow for the reasonable exchange of ideas, even when it comes to ideas of faith and worship. I may find my own faith sharpened by the challenge of another who has studied well their position, but has come to a different view than my own – so long as neither of us is bound in some way to agreement. Our very separation allows for a free exchange of ideas. The problem arises when we are bound together through some artificial means where one or the other or perhaps neither of us is free to express our faith and worship before the Lord without in some way offending the other party. Separation liberates us to worship the Lord according to the dictates of our own conscience without violating the conscience of the other.

The confused mess we find in Christianity today is, to a large degree, the consequence of ignoring the principles of separation. We have young couples ignoring these principles in their quest for a lifelong spouse. Believing they are free to do so, they marry someone of another faith, or else no faith at all. But this union must result in either conflict or violation of conscience. We see Protestants whose doctrinal perspectives are Calvinist yoking with a church whose tradition is Arminian. The argument is that the doctrines are insignificant compared to the relationships in the church. But someone has compromised their doctrine or else such a relationship cannot exist. Either the one joining has submitted his own theology or else the church has compromised theirs.

The same compromise of separation is happening within Independent Baptist circles. Because of the influence of Fundamentalism (which was a Protestant movement that Baptists got caught up in)

• We have some Independent Baptists that are decidedly Calvinistic (they would probably prefer the term “reformed”).
• We have some Independent Baptists that are quite Arminian (I refer to them as immersing Methodists. They have patterned themselves after the Fundamental Methodist Evangelist, Bob Jones).
• We have some Independent Baptists who try to avoid those Protestant influences and follow the Baptist conviction of Biblicism.

While most Independent Baptists claim to believe in the principle of the local church, we have, within the broad spectrum of Independent Baptists, various views of the local church:

• Some will acknowledge they also believe in a universal church
• Some believe in the local church, but see it as imperfect and therefore not authoritative
• Some see the local church as the only vehicle God uses
• Some see larger local churches as having obvious authority over smaller ones
• Some see the local church, regardless of size, as the pillar and ground of truth

The problem is we have come to think of all these persuasions as belonging to the same school of thought.

• We have preaching conferences and fellowships attended by men of any one of these persuasions.
• We send students off to Independent Baptist Colleges without regard to the particular persuasion of that school in comparison (or contrast) to our own.
• We entertain missionaries for church support regardless of which persuasion they may hold.

This arrangement breeds conflict. Someone must either submit their own conscience to that of another or stand for their conscience (and appear to be a belligerent) in someone else’s domain.

The answer is not, can not, must not be to ignore the differences. Unity at the price of conscience is not a fair trade. No. The answer is simply to

• Acknowledge the differences,
• Respect the differences and in Christian charity
• Separate because of the differences

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Empire Builders

The history of humanity is a history of kingdoms and empires. In every case, the empire, built to bring order and protection to people, eventually begins to “wear out” and use up the people until that empire is either defeated or just dies out. In the height of every empire a type of caste system develops, a social class from which it is nearly impossible for a person change. As in these earthly empires, within Christianity (including and I mean especially in IBF churches) a type of caste system has developed.

Conquerors

The nobility of the ministry, members of this class are out to build, expand and lead the leaders.

They are willing to “lop heads” for their cause, believing the cause to be greater than any one person who has come under their influence. Within this nobility may be several layers of leaders:

• Leaders of thousands
• Leaders of a thousand and
• Leaders of hundreds

They host meetings, publish their own pictures and ask each other to preach at their gatherings.

Traders and Craftsmen

Support the nobility. Because they are pastors of great (though not large) churches, the conquerors depend upon them. Though the conquerors are the ones whose names are in the papers they are useless without the craftsmen traders who read those papers and follow these noblemen.

Though the traders and craftsmen are never or seldom asked to speak at larger meetings they are expected to attend those meetings; being marked if they are not present. Their success in the work of the ministry is what makes the empire strong.

Serfs

The ones that the conquerors walk over and enslave, these might be

• Pastors of small churches
• Assistant pastors of small or of craftsmen trader, type churches or
• Members of churches in the smaller or standard size churches

These are the very people the whole of kingdoms is based upon. These are the very people who sought the protection of the kingdom. These are the very people whose lives were so threatened they surrendered their freedoms for the benefits the kingdom offers. The nobility exist because of these people. The traders and craftsmen, though seldom really serving the serfs, have their place before the conquerors only because the conquerors have risen to rally these serfs. The nobility rarely even know their names, but their only real notability is that which they receive from these unknown masses.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

The Main Thing

Is there anything more important than a soul? No.

• Church is not more important.
• Doctrine is not more important
• Politics is not more important
• Family is not more important

However a soul is a long term entity. By focusing on short term results, the winning of the one soul, we lose the advantage of long term conversions.

• If a soul is reached but never taught doctrine, even if he is taught to win others, eventually the process of winning souls will degenerate
• If a church is organized, but not around sound doctrine, that church and those that come out of it will eventually degenerate into something incapable of winning lost
• If a family unit isn't preserved eventually the family will be unable to maintain a functioning part of the church and souls will not be won

By the very emphasis of soul winning to the exclusion of other truths, the one thing that really matters is what is most impacted negatively.

Cross Cultural Baptist Ethics

This is a work of thought only begun. It seems to me that the thing that most angers people of different cultures about the spread of the Gospel is that it almost certainly changes cultures as well as religious faith. Indeed, many missionaries have made it as much a part of their work to change the culture as the faith. Modern missionaries are quick to point out that they are not sent as culture changers but as Gospel preachers. There are some things, however, that ought to change with the introduction of the Gospel.

Behavior that ought to transcend cultures:

Sunday worship

Generous giving

Dignified dress in church

Gospel witness

Monogamy

Apostolic doctrine

Preaching in open

Modesty

Manifest Destiny

A PBS documentary series entitled "We Shall Remain" [1] insinuated that the Pilgrims and the Puritans through their belief in Manifest Destiny were compelled overtake this continent and to either convert the Indians or annihilate them. As a Baptist I have no love for the Pilgrims or Puritans. Their Protestant understanding of Christian life (stemming from their Catholic background) of forcing people to conform to their beliefs has been the bane of the Christian faith since the fourth century.

This documentary, however, does not distinguish between Christian faiths and rejects the command of Jesus Christ to be witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth. Historical Baptists (those previous to the Great Awakening and the later revivals of Charles Finney) were committed to individual soul liberty. They gave each man the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. This would include the right to refuse to worship at all, should that be his conviction.

Whether the notion of Manifest Destiny was moral or not is, it seems to me, a mute point. We are where we are. I cannot conceive of a way that the Native American people could possibly have maintained their culture and existed beside the growing American population. What I do believe is still relevant is that whatever happened to the Native American people, the commission of God to take the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth mandates that Christians reject the notion that it is immoral to give the gospel to a culture other than our own, and thereby change that culture.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] American Experience: We Shall Remain 2009, 5 Episodes

The Bible is Right

The Bible is the Guide.

Men interpret history and purposes according to their own wisdom. They see motives in the players of history, secular or spiritual, that may not have existed. They imagine an evolution that has taken place and must take place in the spiritual realm and well as, they believe, in the human realm.

But the Bible is right.

We may not always get the Bible right. Yea, we have plenty of evidence that the most earnest of men depart from their convictions with just a little push from the world.

But the Bible is right.

When men who believe the Bible do that which is against the Bible we do not throw away the Bible but return to the Bible.

The Bible is right.

In our struggle to understand the human struggle the answer is to depend more fully on the Bible. As we see fewer men accept the truth of the Bible we ought not to abandon the Bible but with even greater zeal preach the Bible.

The Bible is right.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields