Top Ten Reasons Christians Won’t Join a Local Church (Part I)

"Apart from the church, salvation is impossible."

 –Martin Luther

“If you are not a member of the church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell.”

–Mark Dever

“In fact, anyone who claims to be a Christian yet is not an active member of a church may not actually be a follower of Christ.”

-David Platt

“So highly does the Lord esteem the communion of His church that He considers everyone a traitor and apostate from religion who perversely withdraws himself from any Christian society which preserves the true ministry of the word and sacraments.”

-John Calvin

Shocking quotes. No doubt, much of the American dismissal of the importance of local church membership is a reaction to the Medieval Roman Catholic dogma that salvation came from being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. But as these quotations reveal, even the Reformers understood the importance of the local church. Further, they believed that all that were part of the Universal Church would be active, functioning members of a local church. But these sentiments unfortunately don’t represent the current evangelical perspectives of the local church. Bumper sticker quotes like, “I don’t go to church; I am the church,” and “I love Jesus; it’s the church I can’t stand” are more representative of the current view of local church participation and membership. What are the major reasons for dissing the local church? Consider ten reasons why Christians don’t join local churches.

10. The church has a questionable history and a whole lot of hypocrisy.

We use to sing a song written by the Gaithers when I was a boy named, “I’m So Glad I’m a Part of the Family of God!”  This excuse for not becoming a member of a local church basically changes the song to “I’m Surprised You’re a Part of the Family of God!” This excuse could also be referred to as the strange place and weird people syndrome. After all, the critic quips, “the church has a history of racism, the Crusades and worldwide moral and financial scandals.” In addition, the church is accused of being peppered with self-righteous, plastic people. Church rolls are also filled with the weak-minded, emotionally needy, and the socially awkward. In some ways, the only honest response to such arguments is a regretful: “guilty as charged.” But, is that a valid reason for rejecting one’s family?  Being born again, regenerated, and saved all refer to being adopted into the family of God. The church is called a “chosen generation” (I Peter 2:9) which means we all enjoy the same Ancestor and are part of the same “household.” Now, the Scriptures teach us very clearly that this new family is not necessarily made up this world’s “beautiful people;” just the opposite (I Cor. 1:27-28)! So, “I am surprised that I AM a part of the family of God!” The old proverb, “you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family” is true, not only in our physical families but in our spiritual family as well. Ever go to a family reunion just to be reminded of the “nuts” that fall every time your family tree is shaken?! But, we learn to live with and love through these idiosyncrasies because, after all, they are family! Pastor Mark Dever asks, “Do you want to know that your new life is real (I John 2:9-10)? Commit yourself to a local group of saved sinners. Try to love them. Don’t just do it for three weeks. Don’t’ just do it for six months. Do it for years. And I think you’ll find out, and others will, too, whether or not you love God.”

9. I don’t believe in spiritual leadership or pastoral authority.

There’s some “baggage” oftentimes with this one. Having been under “pastoral” leadership as a child that claims they are untouchable (“touch not God’s anointed”), as well as church leadership that “lords it over one’s faith” causes, even me (and I am a “pastor”!), to bristle and chafe somewhat. But, instances of sinful oversight does not excuse the wholesale rejection of the church for which Christ died. Speaking eschatologically (end times), there seems to be only one institution that the Lord created that is eternal. The family (as we know it), and human government both have expiration dates. But, the church, as the Bride of Christ, exists eternally with her Groom. With that said, those that argue against the leadership roles and offices in the local church have a difficult time explaining how the same God who established the roles in the family and the authority of human government, also established the leadership and oversight of the church (Titus 1; I Tim. 3). In addition, the qualifications and expectations for the two offices of elders and deacons in the local church significantly exceed the requirements for both family roles and human government. Acknowledgement of familial and governmental leadership logically requires consent to ecclesiastical leadership. It is impossible to submit to spiritual leadership according to Hebrews 13:17 without being a member of local church. The commission of Matthew 28 assumes that the one doing the baptizing and teaching will be the one who the believer is to be submissive to (Heb. 13:17).

