What If the Vast Majority of Christians....Aren't?

2 Timothy 4:10

"Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world"

Like every American I've always wanted to be successful. So when God called me to be a preacher I naturally wanted to be successful in the ministry. I went to college to learn doctrine and pastoring skills. Early on I began subscribing to journals, papers and other periodicals to learn what made for a successful ministry. I attended pastor's meetings, hanging on every word that was spoken, especially by those I perceived to be successful pastors. I read surveys, polls and studies on what made churches grow. I recorded plans in the flyleaf of my Bible so I would be reminded to work the plan every day. I read up on why people go to church, attempting to implement as many compelling tools to bring people in as I could.

As time went on I also read the studies about why people leave churches. If we open the front door to let them in, it makes sense we would want to close the back door to keep them from quitting. I've wanted to keep the seniors who just love the old school way of doing things. I've wanted to keep the young couples who have vision and energy and drive and I've wanted to keep the teens and young adults who are just beginning to try their own wings and tend to question things. What I have noticed now is a trend among members of churches (and not just the pollsters) to establish blame for those who leave churches upon some flaw in the church or church leadership. It's not just the church leaders who are trying to figure out how to keep people in church (and blaming themselves for not succeeding) it's the church members blaming the church and its leaders for the failure. 

To be sure there is plenty of failure and therefore plenty of room for blame. No one does ministry perfectly. No one has, no one ever will. But this blaming mentality, I think, is very much related to the victim mentality that is taking over America. We blame all of our problems on someone else: our parents, our teachers, our peers and our economy; you name it, if we have a problem, it's someone else's fault. 

I notice that when Demas forsook Paul, Paul blamed it on Demas. It wasn't Paul's leadership style. It wasn't a problem of structure in the administration of his evangelistic team. Paul did not even blame the problem on the circumstances of his being in prison and upcoming execution. Paul said Demas forsook him because Demas loved something else.

What if that is to blame for those who leave church? What if the problem is not the failure to pass on our vision, or the failure to communicate to a younger generation, or the failure to adequately anticipate and answer their questions? What if the real problem is not that we failed to plan or failed to work our plan? What if the trouble was not that we did not effectively administer a Sunday school program for all ages? What if it wasn't because we were perceived to lack compassion while they were sick? What if a better discipleship class and follow up ministry isn't the reason they quit coming? What if they quit coming because they loved something else more?

What if they just didn't believe?

I have followed Christ now for over thirty for years. I never began following because I liked the church programs. The church I began in didn't have any. I didn't begin because I thought church would help my marriage. I was single. I didn't start going to church to overcome an addiction or sin problem, though I had them. I began attending church because I believed. 

• I believed I was a sinner
• I believed all sinners would go to hell
• I believed God loved me enough that Christ died to pay for my sins
• I believed that when I called upon Him, He in fact saved me from my sins
• I believed I was, and still am a debtor to Christ for that

I believed when I made my faith public and entered into the covenant with other members in a local church, I was making a life long commitment

I believed.

I still believe. 

There is a problem with my proposition; while faith is passed from one person to the next, I cannot make anyone believe. There are no classes that can teach how to convince someone to believe. There is no conference that can show us how to so order circumstances that those involved with believe. That a person believes is a gift of God. I can present my faith to them. I can pray for them. I can urge them to come to Christ for salvation.  But I can't call them to believe.

And that doesn't sell well in the success game.

The answer as I see it is not an easy one to swallow. We must accept that the vast majority of people attending our churches are, in fact, not genuine believers. They came to church and to their "faith" for all the wrong reasons and have trusted in all the wrong things. They attend church and practice faith because of what they love:

• They love a sense of community
• They love a solid family
• They love the security of a dynamic pastor

But sometimes those things fail them. Sometimes those things are less satisfying that they originally thought they would be. Sometimes their children, their spouse, their most valued friends turn out to love others things more.

We must redefine to our congregations what we mean by faith. We must lead them to Christ and not to the supposed benefits of being saved.

Because when a person believes in Christ, he or she has nowhere else to go. Only Jesus has the words of eternal life.[1]

---

[1] John 6:66-69

Catholic Influence on the Lord's Supper

I heard it again. 

In a conversation with an independent Baptist preacher recently I heard it said, concerning the Lord's Supper, that churches have authority to practice the Lord's Supper as they believe is right. In this case the preacher said, "Because that's what happens in fact."

• I agree that a preacher ought to lead his church to worship God as he understands the scriptures to teach and not simply as a movement of churches might insist
• I understand that this makes it appear that churches observe the Lord's Supper as seems right to them

But this is not a Biblical view of why and how we observe the Lord's Supper. Each pastor ought to lead his church to observe the Lord's Supper as he understands the Scriptures to teach. The authority is in the Bible and not the church. A pastor is shirking his duty to say, "I am not a scholar enough to understand what the Bible teaches about such things so I believe how each church chooses to practice it is scriptural."

This has at least two problems:

The pastor is simply taking the road of expediency

Rather than worshiping according to the dictates of his conscience, he is just worshiping the way everyone wants to. 

