Why Leave A Church?

We live in a mobile society. Folks are shifting from one place to another constantly. I wouldn't think, given such a circumstance, that it would be unexpected that folk would be shifting churches in the shuffle. That's fine, it goes with the territory, but folk are also leaving churches they otherwise would not have to, and it raises the question: "Is OK to leave one's church?"

People leave their churches for all sorts of reasons and in all kinds of conditions. Some leave churches wandering out of a fog bewildered, some surf the edge of the blast wave after a big blow-up, some leave at the end of the left foot of fellowship, and some lose motivation or faith and fall off more than they depart. Some leave because they find another place more attractive, and some just want something new. Everyone that leaves has their reasons, I'm sure.

I doubt that many are legitimately motivated when they choose to leave a church, but I do think that leaving a church can be the right thing to do...

If that church doesn't uphold the Scripture as the infallible rule of faith and conduct;

If that church embraces universalism;

If that church becomes libertine or antinomian; 

If that church adopts legalism...

You get the point. There are practical and doctrinal issues that are so fundamental and non-negotiable, that if a line is crossed there, then we must cross ourselves off the roll. Even if this is the case, I don't think one should leave such a church without a fight. Not that one should seek to win an argument or engage in a turf war, but that one should contend for the faith and for the souls in that body. Don't let them wander off to hell without an effort to save their souls! However, if they won't hear, and won't stand on sound doctrine, then one must leave!

At times, a bone of contention arises between folk that, given the nature of the personalities involved, cannot be resolved. If continuing together in mission is impossible, separating unto mission is acceptable.  It is still unfortunate in the grand scheme, but as long as it is done on reasonable terms and doesn't result in an unending grudge it may be the preferable course of action. We can disagree without being disagreeable, even if it means one going one way and the other going another.

At times, folk are being appointed in the body according to the wishes of the Spirit of God, and leaving one congregation and going to another is precisely what God wants! It's easy to discern this if one is moved to a distant place; it's not so easy if this change takes place in the same town. Regardless, each of us is a gift to the body and we must understand that God gets to place us where he wishes. Actually, I wonder how much dissatisfaction people feel in church is actually just the dissonance in their souls caused by not discerning where God wants them.

There are acceptable, justifiable, and quite spiritual reasons to leave one church and go to another. 

And then there are reasons which are neither expedient nor justifiable.

It is not justifiable to leave a church for selfish reasons. Church is about Jesus being Lord, not about the churchgoer getting what he or she wants. Christians are not customers, the church is not a business and spiritual ministrations are not consumer goods. To treat this God-ordained endeavor as if any of these things were true is an insult to grace. And leaving a church for greener pastures is unacceptable for clergy or laity.

It is not expedient for those who have been appropriately corrected, or who have been properly spiritually directed, to leave a church rather than humbly submitting to that which has been rendered for their spiritual development. The flawed natural constitution of humans beings means that we grow as Christians only to our lowest level of incorrigibility. That cannot excuse a lack of obedience to the Word or to the brethren. Escaping correction or rejecting direction in one body doesn't give one a blank slate to start in another (regardless of whether one is clergy or laity).

There are occasions where the godly will be justified in leaving a church. At times it will be the absolutely right thing to do. Even if it is, it's never something left merely to our discretion or preference. Jesus is head over the body, so he gets to plant us where he wants. 

As for us, we need to stay where we're planted, grow and blossom.

Let God Be the Smart One

What's in the heart of God? The simplest answer is also a biblical answer, God is love, but that answer is very difficult for mere mortals to believe. Not only because they die, but also the way they die-- disease, violence, predation, disasters-- love in the heart of God would never be posited by them as a reason for such. How could an all-powerful being, who loved us govern that way?

Then, there's the whole hell thing: everlasting torment, fire and brimstone, bulimic worms, and not so much as a tinge of pity from the God who's love. No matter how graphically (even at Mel Gibson levels) we paint a picture of Christ's vicarious sufferings, the idea of the lake that burns with fire is always going to trump that image and keep anyone from thinking of its imposition as arising from love. Is it any wonder that scoffers look at this subject with such incredulity?

But God either is or he is not. Even if our experience of life makes it difficult for us to believe that he is love if he is, there is no doubt that, if he is, he is incredibly smart! And yet, we who entertain the notion of God, constantly vie our intelligence against his, as if he, somehow, has to bow to our conceptions of sense and fairness. It's nothing new, we've been like that since the beginning of the human race. It's the very foundation of sin.

