Liberty of Conscience

I guess we all prayed and perhaps expected that, by Fall, this COVID crisis would be a thing of the past. Not so, is it? Some of us are attempting to get on with our lives, but it has been challenging. It seems like the longer the thing stretches on, the more potential for division and disagreement. 

Now is a good time to practice grace! One of the strong doctrinal positions of Baptist churches in history has been that of “individual soul liberty.” It has applied primarily to the subject of worship. A person has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. The doctrine leans heavily upon another Baptist distinctive, “separation of church and state.” Historically the Catholic, and then the Protestant churches, married with the state to force people to worship according to the dictates of the state-approved church. The doctrine has applications in this current climate. Every one of us must give every other one of us the liberty to find our own path through the fears this virus has stirred. 

Imagine living 500 years ago. Certain denominations were so sure they were right that they turned in people who disagreed or that didn’t comply. Those who were captured were tortured, sometimes to death, just because they owned a Bible, or refused to have their children baptized as babies, or baptized by immersion rather than sprinkling. England went through a period when the Catholics would gain the throne and kill all the Protestants, and then the Protestants would achieve it and try to kill all the Catholics. It was cruel, senseless, and heartless.

Please. Whatever your personal views of how to navigate this pandemic, let’s rise above pointing fingers at others. Let’s love one another, pray for one another, and give one another liberty of conscience.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

(Watch this video of the devastation California's dictates are having on just one of the churches in their state.) Dr Jack Trieber appeals for prayer.

 

COVID-19, Government Overreach, and Compromise

 In 1997 I pastored a small church I had planted in a small town in the state of Oregon. The thirteen years had been good to me. Our church was established, I was full time in the ministry and I enjoyed a good fellowship with a group of pastors from our state and that of Washington. I was scheduled to host a pastor’s meeting at our church. As that meeting grew near, I was contacted by a college in Southern California regarding the possibility of having their Executive Vice President and a group from the college at the meeting as representatives. As the college was associated with this group of pastors, I agreed. But then I did some research. I learned that the college had encouraged students to attend various conferences and events at nearby Grace Community Church, pastored by John MacArthur. At that news, I contacted the college and uninvited them to my church and the meeting. 

It is not that I am a MacArthur hater, I am not. But I do recognize that his ministry and that of Independent Baptists, is not the same. I viewed it as contrary to sound doctrine and to separation to support a movement that would encourage the blending of Independent Baptists with the practices, teachings, and doctrines of Grace Community Church and John MacArthur.

Apparently, I was not the only one who felt as I did. How the word got out, I do not know, but in very short order I began receiving phone calls and notes of congratulations from pastors, especially in Washington State, for my stand. I started getting invitations to preach in their churches and, just a few years later, I was the Executive Vice President of that very same college, since reclaimed by pastors who desired to walk in the old paths.

Let’s fast forward to 2020. The COVID-19 virus has changed our world in ways I am not sure we will ever recover from. The governors of Washington, Oregon, and California in particular have been extremists in their handling of the virus. Churches have been identified as potential “super-spreaders” of the China Virus. California has issued instructions that churches are not to assemble. For some time a number of them, perhaps most of the more well known of them, complied. Grace Community Church included. Of late, John MacArthur has reversed his compliance and in defiance of orders, has returned to the assembly of his congregation. A good number of Christians have applauded him for this stand. I for one pray he is successful.

Here comes the rub. I recently received a twitter message (tweet) with a photo of Paul Chappell and John MacArthur. The tweet, from Paul Chappell, reads, “Thankful to meet and pray with @johnmacarthur this morning. Pray for him as he stands for the biblical call to assemble and worship our God.” That tweet is followed by numerous statements congratulating Chappell for joining up with MacArthur. The only warnings I found were from men who would be considered troublemakers and doctrinally unsound themselves. Here are my problems with Chappell’s newfound fellowship with MacArthur.

The two have pastored in Southern California for more than forty years

Why is the COVID-19 crisis a reason to connect now? I understand that some suggest that this is a matter bigger than doctrine. That neither of the men has to compromise their own doctrines to join forces against this government overreach and that refusal to work together is tantamount to believers refusing to work together when Hitler took over Germany. 

The idea of ignoring our doctrines for a bigger battle is reasonable if there is no God. If the battle is religion versus government, then by all means all religions ought to cooperate to exert influence in the realms of politics. But God is. And God is bigger than the government. Therefore, to cooperate with God is of much greater importance than cooperating with bad doctrine. there is a reason the two men had never met. That reason remains despite the China virus.