This misplaces authority

It goes back to the Catholic concept of church dogma being as authoritative as the word of God. It gives the church, even if it claims to be Baptist/non Protestant church, a Protestant tie back to Catholicism. It rips the Baptist doctrine of the Bible as our sole authority out of our statement of faith and replaces it with the whim and wishes of men. 

I realize that ultimately each church is going to observe the Lord's Supper as the majority of its members understand it should be. Though the distinction may seem fine it is still imperative. We observe as we understand it to be taught in the Bible and not merely as we personally think is right. We are obligated to study the Bible and to practice it as we understand the Bible to teach. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

JUST TWELVE MEN

Matthew 26:20   

Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Just twelve men

And by anyone's reckoning they were ordinary men at that.

• Uneducated
• Unimpressive
• Without financial, familial or personal clout

They are just twelve men that sat with Jesus that night.

• There were others that had believed
• There were others whom Jesus loved

But these twelve men were destined, not only to lay but to be the very foundation of that thing which Jesus loved and gave himself; the local church..

Just twelve men

Diverse one from another

We do not know much about their backgrounds; nothing about most of them but:

• Four were fishermen
• One was a tax collector, maybe we could think if him as an accountant
• One was from a Greek influence
• One was an instinctive skeptic

They hadn't always agreed.

But in this night there was unity among them.

Their focus, purpose, passion was Jesus Christ and the truth He brought to them.

Just twelve men

But they change the world still today.

Of course one of the twelve was a devil.

All but one died violently; only one died miserably.

All twelve died eventually but only this one died at his own hands.

Just eleven men

But together, with hearts fixed upon Christ, they changed the world.

Will you change the world for Christ?

Something About Tattoos

The popularity of tattoos, especially among Christians is alarming. Demonstrating a biblical ignorance at the very best and outright rebellion to the Bible at worst, Baptists, fundamentalists are tattooing themselves and even pastors, are making excuses for "tattoomania".

1. It is the graffiti of the big city

But in this case it defaces the property of God

2. It is the tagging of modern gangs

But it is claiming as their territory what God has built

3. It is identifying with Satan

Who hates that man is created in God's image and would love to see it marred

4. It is blatantly unscriptural

Leviticus 19:28 KJV

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

5. It is a precursor to the mark of the beast

Revelation 13:16-17 KJV

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field

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

The Scopes Trial of this Century?

Last night's debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Creationist, Ken Ham was slated by some to be the equivalent of a "Scopes 2". I rescheduled my day so I would be free to give it my full attention. Having the liberty of watching via the internet rather than being there, I was also free to keep up with the chatter on Twitter as the debate progressed.

My early impressions began days previous to the event as I follow Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis website on my Facebook Feed. It seemed obvious that this event, as much as anything, has been a huge publicity tool for Ken Ham's Creation Museum; the site where the debate was held. Ham encouraged watchers to visit the museum several times over the span of the debate and referenced items in the museum or staff scientists of the museum repeatedly. This has to have been a shot in the museum's arm. I also noticed early on that the major media outlets acknowledged the upcoming event but, to my knowledge, never acknowledged Ken Ham. I saw interviews of Nye, but none of Ham. It was as if they regarded him as nobody, an unknown. That is certainly not the case. If Ham seemed to have over published the event on his internet outlets, it is in no small way reconciled by the fact that he was under published by the mainstream new sources. 

Introductions were made by an excellent moderator for the event. It appeared to me the men were academically equal. Though their courses of study as well as life experiences are different, neither one outclassed the other. Nye is better known in public media but certainly not better known than Ham in the world of Christianity. I doubt many are better known than Ham as a spokesman for Creation Science.

I heard nothing surprising from either side in the debate. Ham won the coin toss and gave his opening statement and his presentation first. I found it interesting that he used video clips of creation scientists in his presentation. No small portion of his thirty minutes was taken up, not by his own voice but theirs. It was gratifying to see and hear him present a clear case for the gospel in his presentation.

Nye sounded exactly like I would have expected. He is not considered to be a scientist even though he calls himself a science guy. Many evolutionary scientists have expressed that Nye was the right guy for this debate because, in their minds, this was not a debate about science but an entertainment event. I see that as their way to excuse the whole event if Nye had made too big a mess of it. Nye did not. He did exactly what he is capable if doing; rote recitation of the evolutionary platform. 

·        He demonstrated no capability for critical thinking

·        He betrayed his gross ignorance of even the most basic Christian concepts 

·        He offered no understanding of the objections to evolutionary theory

Nye did what every ape of evolutionary theory always does; he hurriedly admitted evolution is a theory but behaved throughout his presentation as if it is fact. The jab he repeatedly poked was that this was "Ken Ham's Creation Theory" and implied he had few followers, even among Christians. 

Besides the very clear presentation of the gospel (and a number of subsequent references to it) my favorite line in the debate seemed very impromptu. The question to Nye was, "Where did the matter that resulted in the Big Bang come from?" Nye's answer was "I don't know" to which Ham replied, "There is a book..." 

There is a book that answers the most fundamental of our questions and, when embraced, liberates us to real discovery of those secrets God has hidden for our pleasure to search out.

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