8. The pervasive influence of aggressive American individualism.

The rugged, Lone Ranger approach to life will collide with the Bible’s use of collective nouns and metaphors to describe the church. In fact, it is well-nigh impossible to read the New Testament without discovering the plural nature of the Church. In I Peter 2:9, the apostle Peter uses collective nouns to describe the church: chosen race, royal priesthood, and holy nation. Think of the collective metaphors: flock, family, body, and building. Compare the metaphors with such an individualistic mindset. One sheep doesn’t equal a flock.  One person doesn’t make a family. One limb doesn’t make a body. And one brick doesn’t make a building. Add to this the enormous amount of “one another” commands that are to be discharged as we are a community of believers, and you get the clear impression that Christianity is a team sport! While a person can only enter the family of God individually, by faith alone, in Christ alone, he is to live out his life of faith collectively and not in solitude. Clearly, I need the church even if that pushes against my desire for independence. John Piper says, “Sanctification is a community project!”

7. Not being a member provides a quick exit strategy!

 Jesus addressed the problem of disposable marriages and the no-fault divorce mentality in Matthew 5, 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16. There is an unnerving similarity today with how so many Christians view their commitment to a local church. Having such a variety of churches to “hop” in-and-out of, has caused many conservative Christians to view their local church as a divorce-for-any-reason concession. So, the reasoning goes: “let’s not commit to membership with this local church so that if we find something we don’t like, we can “get out of Dodge.”  In the military we call this kind of abrupt ejection being Absent Without Official Leave, and in a family setting we call it desertion. But in a church we say things like, “the Lord is leading us on,” “stirring our nest,” or “redirecting our paths.”  Sometimes, because of the common-law relationship (attendance without membership), that a person has with the local church, they end a 15-20 year relationship with a simple email.

6. I am part of the universal, invisible church and there is no imperative for membership in one locally.

Wouldn’t it be cool to be invisible every now and then? I mean, if you could just disappear, wouldn’t that remove you from all responsibility and accountability for the moment? Or, how neat would it be if we could escape paying our town’s property taxes by appealing to our loyalty to the U.S. Government that would exempt us from any local restrictions or regulations?  That is similar to what Christians are implying by their appeal to “I am part of the universal” or “invisible church.” Truthfully, there is certainly an invisible church. It is invisible to us but visible to God. It is invisible in the sense that we can’t determine who is actually repenting and believing the Gospel. Only the Lord knows that.  Those who have been actually baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ are invisible to us, but visible to God. The Protestants insisted on the adjective invisible to clarify the distinction that just because a person was part of a visible church did not make someone a child of God. The Lord Jesus taught that such a determination would be done at the end of the age when the real Christians are revealed (Matthew 13:30). 

The Bible also teaches the truth about the Universal (catholic) Church. Now don’t be alarmed by the use of “catholic.” The word simply means universal. The Roman Catholic Church believes in what they call the universal church but not the invisible church. Roman Catholics believe that the Universal Church represents all the visible members of the Roman Catholic (Universal) church. What we believe the Bible teaches about the Universal church is that it includes both the Christians that are already “with the Lord” and all the Christians presently on the planet. Maybe this summary would help:

Invisible Church: All the True Christians.

Universal Church: All the True Christians in Heaven and on Earth.

Local Church: Professing Christians gathered together in a committed relationship of accountability and love.

Some would refer to the Invisible Church or the Universal Church as the Church with the big “C” and the local church as the church with the little “c.”  That is a mistake. The word “church” is used repeatedly in the New Testament. Nearly 90% of its uses, however, are in the context of a local church rather than the invisible or universal church. The Letters of the New Testament were written to local churches. Letters like Philippians actually names some of the bickering members in the local congregation! So, what we see in the New Testament is that God expects every member of the invisible, universal church to be a functioning and active member of a local church.  The best way for you to prove your membership in the invisible, universal church is for you to be actively functioning in a local church.

“The Way” – Christianity as a Way of Life

“Radical obedience to Christ is not easy... It's not comfort, not health, not wealth, and not prosperity in this world. Radical obedience to Christ risks losing all these things. But in the end, such risk finds its reward in Christ. And he is more than enough for us.”

― David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream

            Is Christianity an addition to your life, or is it your life?  Being called a “follower of Christ,” is it one of the many labels that describe our lives or is it the essential, defining term?  Luke, the writer of most of our New Testament, assists us in having Christianity become our way of life.

