Our Lord Jesus Christ was the meekest and most loving Man
Who ever walked this earth. He went
about doing good because He had a heart for God and for people. He not only taught the people the ways of God, but
actually showed God to them. When they
saw Him, they saw the Father.
But the more His disciples stayed with Him and learned from
Him, the more clearly they saw the implications of what He was saying for
them. The stage came when His followers
said that he was saying “hard” things to them, and they just could not hack
it.
So what did they do? They walked no longer with Him, (Jn.6:66). They voted with their feet. They cut their links with Him because He was
saying things to them that they did not like!
Indeed, they were not prepared to have Christ to rule over them. They were living rebellious lives, shown in
their hearty rejection of the Son of God’s teaching and His legitimate demands
on their lives.
Now, let’s bring this into the 21st century. Here was the church gathered together to be
taught the Word of God by none other than Christ Himself. But what He was saying to them was not
finding favour with the members or with the elders. They had tried to get Him to change His
teaching and the way he was preaching, but he refused. And He refused because He saw that it was the
refusal to submit themselves to His discipline that they were saying these
false things.
So what do they do?
They set up a delegation to meet with the Presbytery to inform them that
this Man is teaching things that they have not heard before, and they wanted
Presbytery to persuade Him not to continue in this way, but to tone down His
preaching. Indeed, what He was preaching
to them was wholly inappropriate for that particular group of people. They were the most religious people around. OK, they didn’t believe everything their
faith taught them, but most of it. Jesus
taught about the need for the ‘new birth,’ but they didn’t believe that kind of
thing; in fact, it was irrelevant so far as they were concerned.
Now the Presbytery was in a pickle! These men regarded themselves as the only
people who were holding to the traditional faith, most others having departed
from it years ago. They were the true
defenders of the faith, and they only. They held to the traditions, unlike
those who weakened under slight pressure.
They were the people! Now this new preacher has come amongst them and He
is preaching what they ought to have been preaching and weren’t (though they
believed that they did preach the true faith faithfully). Yes, there was some overlap between them, but
what made His preaching stand out was that He was making clear what they were
saying in riddles. He was dividing the
congregation, whereas they were assuming that because their hearers had
professed their faith they were genuine Christians. They had no place in their thinking for the
false, or spurious, professor.
But Jesus believed in and taught that it was possible to
make a false profession of faith. Yes,
He cautioned carefulness when dealing with this situation, and to give the
benefit of the doubt to the weak Christian.
But He gave no place whatever to the religious professors who persisted
in their unbelief. And that’s where the ‘rubber
hit the road.’ He drew the distinction;
and the Presbytery could not handle it. Their
primary concern was for the church, their denomination, not the Gospel. They had to maintain their church structures
at all costs, and keep the members on board, irrespective of the consequences
for the preacher.
How do Presbyteries ‘resolve’ situations like these? Well, the truth is the first thing that is
set at naught. Let’s forget about the
Gospel issue, and let us work on the assumption that all parties believe the
Gospel – we’ll not even question that presupposition. They are all Gospel people, so we will deal
with what is essentially a breakdown in inter-personal relationships. The congregation is committed to the
biblical Gospel and so is this preacher. So to remove the troublesome preacher
will maintain the gospel in the church and enable things to get back to where
they were before his arrival. Right?
Wrong, and a thousand times ‘wrong.’ What a false assumption it is that the church
is infallible – a distinctly Roman doctrine which reformed churches have now
embraced. To remove the man who is teaching
and preaching the Gospel may well be, in the providence of God, God’s way of
removing His candlestick from that church!
Oh, church authorities need to be very, very careful. To remove the herald of a clear Gospel
message, and then replace him with a “good churchman,” is essentially an attack
on the Gospel of Christ. It is to say, in this practical and observable way,
that the Gospel clearly preached and applied has no place in our
church/denomination. The peace and unity
of the church is more important that the Gospel, even though church unity and
congregational unity can only be on the basis of the Gospel. But forget that. Silence this clear preaching, and then the
church will settle down.
How wrong church leaders can be in these matters! Is it cowardice that drives them? Or, the desire to be seen as ‘good churchmen’? Or, are they, as Al. N. Martin, would
describe them, “wicked pragmatists”? Has
the church become much more important to them than the Gospel? Have they lost their concern for the souls of
their members? Has the Gospel of Christ
been discounted to this extent? It seems
so. But the lesson here is that no
church can deal so shabbily with the Gospel without their being serious consequences
to follow. So beware!