It is one step into compromise

I realize it is only one step. It seems like a small step. It also seems like a reasonable step. There never has been a reason Paul Chappell and John MacArthur could not have met, shaken hands, and had a picture together. Human beings ought to be kind to one another. Each man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and, since they each have that right, there is no reason they cannot be kind to one another. This is different. This is a deliberate act of cooperation. This is one step into compromise and, with the first step, further steps become much easier.

The consequences of such a step are inestimable

I don’t know if Chappell will take further steps of compromise with MacArthur. I frankly doubt it. But he led by example and I am certain that less known pastors, many of whom have already taken those steps and congratulated Chappell for this, will see this as motivation to become even closer to MacArthur and his non-Baptist, non-fundamentalist, Protestant, Calvinistic movement. This is a subtle movement into the one-world church system. It is, perhaps a well-cloaked movement, but it heads the direction of one world religion nonetheless.

I will continue to pray for churches of all stripes all across the United States. Regardless of doctrine, history, or practice, they each have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and government overreach against that right is a terribly dangerous thing. But I will remain separated. And I will urge anyone who will listen to do the same.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields 

Why Aren’t Our Churches Remaining Baptist Long Term?

I have spent a number of days running down old Baptist churches in the northern part of Kentucky. Think about it! One of these churches was established while George Washington was still alive. Another one, while John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were living. They are in different circles than I am, but they are still active, and they are still Baptist in name. Why aren’t more of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches remaining Baptist long term?

 

I am sure I don’t have all of the answers but here are some thoughts: 

Most of these churches are either Southern Baptist or Missionary Baptists. 

They might likely say that their longevity is attributed to their organizations. I would not agree with this because their organizations are moving toward being non-Baptist.

 

I would argue that many if not most independent Baptists are not, in fact, Baptists. 

I think they are more immersing old-fashioned Methodists. 

 

I think Independent Baptists have, for many decades, been more pragmatic and growth-oriented rather than doctrinal oriented. 

Almost anything goes in these days so long as we can claim souls being saved and churches growing. 

 

Doctrine is not preached as much as “help” messages. 

Too many preachers try to answer the questions people ask rather than informing people of the questions they should be asking.

 

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Two Streams of Concern for the Patriot and the Baptist

Two Streams of Concern for the Patriot and the Baptist

As unrest concerning the Chinese coronavirus shelter orders grows, we’re hearing more and more from Christians citing rights, and heritage. I think that works so long as we speak only of Christian heritage dating back to the founding of the United States. As a Baptist who has spent considerable time looking at the history of the ancient Anabaptists ^[1] I see two separate issues at play. As a Baptist, I do not believe my heritage as a Christian, and as an American are synonymous. 

Freedom to assemble, the liberty to worship God according to one’s own conscience is well-grounded in American heritage.

Many Christians in America are willing to defend that liberty today, viewing it at threatened by current policies that seem random and, in some ways, pointed against churches. It is interesting that so many of these churches are not Baptist but stringently fight for what was provided to them by the Baptists in the earliest days of our country. While our country’s history, heritage, and Constitution do provide freedom of assembly and the liberty to worship God according to one’s own conscience, this argument marries church and state. It provides that our freedom of worship is a matter of state. This marriage of church and state is a fundamental and historic principle of Protestantism (as well as Catholicism).

Separation of Church and State is the genuine history of the Baptists

The ancient Anabaptists had little to nothing to do with the State. This position put them at odds with almost every government in which they found themselves from the very first days of Christianity, whether it was the Jewish state of Israel in Paul’s day, the Romans through the 4^th century or the Catholic led monarchs of Europe until the founding of the United States. Anabaptists, the forefathers I follow, held they had but one sovereign, Jesus Christ. Thus, they would not abide to attend the state-sanctioned churches.^[2] They met in secret meetings^[3] in the woods, in barns, and in the backrooms of buildings.^[4] They never protested governments for the right to worship because they did not receive their command to worship from the government. They did what they did because God convicted them to do it. 

·      They were quiet about their meetings

·      They were persistent to continue their meetings

·      They were witnesses outside their meetings

Baptists today have simply become another of the great melting pot of protestant churches. 

·      We have buildings

·      We have debt because of those buildings

·      We have advertised times to meet in those buildings

·      We depend on those meetings for both our outreach and our finances

·      We rely on our American liberties to keep it all functioning

Perhaps it is time to return to simple worship, without the Protestant trappings. Perhaps it is time to worship God because He is God and not because the government gives us the freedom to do it.

We are privileged to live in the United States. I am not at all opposed to exercising our rights of redress. Those legal means at our disposal to appeal to our government are truly a blessing. I am just concerned that we have put too much stock in them.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] And believing that our roots rightfully trace back to them.