Christ said God was overjoyed to give us the kingdom, that he shares his secrets with the humble. Yet, we let our pride get in the way and argue with God, thinking ourselves capable of understanding what he alone understands. We glory in our own opinion, and it deafens us to God. We gain neither love or knowledge by it, only darkness. It's in the heart of God to love us and to share all his has and all he knows with us, but to receive it, we're going to have to get over ourselves and let God be the smart one.

The Ubiquity of Fossils and the Bible

Ubiquity speaks of the commonness of a thing—it’s everywhere. Fossils have that quality, from the peaks of the Himalayas to the valleys of the Appalachians. In fact, fossils are so prevalent in sedimentary rock that the fossils found in it are the metric used to date it.

According to classical, uniformitarian evolutionary scenarios, fossils formed by regular processes of death, deposition, compaction and mineralization. Water, winds, volcanoes, and landslides laid down sediments upon the bodies, tracks, even the excrement of animals, upon plants, and even upon microscopic lifeforms. Those in turn were covered by other sediments, and ultimately, the column of sediments became rock with mineralized fossils embedded.

When things die, especially animal life, there is not much opportunity to preserve it in the fossil record. If a dead thing is not buried completely and relatively quickly, thousands of creatures, microscopic and large, begin a feeding frenzy. What they don’t destroy the elements do. The corpse doesn’t have thousands of days let alone thousands of years to mark its existence for posterity.

It is apparent that fossils only form if the burial process that covered the once living is rapid, as in floods, landslides, volcanism, or sandstorms. Such is demonstrated by those fossils which are like action snapshots-- creatures caught giving birth, eating, even devouring another creature. Suddenly, they were covered by sediment, eventually becoming a freeze frame in the fossil record.

But these rapid mechanisms produce not only fossils, but also sharply delineated, localized fields of sedimentary rock. The fossil bearing sedimentary rocks, however, stretch square mile after square mile in vast fields across the entire planet. About 75% of the land surface of the earth is covered by them to an average depth of over 5400 feet. The scope of these layers is the basis for the geologic column and its ability to be applied to formations across the globe. 

Generally, sediments are laid out flat, kind a like a college student during holiday breaks. If you examine an outcropping in the Appalachians it may not appear that way, but the curvy strata there were caused by folding after sedimentation. In other places where sedimentary rock is present but not horizontal other geotectonic mechanisms can be forwarded to explain its tilt.

The rule is that sediments are laid horizontally: the physics of particles precipitating out of solution or suspension demand it. Even if the floor they are settling on is serpentine, sediments settle in the low spots to a greater degree than the high spots until things are more or less evened out. When sediment fields stretch square mile after square mile in relatively uniform strata, a single body of murky water over the entire sediment field must have been responsible.

How that occurred simultaneously with all manner of flora and fauna being rapidly covered by those precipitates presents some serious problems to the uniformitarian geologist, and most certainly to the evolutionist. It seems to me they don't actually have a plausible mechanism for the ubiquity of fossils.

There is, however, a biblical answer:

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 7:17-24 (NIV)

In my mind, it's a better answer.

What Does It Prophet?

God has demonstrated throughout history a desire and willingness to inspire people with his Spirit. From Adam in the Garden, to the Israelites in Sinai, to the prophets of the Old Testament, to the affirmations of Paul, the scriptures confirm God's desire to inspire his people with his Spirit. Only the separation of humankind from God due to sin frustrated that desire through the ages. As a result, only a few well-chosen people were ever inspired by that revelatory Spirit.

That is, until sin was dealt with broadly through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since Christ expunged sin and reconciled to God all who put their trust in him, God's desire to inspire can be pursued freely in all who believe (even if only in part). Ultimately, God's desire to inspire will be fulfilled at the end of time when the redeemed will share that revelatory Spirit fully. Then it will be said of us that we know [him] even as we are known [by him].

The prophets of the Old Testament had a job, but only for a season. Some of them had great and memorable gifts, some were attended by signs and wonders, and others were less notable in these regards. All of them spoke for God to a people that could not and did not want to hear from God themselves. They were relatively rare amidst the community of faith. As impressive a lot as they were, none of them had the experience of the Spirit that anyone in Christ's kingdom does.

They were selected by God for their labor as a necessary part of bringing all things to that ripe moment when Christ would appear and then they would no longer be needed. There are things that Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel (among others) prophesied that have not yet come to pass, so their work continues in a certain respect. When Jesus said they prophesied until John, he did not mean that their words suddenly fell to the ground, but that the function they served ceased (as did the law's).