Hazlett. Not knowing fully your particular situation I hesitate to 'rush in' with comment.
ReplyDeleteIf the abusive parties persist in causing the problems you describe, and if these are not open to full and free open discussion of the issues then surely, as a last resort, separation from such a situation must feature as a duty for the Christians concerned on the basis of Rom.16:17-18?
In an excellent article on the implications of similar situations Rich Damiani wrote of his own experience (published in Searching Together under the general title of 'Authoritarianism in the church')
Headed "Spiritual abuse within the church: its damage and the recovery process" I reproduce the opening paragraphs. It is a very perceptive article and I hope it will encourage you to read it all if you find it helpful:
". THE MARKS AND METHODS OF AN ABUSIVE, CULTIC CHURCH
3. THE RESULTS AND DAMAGE OF THIS ABUSE
4. RECOVERY
INTRODUCTION
This paper is about a subject with which I am intimately familiar. During my first time of attending college from 1973 to 1977 I became involved with a certain Reformed denomination; a creedal group that I thought was the answer to my desire to have a deeper relationship with the God I loved. A roommate loaned me several sermon tapes of their best-known speaker, and I was hooked very quickly. His preaching was deep, full of Scripture, logically impeccable, full of application, and seemingly, very edifying. When I visited the church I was surprised to find that they believed many of the things I had come to believe about missions, Christian liberty, the true nature of the Christian life, the shallowness of the Fundamentalist culture, and numerous other issues of the Christian life. The church was near where my parents lived, so whenever I went home to visit I went there.
I began to buy dozens of sermon tapes and many of the Puritan books that they sold in their small bookstore. I drank up the teaching and life of the group, and believed that I had finally found “the truth.” I came to believe that this man was the greatest preacher I had ever heard; perhaps the greatest in the world, and that his views were completely Scriptural. I began to identify what Reformed Baptists taught with what Scripture itself taught. Without realizing it, I had begun to embrace the classic cultic mentality. It was not until nineteen years later, after I had risen to a position of leadership and prominence in the church, that I realized I had been deceived, and that this was not the truth, the Gospel, Scripture, or the life I had been looking for.
What I did not know in all that time was that my growing emptiness and shattered life was not from my failure to conform to the church’s teaching, rather, it was because I was in a cult of legalism and man-centeredness. The classic tools of mind control had been deftly used on all of us who attended there. Our personalities had been crushed and our spiritual lives sucked out of us – we were the walking dead. When God began to open my eyes, my entire world and life view was shattered, and I was emotionally ruined. Even writing about this is deeply distressing as flashbacks intrude their ugliness and torment. What happened after the initial awakening was horrific. I went through three years of unrelenting black depression; nine months of it suicidal. God used many of the tools of recovery that I will discuss in this paper to save my life, and give me a hope and a future once again.
What an awful experience! And how grateful we must be to this brother who is so open and candid about his spiritual pilgrimage and its attendant abuse.
ReplyDeleteI can identify with him in much of this. I, too, was sucked in to a reformed denomination, I which I was brought up, but not converted there. I, too,loved the reformed faith believing it to be the closest approximation to the Bible's teaching, and still do. I was a devoted servant of the church, and determined to be as reformed as the next man, and more so.
With the passage of the years, I came to see that the reformed understanding with which I associated was not really the real thing at all - its departure from the clear teaching of John Calvin and the Bible was too much for me.
It was during this transition t a ore roundly biblical understanding that my troubles started, initially because I was perceived to be reaching election in every sermon - which was not true at all, and then because as I metamorphosed in my thinking, the Gospel was too close to the knuckle for my elders and some members. With womanising elders - one actually tried it on with my wife in our manse - leading the opposition against me, they reported my to Pesbytery, and eventually my links with this reformed denomination (on paper, only) were severed. I managed for about 12 months, when the enormity of what had been done to me by the church hit home. My health broke done in a very serious way, and I was placed under psychiatric care for 18 months, and on at least two occasions, was on the verge of being sectioned under the mental health act for my own safety - I, too, was suicidal.
While God in is grace brought me through this horrendous experience, I still live with the effects of what was done to me in the church and by the church.
Let no one be under any illusion that churches are very dangerous places for Christian people. maybe they are better out of some of them altogether!