[2] And were persecuted for it.

[3] Believing in assembly, but not wishing to be punished for it.

[4] And, when caught, were persecuted for it.

Islam and Christianity are not Equal Faiths

Islam should not be given equal standing with Christianity in free lands such as America because Islam and Christianity are not equal faiths. 

By far the larger number of the world's population are Muslims but that is not because the faith of Islam is more spiritually compelling. It is because the Islamic religion gives no options for those who live in Islamic dominated countries. 

Over a millennia of experience with Islam has demonstrated that it is a faith that usurps control over governments and that, in those places where it controls the government, it forces itself upon its citizens. It is not a developing religion but a degenerating one. It has not led to the greater good of its followers but the greater sorrow. On the other hand, though Christian history has its own black mark with attempts to own governments and force itself on people:

• There was always a branch of Christians[1] who held that forced religion is opposed to the teaching of our Bible
• The influence of the Bible in places such as England and especially America, led to the Protestant conclusion of liberty of conscience[2] 

Christianity and Islam are not equal religions because Christianity provides that a man is free to disbelieve and so practice no faith if he chooses. Islam provides no such liberty. 

Christianity and Islam are not equal because Christianity insists the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We advance our faith only with the Word of God, prayer and the help of God's Holy Spirit. Islam, to this very day, does not hesitate to use any carnal weapon it can get its hands upon:

• Guns
• Bombs
• Rocket launchers
• Mortars and even
• Jet airliners

to advance its religion upon the masses. 

Christianity and Islam are not equal and should therefore not be given equal standing among free people.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

---

[1] The Anabaptists and later Baptists.

[2] A position the Baptists had held all along and were finally successful in convincing the fathers of this land concerning.

Thoughts on Baptist History and Calvinism

1. Baptists are first of all Biblicists

What Baptists believed in the past is helpful to give grounding. However, any true Baptist would put the Bible above history

2. Baptist history in England is strongly Calvinist, but not elsewhere 

For instance, those Baptists in Russian countries tend to be predominantly Arminian. To claim the historic Baptist position is Calvinism is to claim that Baptists began in England and not with the earlier Anabaptists.

3. Not all English Baptists were Calvinists, the Regular Baptists believed anyone could be saved

It was the particular Baptists who were Calvinists. The a Particular Baptists eventually overwhelmed the Regular Baptists, changing their name to Grace Baptists.

4. Baptists embraced Calvinism over time in order to become more acceptable with the popular churches in England

Compare the Baptist Confession of Faith in 1644 with the one in 1686 and notice the changes to read like the Westminster confession.

5. Baptists in America began to swing toward the opposite Protestant heresy after the popularity of the Finney revivals

Baptists should embrace neither Calvinism nor Arminianism because Baptists are not Protestants. Our doctrine is the bible, and not the doctrines of men. Confessions and statements of faith, like church history, can be helpful to ground us, but our allegiance must be to the Bible and not the teachings of men about the Bible.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

How to Silence the Ignorant

1 Peter 2:15 KJV

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

Contemporary philosopher, Samuel Harris, has it out for religion, all religion. Catholic, Muslim, Hindu. (The possible exception he grants is to Buddhism). He argues from the utilitarian perspective that religion has done people more harm than good. He sees religion as oppressing personal freedom and suppressing the growth of humanity.[1]

Most Christians would argue that this is only true of eastern religions and especially of Islam; we characterize it as a religion of violence. When pressed we will agree that Catholicism also has a history of violence but we will then deny that Catholicism is pure Christianity. Trouble is that Protestantism, though having a much shorter history than Catholicism, has been no less violent. 

There is a kind Christianity that does not have a violent history.

• Instead of being oppressors, they were the oppressed
• Instead of forcing their views upon people, they won their converts through preaching and teaching the truth of the gospel
• Instead of persecuting those who disagreed with their doctrines, they prayed for them

The testimony of the ancient Anabaptists is remarkable to say the least. 

So why doesn't Harris make an exception of the Anabaptists? I think it is because there is little in the Christian world that is representative of ancient Anabaptist faith. Those who have a claim to their lineage have too closely adopted the practices of Protestantism. Many would cheerfully identify with certain elements of Protestantism. Baptists, the rightful heirs of the Anabaptist heritage, have become much too focused on

• Politics
• Movements and
• Self promotion

We have trouble putting to silence the ignorance of foolish men because we are much too busy building our own self interests at the expense of others. Harris can easily argue that Baptists today are not utilitarian; do not seek to do the most good for the most people but, on the surface anyway, only seek to grow their own interests.

