DISAPPOINTMENT WITH ORGANIZED RELIGION AND THE CHURCH

I too have become disappointed with church. Let me try to explain. The greatest commandment is to love our Lord with all of our being (Matthew 22:37), and this requires us to abide in his Word before all else (John 14:21-24). In fact, this is the only way to love God.

However, it seems that many pastors’ first concern is to make their church a comfortable place so that people will want to come back and to support their church. I don’t want to be too critical, because I know that the head pastor is under tremendous pressures and sometimes shoulders them by himself – a lonely place to be.

Nevertheless, we must first be God-pleasers before being people-pleasers or a success-story. To put anything before our Savior is idolatry and represents friendship with worldly desires, even those desires that are wholesome in themselves:

·       You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4 ESV)

As Jesus had taught, to put anything before God is spiritual adultery:

·       “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)

As a result, many former church attendees have become disillusioned as they have watched the Church pander to the standards of the world, but the disillusioned have often gone to the opposite extreme by rejecting the Church entirely. Several Facebook respondents have therefore written that, although they continue to believe in Jesus, they now reject all forms of organized religion.

Should the Church be organized? There is no doubt about it. So many NT teachings are predicated on an organized Church, for instance the appointment of deacons and elders:

·       appoint elders in every town as I directed you…For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

A church without organization is biblically unthinkable. Even before the NT Church existed, Jesus laid out a role for this organization to address the unrepentant sinner in their midst:

·       “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:17-18)

The Church is the supreme body to proclaim whether or not the sinner is still bound by their sins. Nevertheless, due to our collective sinfulness, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Church can be a messy organism.

The more difficult question is, “What kind of organization?” We should be able to agree that its first duty is to preach and teach God’s Word, even as the world continues to reject it:

·       I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

But what should be the structure of the Church? Even though all believers in Jesus are part of the Body of Christ having equal value before God (Galatians 3:28; I Corinthians 12) as a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), there remain role distinctions:

·       And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Yet while some of us might be overseers (elders), we are to lead by example and not by the authority of our position:

·       So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3)

What does this say about the structure of the Church organization? Should there be denominations? Should the supervisors and regional offices have the right and power to appoint and to remove the elders or pastors from their individual churches? It would seem not, if they are forbidden to dominate but to lead by example. Instead, this must remain the choice of the local church.

But the Apostle Paul claimed that he had the authority to use even a punitive and authoritative oversight (2 Corinthians 13:2-3, 10). However, I don’t think that his example should be normative for today’s Church. For one thing, Paul had spoken with the authority of the Lord Himself:

·       If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

Consequently, his word was as Scripture itself, and he performed miracles to back up his authority. Besides, at the time of Paul and the Apostles, the Church was yet a baby Church. I therefore tend to think that the examples Paul and the Apostles and the fledgling first century churches should not be regarded as normative.

Nevertheless, I do think that there are exceptions, especially in regards to the planting of new churches.

One last consideration: Should the overwhelming responsibility of the church be placed on the back of just one individual?  Even though churches usually have elder boards, these usually leave the preaching and spiritual decision-making to the professional – the seminary-trained pastor.

However, this doesn’t seem to come from a biblical mandate but from convenience. Instead, Paul had directed Timothy to appoint multiple elders in every town (Titus 1:5):

·       For an overseer [elder], as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:7-9)

After all, there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors. Consequently, in order to comply with the biblical model, churches should be moving to the model of shared preaching and teaching among the elders. In fact, the growing hostility towards the Church might even require a return to home churches.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT, WORLD CHANGE, AND HUMAN NATURE

Diagnosis should precede prescription and intervention. This is not only true of medical issues but also of emotional and even national issues. Therefore, if we want to do something about our emotional torment, we need to understand its cause. Of course, we can merely cover over the torment with a drug or a few beers. However, the problem will still remain.

Modern secularism sees our problems originating from the outside. Consequently, we are not fundamentally the problem but society. Hence, we are the product of our social and familial influences. Joseph Stalin was convinced that humanity’s problems did not originate within ourselves but without, in the economic system. Consequently, his prescription was to change the environment—the State and its economy:

•                Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas, and theories, its political views and institutions. Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought. https://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxist-history.htm

For Stalin, a change in the “manner of life,” namely, a change in the economic and political institutions, would fundamentally improve the human condition. This meant that Stalinist government would have to exert overwhelming force to coerce change. This resulted in the extermination of many millions, the “enemies of the State.”

This is almost inevitable. When our problems are deemed to originate from the outside, then the outside must be controlled to eradicate these problems and any who get in the way of the “solution.”

