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 

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

Courageous

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

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

It was a pleasure to watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] 1 Corinthians 7:1

The Older Generation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

Will You Pray for Unity Among Believers Online?

1 Corinthians 11:19
There must be heresies among you...

I am afraid I am going to disappoint Toni Birdsong at www.stickyjesus.com.

Citing Mother Teresa as an inspiration of unity she begs us to pray for unity among believers online. I want to challenge the concept that the type of unity she has in mind is really "Jesus' idea of unity." I challenge the idea that we ought to be unified online. I challenge the idea that as diverse as the Christian world is in any community, it ought to be unified in the sense I think Toni thinks, certainly in the sense Mother Teresa thought. I challenge the idea that this sort of unity would be healthy even within the community of believers called Baptists.

I am afraid the type of unity Toni seeks is built upon the principle not of agreement, but of indifference, this sort of unity ignores doctrine for the sake of peace.

And here is the problem with that, without grappling with doctrine, truth begins to slip. The fact that we contend for our faith provides for an environment where truth may rise to the surface rather than settling in the bottom of the unstirred jar. I am not advocating for physical battle. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Neither do I believe there is any room for hatred of among the contestants. If God loved man so much that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" then there is reason for the child of God to love even those we have the most heated contest with.

But we must have the contest. We must prove out truth and expose the heresies among us. Only then will truth be manifest.

The online forum is the most liberating form of worldwide communication history has ever known. It has great potential for the spread of the gospel. But it has an equally great potential for the decimation of truth.

No, Toni, I won't pray my guts out for unity among online believers.
But I will pray that the gospel has free course and that the truth of God will rise to the top amidst all the biblical heresy that is disseminated online.


Marvin McKenzie
In the fields

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)