The prophets of the New Testament have a different job, but only until Jesus comes back. Some have more noticeable gifts than others do, some even become church leaders. Moses' inspired longing is answered among them, for even though there are only some in the church that are actually prophets, all of God's people can prophesy. Prophets no longer speak exclusively for God to people who can't and don't hear from him themselves, now they speak that which others can confirm and everyone can affirm.

New Testament prophets are not meant to be rare, for their service is needed in the meeting of the saints. It is best to have a bevy of them for the purpose of weighing what is prophesied. To squelch this needed gift, or to make it so difficult to operate in as to effectively bar it, is just shooting ourselves in the feet. Quenching the Spirit by despising this gift can only make the church poorer and prophets nothing!

Christianity Is Selling Death

I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. When I hear someone ask, "What does your church have to offer me or my family?" it's about all I can do to not have my head explode. It's not like it's anything new, Jesus had to put up with the same kind of self-centeredness, but that doesn't make it easier to take. Church is not a supermarket.

What consumer benefits a church might offer has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is the place God desires a believer to be in order to grow and serve. God has a divine appointment for each of us, and finding it should be our goal. Then, with patience and grace, serving God and our brothers and sisters there should be our occupation until (and only if) God appoints us some place else.

We certainly have no right to treat our brothers and sisters as disposable and divorce ourselves from their fellowship because we've decided we can get a better deal somewhere else. God is the one who has made us parts of the body and he alone gets to appoint us to our place in the body. What business does any church leader have, then, of dangling a carrot, trying to coax a believer to make a decision about where they belong on a basis other than God's appointment? 

And evangelism is not soliciting suitors like Tamar enticed Judah. We can't initially camouflage the message of repentance and surrender only to unveil the truth of  obedience and sacrifice later. Can it be any wonder that when it's time to pay the piper, such converts are as a fickle and disloyal as the rest of our hedonistic, consumer-driven society. If we tickle the flesh to get folk in, we'll get nothing but a giggle from them when they're called upon to stand up and be counted for Christ.

The gospel is good news and every biblically legitimate means needs to be employed to get it to everyone, but the often unspoken stark truth about its message is that embracing it means buying into your own death. The old-fashioned notion of fire and brimstone is unpopular these days because it's just not marketable. I don't care for it myself, it doesn't reflect biblical preaching in my mind, but the biblical message isn't any more palatable. The message Jesus preached to potential followers: "deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me."

I'm dumbfounded amidst a church world that doesn't understand it's own message. I mean, really, how can such a thing as church marketing even exist? It's not just oxymoronic, it's plain moronic too! No, it's even worse, it's faithless, and it's ruining the heritage of God. Let the self-centered consumers and ravenous church hawkers beware, you will reap what you sow. 

So, we can build cathedrals of wood, hay and stubble, selling emptiness to the empty-headed and empty-hearted, but if we want to do what Jesus did, then we must come to terms with this: Christianity is actually selling death.

Keep Your Appointment from God

"Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.." (I Corinthians 12:27-31a ESV)

The ordinals used in this passage can be taken as an order of rank of importance or authority, or as a description of the timing of expression. The mention of "greater" (Koine: meizona) in the last verse could be seen as requiring the ordinals used before to be interpreted as ranking importance or greatness, but for me, the "thens" (Koine: epeita) seal the deal. The force of ἔπειτα is "thereafter" or even "only then." Very clearly, the thens impose the idea of sequence, or timing, into the list.

Since, then, this roster of gifts puts them into sequence, the issue being addressed is their development and extension, not their comparative value. Paul is trying to help eager Corinthians understand not only the what, but also the how and when of ministry gifts. Notice that in the sequence of erupting gifts, the miraculous sorts arise throughout-- near the beginning, in the middle and at the end as well. It seems the biblical pattern for chuch growth embraces the miraculous from start to finish. 

Paul, in effect, said that the body starts with the ministry of an apostle. As the body grows, up arises prophets. As it continues to grow, then up arises teachers. As it continues expanding then all kind of gifts arise. Being an apostle is no more about being in authority than being outside in spring is about being a dandelion. And being a cessationist is nothing but a surefire way to miss half of what God would like the body to grow into.

We have been concentrating on leadership gifts in this series of posts, but this passage doesn't restrict it's scope to leadership as does Ephesians 4. Leadership is part of the body, but so too are the led. Each of us is part, each of us is gifted, not just leaders, to serve the body and the gifts by which we do so are assigned, or appointed, by God. Just as a finger on your body wouldn't do any good attached to your elbow, so also God has the prerogative of appointing us to the spot he knows we belong.