Outside of Krakov, Poland, Anita and I had visited what had once been considered the ideal communist/Stalinist city, Nowa Huta. Stalin and the other communist idealists had reasoned that once distinctions had been removed, there would be nothing left to interfere with the realization of true comrade-ship among the workers. Consequently, all worked in the same factory. All were given the same income and lodgings. Did the removal of these distinctions create a greater brotherhood? Apparently not! Instead, they lived isolated lives divided by walls of suspicion. At least, they were guaranteed lodgings and an income, which, in the end, could only be paid in vodka and sugar.

Every communist experiment had been a glaring failure at the mere cost of 100 million lives. Meanwhile, the presently existing communist nations have adopted capitalism to dig themselves out of their economic hole.

Why had every one of these promising experiments failed? Perhaps the communists had misdiagnosed the problem, and assumed that if they changed the society, they could also improve the man. Perhaps, instead, the inner man needs to be changed before society can be meaningfully changed.

Nevertheless, secular, utopian schemes continue to abound. Many college students believe that love will conquer all. This is based upon the assumption that most haven’t received enough love.  Therefore, we just have to learn how to love. These students are convinced that if Hitler, Stalin, Muhammad, and Mao had received enough love, they would never have embarked on their genocidal rampages.

How do we love? Basically, we have to change society and its corrupting influence. I recently talked with a group of young communists at Columbia University and asked them about their hopes. They answered, “Revolution.” Light-heartedly, I probed, “Well certainly, you are not advocating violent revolution?” They were; but they assured me that their revolt would only kill a mere 1% of the population.

Again, I probed: “In light of the failed communist experiments of the twentieth century, what hope do you have that your revolution will be successful?” They explained that they now had an “enlightened” leader who would not repeat the mistakes of former Marxist revolutions.

Meanwhile, my young, idealistic communist comrades assured me that love for humanity required them to strike a quick, relatively painless and antiseptic blow against the capitalist elites.

I wondered about what was motivating them, and why they thought that they could limit the carnage to only 1% of our population. Whatever it was—anger, compassion, jealousy, or self-righteous idealism? I was thinking about Paul Johnson’s book, Intellectuals, in which he exposed the lives of our intellectuals. On the surface, they had seemed to be very committed, other-centered, and even compassionate. However, their personal lives painted an entirely different picture.

I reminded myself that these students are human beings with the same feelings and needs that I have, but yet, they are also our future murderers—instruments of genocide. Can friendship, affirmations, and love turn them around? Would these techniques have turned around Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, or would they have co-opted them for their own sinister designs?  In view of the fact that there has never been a society that has been able to relax sanctions against anti-social behaviors, I had my doubts about their effectiveness.

I’m certainly not against using the carrot of love and affirmation before the club. Some will respond favorably to the carrot, but it seems to be undeniable that the club also has its place. This is why all legal systems have instituted deterrents against crime.

Perhaps this should lead us to a reassessment of humanity and our prescriptions and hopes for a better world. Perhaps we have faults at the core of our being that all of the loving affirmations in the world cannot adequately address. The communists and other utopian idealists are convinced that they can create a better world by removing the evil elites. However, there seems to be something about all of us that can give rise to evil.

Genocide knows no national or class boundaries. When the Nazi leadership was brought to trial at Nuremburg after the war, many believed that they would see in them the incarnation of evil itself. However, they were surprised to find that these were ordinary men just like us. They loved their wives and children and cared about their neighbors. What then turned them into genocidal maniacs?

Perhaps we all have our dark-side, although we’d like to present ourselves as compassionate, and we even make a good showing of it. Our psychological needs, like the need for approval, success, security, and to think well of ourselves, are so powerful that they secretly infiltrate and contaminate everything we think and do, even our most idealistic ventures. However, if we refuse to be aware of it, we cannot even begin to control it. But can we confront ourselves without this knowledge undermining our carefully constructed and manicured positive image of ourselves? I couldn’t! Instead, I hid the evil within, which I had experienced as a destabilizing threat to my selfhood:

·       “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20)

Naturally, we prefer the darkness to the light, which painfully exposes us. It has only been my confidence in the love and acceptance of my Savior, which has enabled me to accept, examine myself, and to exercise control over my dark-side. Consequently, I can now see how the evil within had contaminated everything I did, even my naïve attempts to be a good person.

WHO DOES GOD CALL INTO LEADERSHIP?

God had directly appointed Israel’s first three kings into leadership. What had He seen in them that made them kings?

Let’s start with King Saul. Even though he was a man great in stature, he had also been a humble man. However, this began to change after he had become king and the Israelites began to sing his praises. In his denunciation of King Saul, the Prophet Samuel stated that he had once been humble, “little in your own eyes.” However, the prouder he became the more he turned away from the Word of God to pursue his own desires, like building a monument to himself (1 Samuel 15:12).