Luke was used by the Spirit to pen more verses in the New Testament than any other author, including the Apostle Paul. He wrote the Gospel of Luke as a prequel and the Book of Acts as its sequel. In those two Books, he repeatedly uses the expression The Way to help give us some guidance in how we should view the Christian life. Interestingly, as a companion of the Apostle Paul, almost every time that Luke chooses this expression it is in relation to the ministry of Paul. But, Paul never used the expression in our New Testament. Curious.

The Rightness of Christianity

Initially, the expression highlights for all Christians and non-believers alike the rightness of Christianity. Luke does not speak of “a” way, but “the” way; this choice of word points to the narrowness, restrictiveness, and singular rightness of the Christian faith as the only way to God.

“and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.”

(Acts 9:2)

“But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation. . . .”(Acts 19:9)

“About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way.”(Acts 19:23)

This little synonym for Christianity pronounces the exclusivity of the Christian faith as the sole way to have a relationship with God. Perhaps Luke was fond of this phrase because of Jesus’ words of Himself, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, but by me.”

The benefit of such thinking is that Christianity becomes enormously more than an “add-on” or just another one of our life “applications” as we consider that it is the only way for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. It simplifies life.

“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.”(Acts 24:14)

Christianity is More Than Satisfying Religious Impulses.

It is troubling to realize how many Christians live their lives as though they are strapped into a “bumper car” at an amusement park. They seem to live in a constant succession of religious reactivity. The latest book they read, quote they tweeted, or preacher they heard has redirected and shaped their philosophy of  the Christian life. These Christians seemingly pendulum from an ecstatic revival of immediate revelation from God to deep depression, withdrawal, and moodiness, all within the course of a calendar week. “Children tossed to and fro.”

The Christian life is not such a roller coaster. It was never intended to be. It is the Way. Paul called the Christian life a walk. There is nothing spectacular about a walk. There is nothing noteworthy, or newsworthy about walking.  It is an uneventful, somewhat boring, and a very unspectacular exercise. But, it represents progress. It embodies growth that is both slow and deliberate. The Way is just that. Christianity is The Way on which we walk in our Christian life.

“He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit. . . .” (Acts 18:25)

            “We are settling for a Christianity that revolves around catering to ourselves when the central message of Christianity is actually about abandoning ourselves.”

― David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream

Every time the doors are open?

Dedicated, Christians are in church “every time the doors are open,” right? For most conservative churches scoring par for “every time the doors are open” means, at the very least, that you are in attendance for Sunday School, Sunday morning worship, Sunday evening services, and Wednesday evening services. Can we peer into that thinking together for a moment?  I suggest that generally speaking, the Sunday and Wednesday evening services are pretty much a Sunday Morning Service LITE. These services have more similarities in format, approach, audience, and outcome than they do dissimilarities.  That may not be bad, but consider: Does cloning a Sunday morning worship service three or four times during a calendar week aid us in effectively equipping believers and enjoying community? Are the current “big four” services fueling us in making disciples, building the church?  Are we allowed to ask? 

Some Regulations

A retreat to the New Testament looking for “how do we do church?” reveals some regulatory guidelines. As a result, we are not left to the fluidity of our own tastes or preferences. Our New Testament, in both illustrative and imperatival language points to a Sunday gathering of the local church. We see this habit in the nursery days of the New Testament Church: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread. . . . (Acts 20:7a)” Additionally, the prescriptive element of gathering an offering on Lord’s Day points to the regulation of the Lord’s Day gathering  (I Corinthians 16:1). “On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” So passages peppered throughout the New Testament (cf. Rev. 1:10-11; Hebrews 10:25) inform us that we are disobedient to the commands of the Lord if we fail to gather with the church on Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

Dr. John MacArthur, interrogates aptly:

"You have been joined together with Christ... You bear His name. Are you ashamed to belong? Are you ashamed to bear that identification with other believers of like precious faith? . . . Shouldn't you be willing outwardly to identify with the visible, gathered members of that group to which you eternally belong?"

