Christianity and Culture

1 Corinthians 11:4 (KJV)

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Very frequently the subject of Christianity and culture comes to play in popular discussions. No one questions whether Christianity is a culture, what they question is whether Christianity ought to influence or bend to other cultures.

The subject has been a big one and, in some respects, considered settled in the world of missions. Beginning, as I understand it, with Hudson Taylor, it has become the normal thing for missionaries to meld their faith into the popular culture of the area. Rather than conforming the converts of a field to the culture of the missionary, the missionary learns to adapt his message to the culture of the field.

This mentality seems to be increasingly obvious here in the United States as we shift to a non-Christian culture. More and more churches are expected to conform to the changes in societal culture. To refuse is to be legalistic and, worse, unchristian. Allow me to say that again. This post-Christian culture believes it to be non-Christian to refuse to adapt faith to their culture.

I don't think this should surprise us too much given what was the great objection to Christianity in societies like China where Hudson Taylor ministered; they didn't want the white God to change their way of life, their culture. Isn't this also the huge attack leveled against missionary work among the Native American Indians over the last couple of centuries? Christianity changed their culture. I am part Native American.[1] When I first became a Christian I had some who tried to turn me from the faith. One was an old chief from the Tacoma area. He drew the Indian medicine wheel. Then he drew a cross inside the wheel and said, "The cross divided the Indian culture."

What I notice in our text is that Paul didn't consider the individual cultures of the many people groups he had already preached to and the many more God knew his message would reach. With something as seemingly innocuous as the length of hair a man and a woman wore, he gave a decisive instruction. It would be the same instruction regardless of culture.

I know that there are many cultural issues that are spiritual non-issues. But where the Bible is clear, our cultural preferences, no matter how important they may be to our heritage, ought to be surrendered to the Holy Spirit of God.

It is a controversial subject I know, but it is non-negotiable with God.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] I hear the politically correct title is now "Indigenous People.”

The Case for the Local Church Ministry

I am coming to believe John Adams may have been the greatest of our founding fathers.

Adams, the only of his siblings to be afforded the opportunity for an education, at first entertained training for the ministry. His father’s first advice to him was in that direction. For whatever reason, Adams, who was a believer, chose to study law instead.

Adams’ leading role in the founding of our country is without question, unparalleled. His genius was, to a large extent, responsible for:

• ·       The introduction of principles of liberty in the discussions among the Congress
• ·       The engagement of George Washington to establish and lead the Continental Army and
• ·       The authorship of the Declaration of Independence

After the war was won, however, Adams’ influence began to wane. Adams served as Ambassador in France, negotiating[1] for French support of the War. After the War, he was America’s first Ambassador to England. Can you imagine the difficulty of that assignment?

Once the Constitution was written, something in which Adams had little part, his name was proposed as the first President of the United States. Those in the know at the time only considered two men to be obvious choices for the position. Washington, of course, won the election and Adams became Vice President, serving under Washington two terms. By the time Washington refused a third term, Adams had lost much of the respect of his fellow public officials. He narrowly won the office of Presidency, becoming our second POTUS, but lost a bid for re-election. he is one of only a hand full of Presidents not elected for a second term.

Adams was fiery, passionate and brilliant. But, they say, he had one huge fault; he was unbending. He had a difficult time compromising. And compromise is the grease that makes politics work.

Compromise - the very idea of compromise rides on one philosophical platform; none of us are perfect. Because we are not perfect, it would be impossible to believe one position is right and another wrong. Our ideas, according to the doctrine of compromise, are just - ideas. It’s probably a very good philosophy to employ in politics.

Compromise is however, a terrible problem in Christian ministry. If the preaching of God’s Word rests on the platform of imperfection, if we grease the wheels of Christian ministry with compromise, we guarantee that ministry to a slide downward until it is irrelevant. If we introduce politics into the work of God we will watch it spiral downward until it is no longer of any use.

This is where the value of the local church is found. Every sort of ministry that is outside of the local church must, of necessity, operate on politics. There are

• ·       Too many factions, with
• ·       Too many opinions proposing
• ·       Too many options

for the organization to function without compromise. There has to be give and take. One doctrinal position must be avoided in order that another doctrinal position not be offended. We see this in:

• ·       Conventions,
• ·       Fellowships,
• ·       Conferences,
• ·       Christian colleges and
• ·       Para-church organizations

Doctrine comes to be viewed as imperfect because doctrine comes to be seen as destructive to the organization.[2]

The local church is the answer to compromise. Within the local church the preacher is free to preach passionately and unbendingly what he sees in the Word of God. Believers of like faith are free to gather into the local church whose doctrine is consistent with their own. If the doctrine in this particular church is not in harmony with a believer’s own understanding of the Word of God, and if the preaching of that doctrine offends the conscience of the particular believer, he is free to unite with a different local church where the doctrine is in keeping with his own convictions. There is no compromise.