The old Anabaptists were interested in nothing more than the spreading of the good news of 

Jesus Christ. They were as generous with their lives as they were with the gospel. Their purpose was to advance the doctrines of Jesus Christ and not their own names, churches or possessions.

It is the will of God that we silence the enemies of Christ:

• Not by debate
• Not by intellectualism
• Not by political legislation 
• Not by overwhelming numbers

but by consistently, unwaveringly, selflessly doing the right thing.

---

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html, accessed 1-29-14

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.

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

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

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

Vacation Deprivation

I have the solution for our countries woes! I heard it on the radio just this morning. According to a survey put out by Expedia.com America suffers from Vacation deprivation. Unlike our European counterparts, who get on average at least 30 days vacation per year and then both use all of their days a relish in the memories and tales of those vacation days, Americans only get on average, 14 days of vacation per year, generally only take half of them and seldom speak about their vacation once they are home. And, again according to the Expedia.com report, the reason we suffer from this deprivation is because we also suffer from a "Protestant work ethic." There it is. Our problem is that we work like Christians and not like Europeans.

I have a number of issues with this radio report:
First, who wants to be like Europe?
There is a reason our forefathers hazarded their lives to begin again in this new land. There is a reason our forefather's children once again hazarded their lives to forge out a brand new system of government separated and completely different from their European monarchies. The European economy is in the dumps. With the exception, I think, of Germany, the whole place is about to collapse financially. Who wants to imitate that? Oh, wait! We already have. Our economy is also in the trash. Could it be the result of too much European imitation already?

And then there is the whole idea of the term "vacation deprivation."
Sounds like a disease doesn't it? That's it. Let's diagnose a person's lack of vacation as a disease. That will give them an entitlement. Then our already near bankrupt government will have an excuse to tax our already overtaxed population to pay for the prescription. Better yet, let's have our government step up to the aide our afflicted by requiring those businesses, who are already taxed to the gills, to pay more taxes for exposing their helpless workers to this dread disease. And once we have punished them sufficiently for their negligence, let's have our government force them to pay for the poor souls whose sorry hap in life has been to work for these companies to have sufficient vacation time to reverse the symptoms of their obviously now incurable disease.

And how about that other American disease, the "Protestant Work Ethic"?
I do not believe that true Christians are Protestants, but let's leave that alone for today. There we go, blame every problem the world has on the Christian mentality. The world was, after all, so much better off before Jesus Christ came from heaven and dwelt among us. I can see it now; Christ's real trouble was vacation deprivation. He could have lived to a ripe old age if He had only taken more time off. He did, after all, only get to work for three and a half years before He died. And then there are the apostles. The Apostle Paul's real problem was vacation deprivation. Can you imagine how badly he must have suffered from this horrible illness after planting churches all over the Middle East and into the regions of the west, writing half of the New Testament and turning the world upside down with his doctrine? He probably thought being beheaded was a break!



Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Why Young Baptists are in Love with Modern Reformed Theology

A trend which seems to be increasingly popular among young independent Baptist preachers is to embrace, or at least flirt with the modern reformed theology of the likes of Mark Driscoll. I see at least three reasons why this may be the case:

1. It is popular and growing large congregations; that appeals to the flesh


2. It emphasizes precise theology; that appeals to the intellect, or the flesh


3. It is without standards of worldly separation; that appeals to the flesh.

I received a recent post from a missionary which read,
“… our English Baptist forefathers left their original position of "local church" proclaimed in their declaration of 1644 to embrace the reformation idea of the universal church to be "politically correct" in the second London Confession of 1689. They felt the need to be accepted as orthodox in their doctrine in order to be included in the Act of Toleration of 1689. From that time on we find Baptists struggling with this issue. On one hand we have the clear Bible teaching of the "ekklesia" and on the other hand the insatiable desire to be accepted by the protestant/evangelical community. May God help us to be faithful to Him and not to men.”

Amen...

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Can the Gospel Go to the Wrong Door?

When I was in Bible College a preacher came through encouraging missions and soul winning.

One of the statements he made was, "The Gospel Cannot Go to the Wrong Door."

I want ask the question, "Can We Go To the Wrong House?" Is the phrase "The Gospel Cannot Go to the Wrong Door" a biblical concept? What about the home of someone who gets upset? What about if no one is home? What if the people at the home are from a different religion?

I. God would have all saved
1 Timothy 2:1-4 KJV
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

II. God commissions to us is to go to all the world
Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

III. Salvation requires both the planting and cultivating of the seed
1 Corinthians 3:5-9 KJV
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Matthew 13:3-9 KJV
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

God may use means we can't understand in the planting and watering

IV. Therefore to go to a home, even if that home is unresponsive can never be wrong

What Is Truth?