I must admit, I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. What consumer benefits a church might offer a "shopper" has nothing at all to do with divine appointment. Neither does a carrot dangled on a line by a "marketer" have any place in God's assignments. Such shoppers and marketers don't have the slightest clue about what church actually is!

But if you do, then grow where God sprouts you, stay unless God moves you. Embrace your giftings, and rise into however God is causing you to function and always do so for the benefit of the body. There are folk in the church world, leaders and followers alike, who are clueless and in total disharmony with what God is trying to do in his body. Don't let them get you down, do what you know is right from the Word. For this much is sure: God has made an appointment for you and he expects you to keep it.

Your Gift Makes Room for You

The discussion started here concerning church leadership gifts continues... 

If an apostle is the founding leadership gift of a church in an area or in a culture, as I have purported in an earlier post, we could well say that the fledgling church is pastored by an apostle. To be technically accurate, that leader is and should be called an apostle, but he would also be acting as the pastor of that start-up congregation. It seems to me most places today would just call him "pastor."

We could make a case that once a congregation is established it would be more correct to call the leader of that church an elder or bishop, but then Acts 20 indicates that the terms bishop, elder, and pastor are largely interchangeable. Can an apostle even be designated a pastor-- wouldn't that be a confusion of terms since both apostle and pastor are listed in Ephesians 4? It may seem so at first glance, but a few verses (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; Galatians 1:19; & Acts 21:8) make me think otherwise.

If one takes the Apostle John to be the author of all the Johannine epistles (as I do) and understands James, the brother of Jesus, to be the first Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as many do, a biblical case for seeing any of the five-fold leadership gifts as capable of exercising the presiding office begins to emerge. The long and short of it: the office of elder or bishop does not describe the gift that is expressed by the individual occupying it. Sometimes the elder/bishop will be an apostle (as in the formative stages of the church in a culture or geographic area), sometimes a prophet, or an evangelist, or even a pastor/teacher. I think the same kind of thing is true for the diaconate.

For leadership in the church, it's the function of preparing God's people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up rather than the type of gift leading that matters. Any of the five-fold gifts is capable of leading that preparation. It will be the case that some folk in any given church will be gifted in similar ways to the church leader, but that will not automatically qualify them to be church leaders. Church leaders are gifted and full of the Holy Spirit, tested in service, of good reputation with all, and good managers of their own families among other things.

In any church some will be more gifted than others, and if some folks are given to their gifts (i.e. "full-time"), it follows that some folks will not be. But whatever the situation is with any person's gifts we can be assured of this: when a tempered individual has been gifted in the ways leaders are gifted, his gift will make room for him.

What Are Apostles?

This post continues the discussion about church leadership, particularly the ministry gifts associated with it. The focus in this article is how those gifts come into expression, at least ideally, over the lifespan of a church. Within a culture or a geographical area the church is born with the ministry of an apostle and then grows toward maturity. As it does so other leadership gifts arise and carry things forward through church maturation.

An apostle is one called by God to establish the church where it had not been established before. The pattern for this ministry was set by the twelve Apostles of Christ, who defined by words and deeds what an apostle is and would do in the time after them. The only real distinguishment between the twelve and the apostles who followed is that the twelve were hand-picked eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection and the revelatory source for what Jesus said and did, whereas the apostles who followed were not. The apostles who followed rely upon the witness of the twelve but cannot add to it.

Much is made of apostolic authority today, whether focused on the twelve or the latter variety, but I see no record in the scriptures that apostolic authority was ever derived from anything other than anointing, ethos, consensus, and ultimately persuasion. That kind of authority is acknowledged by those under it, but cannot be claimed hierarchically, dictatorially, or oppressively. An apostle who insists upon that kind of authority would be establishing a cult not the church.

I think it self-evident that an apostle would be a generalist in terms of gifted skills. He is the church when he starts. All that needs to be inspired is going to have to be inspired through him, hence he will be a jack of all trades. Then, through preaching, teaching, and signs and wonders, others will be added to him birthing a growing church. As it grows, believers will mature and others will step into specific aspects of gifting for which the apostle was a generalist.

So, as the body grows prophets will arise, as will teachers, and all manner of other utilitarian gifts as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (or perhaps as implied by the listing in Ephesians 4:11). The ordinals used in the Corinthian passage are not a reflection of rank or authority, but of the order in which ministry gifts arise in the extension of the body as it grows. Apostles begin things that are then carried forward by others; therefore, for a mature church to "look backward" toward reestablishing an "apostle" is regression, twisted logic and just bad practice.