It is the local church and only the local church that is:

• ·       Instituted in the Word of God,
• ·       Has the sanction of the Holy Spirit and
• ·       Provides Christians the atmosphere of passionate worship without compromise

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] In many ways unsuccessfully - others were much more successful. Adams had as many run in with his peers in France as he did with the French.

[2] Some of the most influential and well known “fighting fundamentalist” Baptists have recently taken to preaching messages on why we need to get along, making light of what they consider to be divisive doctrines held by many Baptists. Their agenda is obvious; they are trying to build a larger following for their college or their convention and these doctrinal peculiarities are getting in the way.

Baptist History Debunked?

James White has done it again.

Dr. White likes to speak about being gracious and charitable but he only means to Catholics, Mormons and Muslims. To fellow Christians, and especially to fellow Baptists, he can be mean spirited, harsh and sometimes even hateful.

In a recent Dividing Line[1] program entitled “Dogmatic Secularism Rises; the Politics of the Southern Baptist Convention”[2] at about minute 39, White takes off on a message by Dr. Paige Patterson given at a college Chapel service. Patterson was addressing the issue of Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention and remarks that it belongs in Presbyterian churches, not Baptist. In his statements, Patterson links Baptists to Anabaptists, the Apostles and John the Baptist. It was at this point that White mockingly says, “You ain’t been reading the Trail of Blood again have you?”[3] From there he says there are many books that debunk the Anabaptist connection to modern Baptists.

Yes, Dr. White, and there are many that affirm it too.

Here’s the thing, on almost any given subject a person can find material to either support or deny any given position. Which material we tend to gravitate to depends largely upon one’s leaning. White confesses his own training was in schools where he was the “token Fundamentalist.” It is obvious that before he finished his education there was very little of Fundamentalism left. The influences in his life, together with his desire to be seen as an academic, has pulled him toward those positions that are the most widely accepted among his chosen group of peers, the Reformed.

Nothing concerning the Anabaptist lineage has been debunked. Writers, who lean toward Protestantism, reference books that keep church history in the Catholic line. Writers who see the error of Catholicism (and thus, Protestantism) reference works (generally much older ones) that maintain the gates of hell never prevailed against God’s churches as they did in Catholicism and then Protestantism.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] A part of his Alpha and Omega Ministries, http://www.aomin.org/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBghEEHPHBM

[3] At about 46 minutes

What About Separation of Church and State?

In a recent dialogue I had with a person about whether President Trump’s election signals a reprieve from God,[1] the question was asked “What about church and state?” The comment goes on to claim, “1 should not anything to do with the other.”

This sentiment reflects the common thought of secular people concerning the relationship of religion with government. But it is based upon several misconceptions.

First, it views church as everything Christian. In other words, it embraces the Catholic concept of one universal church. More accurately it embraces the Protestant’s slightly modified version of the same.

Secondly, it suggests that the doctrine is secular, meant to protect the government of religious control. This idea was certainly the farthest thing from the minds of the founders of the United States.

The doctrine of separation of church and state is one practiced by the Anabaptists, the forerunners of Baptists today. It traces as far back as the fourth century when Constantine declared himself a Christian and the head of the one, catholic (universal) church in his realm. Many professing Christians welcomed the relief from persecution and happily joined up. Many others refused choosing rather to continue suffering persecution than to subject their church to the state. The original objection between the Catholics and Anabaptists was, in effect, separation of church and state.

In the early days of the developing United States it was the Baptists who presented the doctrine to the founders. It was the urging of the Baptists, whose cause was heralded by James Madison, that the United States recognized no state church but gave every church denomination liberty to either succeed or crumble by freely preaching their ideas and winning converts to their own system. It was to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut that Jefferson wrote the words “separation of church and state.”

Baptists have always held to separation of church and state and Baptists have never accepted the doctrine of any form of universal or catholic church. Separation of church and state to the Baptists[2] means first, that no church denomination has ability to use governmental power for coercive purposes. Baptists had, for too long, experienced the weight of governments forcing their tithes to go to the state church rather than the church that preached the doctrines they believed to be biblical and requiring them to attend services in those state established churches.

Separation of church and state, to those Baptists also meant that government has no right of influence over the local church. Each church must be free to preach the Word of God, as they believe the Spirit of God led them to and practice their faith in a manner consistent with that faith.

Separation of church and state did not mean to either those Baptists that championed it or to the founders of our nation who included it in the Bill of Rights (not in the letter of the phrase but in the spirit of the amendment). The Baptists petitioned, lobbied and sought to influence those leading in our nation and the leaders were, almost to a man, practicing Christians of one denomination or another.

One can never understand the true intent of separation of church and state without going back to the ones who introduced it. They meant that no one church denomination should have exclusive influence over the government and that the government should allow churches liberty to practice their faith as they saw fit; not that Christianity should have nothing to do with government.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] THE IMAGINATIVE CONSERVATIVE, DidGod Just Grant America a Great Reprieve?, John Horvat/Nov 25, 2016

[2] The people who introduced the doctrine to our country.