It is interesting how many things may pass as Christian today. Not that it has ever been much different. Even the Apostle Paul dealt with "another gospel: which is not another." Mankind has an uncanny way of following after that which is not of God.

And so times are changing and with it who preaches what gospel truth. At one time it would have been strictly the Catholic Church and those smaller churches who would not unite with it. Then came the Reformation and with it all of those little baby denominations that splintered out of her; Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and the Church of England. Of course, through the Reformation there still existed those churches, though severely persecuted, had never united with Catholicism so never needed to protest away from it. They, by the way, didn’t need to be reformed either. They insisted it was true and so were persecuted; not only by the Catholic Church, but now by her Protestant and Reformation children as well. The distinctions were fairly clear between them.

But then a shift happened in Christianity. Issues of denominational and particular doctrine began to give way to more general distinctions

• Modernism VS Fundamentalism - this battle gave way (as we set aside Liberalism and Modernism) to
• Evangelicalism VS Fundamentalism - which appears to be giving way (at least to a larger number of professing Christians) to
• Emerging VS Reformed

It appears that both Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, which both still exist, are beginning to disintegrate, giving place to these two newer terms for a newer type of Christian interpretation.

The question comes to mind, "How can the truth be in all of this?"

And the answer rings back, at least in my mind, "It can't."

Now here is the issue; we humans tend to think of truth as a relative and even evolving thing. So far as human logic is concerned, truth is based upon man's own understanding of good and evil, and that is based upon his experience. Even within the larger Christian world, the truth that is God's Word is interpreted under the magnifying glass of this principle. What was true 1000 years ago, 100 years ago or even 25 years ago in not necessarily true, according to the logic of the human mind, because our experience  and with it our knowledge of good and evil, has changed in that time.

This is where Baptists differ. Our position has always been that truth is a standard given to us from God. Truth is a cornerstone planted by the Lord. Truth is God's Word. We are not to interpret the Bible according to our experiences but we are to interpret our experiences according to the Bible.

And this difference in thinking, in viewing the Bible - 

is fundamental.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

To my readers:

I would love to hear from you. Leave comments below.

For more than 3800 Daily Visits with God visit Pastor Marvin McKenzie’s blogger page. There you will find daily visits going back to 2006.

If you have been blessed by this blog, please subscribe to my feed and share it with others.

Please consider helping our church’s teen department by signing up for cash back shopping at Bible Baptist Church Fundraiser. This program has three levels of participation, the first being completely free.

For more resources from Pastor Marvin McKenzie visit Bible Baptist Church of Puyallup.

(photo from pixabay.com)

Less Important Doctrines

In Justin Taylor's blog entitled True Boldness For Christ he uses the term, "less important doctrines."

Honestly, I find this blog good reading. There are some sentiments that ought to be expressed and are helpful. Addressing Edwards warning of the desire to "seek distinction and singularity"is particularly helpful. The power of pride can be so blinding that we may move from the desire to be used of God to the desire to be known among men in a heartbeat, often not recognizing that it has happened and growing defensive when it is pointed out.

But I take exception to the concept that there is such a thing as "less important doctrines." H. Boyce Taylor, in his book, Why Be A Baptist, says, "The doctrines and teachings of the church were given by the Master. They are included in then"all things He commanded." I have no problem claiming that those doctrines that are not in the Bible are lesser doctrines.

• They are the doctrines of men and not of God.
• They then are not merely lesser doctrines but no doctrines at all do far as God's church is concerned.

And here is the gist of the real trouble; Protestants, Reformers, and Catholics compartmentalize doctrine. Some are considered important and cardinal. Some are considered of less importance, allowing for the opinion and doctrine of man to enter in to the church. The Baptist claim is that all things commanded in the Bible are of supreme importance and not one of them is to be set in a lesser position nor should any teaching that is beyond the Bible be viewed as church doctrine.

One could argue that every doctrine than those doctrines concerning our salvation are lesser doctrines." but the argument would be based purely on human reasoning and logic. It makes sense to a man that the most important thing is that a man is saved. But no where does the Word of God give us this leave. Doctrine in the Bible, all doctrine in the Bible, is placed on equal ground. When a man is saved, he is to be baptized, that makes the doctrine of that ordinance vital. After baptism he is to be instructed to observe all things Christ commanded. That makes those all things as important to the work of the church as the message of salvation.

H. Boyce Taylor said, "if you find it in the Bible, it is Baptist doctrine. If you can't find it in the Bible it isn't Baptist doctrine." Perhaps the strongest case in favor of that assertion is that we Baptists don't consider any doctrine of lesser importance.



Marvin McKenzie
In the field