Humility acknowledges our emptiness and neediness. Therefore, it is receptive to the influence of others, especially to God, and is teachable. Meanwhile, pride is full of itself. This leaves little room for anything apart from monuments and self-aggrandizement.

In place of King Saul, God appointed David. He had therefore sent His Prophet Samuel to Jesse’s household to appoint one of his sons to be the next king. However, Samuel was about to anoint the most impressive looking son, when the Lord reprimanded him for judging according to outward appearances and not the inner man.

What was it that God esteemed about David? Paul explained:

·       “And when God had removed [King Saul], He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’” (Acts 13:22 NKJV; 1 Samuel 13:14)

What does it mean to be a “man after My [God’s] own heart?” It meant that He saw in David a man who would place God’s Word above everything else. And, for the most part, David’s life followed this trajectory. Almost always, before making an important decision, he would consult with his God. David didn’t place his trust in himself but in the Lord and in His Word. This is how our Lord measures faithfulness.

A good leader must first be a good follower. How can any leader expect his subordinates to follow if he refuses to follow, especially the Word of God!

David’s son, King Solomon, started out in the footsteps of David. He too had been a humble man. Therefore, when God appeared to Solomon in a dream and told Solomon to request what he wanted, Solomon replied:

·       “And now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in. And your servant is in the midst of your people whom you have chosen, a great people, too many to be numbered or counted for multitude. Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?” (1 Kings 3:7-9)

God was pleased with Solomon’s request and answered:

·       “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. (1 Kings 3:11-12)

To ask for God’s wisdom is like asking for God Himself. Why? To abide in the knowledge of God is to abide in the Light. It is to see as God sees and to think to some extent as God thinks. Therefore, it is to commune with God. It is to value what is most highly valued by God, as God had revealed to the Prophet Jeremiah:

·       Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Solomon’s great wisdom should have enabled him to truly know God. However, Solomon allowed his wisdom to become tarnished by his chosen lifestyle:

·       For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1 Kings 11:4)

As a result, Solomon’s great wisdom was compromised and corrupted. He built temples for the false gods of his many wives, incurring the wrath of his God. Although Solomon had retained much of his temporal wisdom, he had closed the door to further revelations. Solomon therefore became an object lesson for us as a man who had everything but was miserable. He wrote:

·       Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool [death] will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity… How the wise dies just like the fool! So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind. I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me. (Ecclesiastes 2:15-18)

Solomon hated his life because his wisdom was unable to take him where he needed to go, to a vision of the next life. Therefore, his life lacked meaning and the prospect of death mocked his wisdom.

This brings us back to our original question, “What does our Lord look for in His servants?” A humble and broken spirit, one which is always seeking more of his God!

WHY DO WE DERIVE SUCH DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES

I think that there are many reasons why Christians come up with different interpretations and theologies. For one thing, we are to seek understanding more than anything else, but I think that we rarely do. From my experience, few people even ask the important questions, perhaps because they believe that there are no answers, or they are afraid that the answers will demand that they make changes in the way they think and live. Instead, Scripture tells us to seek wisdom and understanding more than we do riches:

·       yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright…(Proverbs 2:3-7)

Another reason that we differ is because of immaturity. We are too new in Jesus to have meditated on the Word of God sufficiently in order to grow much in our understanding, but this is something we must do:

·       Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. (1 Corinthians 14:20)

This type of growth is a process. It continues until Jesus returns:

·       So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

Freedom comes gradually. Likewise, the Scriptures warn us to meditate on the Word of God all the time (Psalm 1:1-3; Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 6:5-8). As we do so, we grow in the wisdom of the Scriptures. To understand any one verse, we need to understand it in the context of the rest of the Scriptures – a very great but fruitful task.

We are recovering lovers of the darkness (John 3:19-20). Our minds have been held captive by sin for so long that it takes time for the light to penetrate the strongholds of darkness, in which we had once delighted.

We only see in part. Therefore, our understanding will be very limited until our Lord returns for us (1 John 3:1-2):

·       For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

This means that there will remain areas of disagreement. However, we must bask together in the light that we share (Ephesians 4:1-5) and not in the areas of uncertainty. Our unity does not depend upon the things that we cannot know with certainty but in the truths that are well-exposed by the Light. Therefore, we must major in the majors and minor in the minors.

Also, many false teachers have come among us to ravage the flock of God. Therefore, Paul had warned:

·       I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.  And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.  (Acts 20:29-32)

If we are built up by the truths of the Scriptures, then we are torn down by their perversion. Therefore, we must be alert. I think that the Church is the most succulent prey for Satan. He seems to focus on those in whom he can do the most destruction, among those who have the most to lose. Therefore, he seeks to capture new recruits to his kingdom, those he has not yet devoured:

·       Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9)