Beyond being instructed to gather together as Christ’s church on Sundays for collective worship, we are given some regulations about how to worship. Particular elements of worship are prescribed: reading the Scriptures publically (1 Tim. 4:13); preaching the Bible (2 Tim. 4:2); singing the Scriptures (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) praying the Bible (Matt. 21:13); and seeing the Bible in the two ordinances of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; Col. 2:11–12), to name a few.  

So as for regulations, most churches choose the Sunday morning worship service to be the service that is most shaped by these directives. That is appropriate and the Sunday morning gathering is really not up for discussion. But what about those other services? Should we feel constrained to maintain them as pastors and attend them as parishioners if they are essentially carbon-copies of the Sunday morning services?

Some history . . . how did we get so many duplicates?

Have you every wondered how Sunday School, Sunday evening services, and mid-week services originated?  Would it surprise you to learn that the Sunday evening service was originally intended as an evangelistic venue targeted for the unsaved?  What a tremendous, biblical goal; and it is distinctly different from the Sunday morning worship service. Is your Sunday evening service a focused, Gospel-spreading occasion?

What about the mid-week, Wednesday service? The mid-week service became popularized during the 19^th century by evangelists like Charles Finney and D.L. Moody. They were mostly held around midday on Wednesdays and were almost entirely prayer meetings focused on asking God to revive the saints and awaken the lost. Sunday School? Well, when it was created in 1769 by Hannah Bell, it was intended to meet both a spiritual and a social need. It aided poor children to become literate and ultimately read the Bible! These services, while not commanded for the church to conduct like Lord’s Day collective worship services, were purposeful, intentional and largely, effective. But nearly 250 years after the invention of these extra services, they have regretfully morphed into little more than “re-runs” of our Sunday morning worship services. Prayer for revival and conversions is an intentional meeting. Preaching the Gospel to the unsaved is a spot-on goal for a service. And training children how to read so that they can understand the Bible is missionary work of the first order! But having “services” with no clear, intentional discipleship goal other than replaying the Lord’s Day service is ineffective at best and empty ritualism at worst. Admittedly, every time the Scriptures are opened and whenever the saints gather, there is spiritual benefit. But is it the most effective methodology? I want my family at church every time the doors are opened; but I desire, even more than that, that they be equipped for the work of the ministry. 

Think about it.

So are you in church “every time the door is open?” Besides gathering for our Lord’s Day worship service, we are commanded to make disciples who love God, love one another, and who are influencing the unsaved. So shouldn’t the other services help us achieve the goals of discipleship and community? As we plan intentional meetings other than the Sunday morning worship service, I believe we should ask these questions: When are we intentionally discharging the one-anothers in the New Testament?  When will we equip the saints for service? When are we "devoted to fellowship?" It may be a little ironic that we call the big four meetings “services” when in reality, the average attender doesn’t serve; they sit, every time the doors are open.

Can I Use a Projector & Keep My Hymnal Too?

By Pastor Kyle Harding

(This was written by Pastor Kyle per request for a friend's blog. It was so helpful that I asked him if I could post it.)

In recent days there has been some cyber-discussion on the subject of hymnal usage versus projecting lyrics in churches. The following is not a prescriptive commentary on how every ministry should make their decision on the issue, but rather a description of how our church has sought to avoid falsely dichotomizing the issue.

When I first arrived at my current ministry in July of 2011, a projector was already being used during offertories and some "special" music numbers. [Sidenote: I am not of fan of the term "special" music to denote a solo or group musical selection, especially if it happens every week. In his book Singing and Making Music, Paul S. Jones suggests the term "musical offering" as a means to properly designate non-congregational music moments in the worship service as well as to instruct the congregation concerning the function of that musical event. Besides, what isn't special about congregational singing?] The use of the projector in this way was to prevent a "seventh-inning-stretch" atmosphere by drawing the attention of the congregation to the text of the song being played or sung. This can be done in other ways, but projecting the lyrics seemed to be the most practical way for our church to add prominence to the text.

Then the moment came when we as a pastoral team made the decision to begin projecting the texts of our congregational songs during our worship services. Although the vehicle of music is an extremely important aspect of worship that must be weighed carefully to determine what is appropriate for the worship of a holy God, it is the text that has the ability to teach and affirm doctrine; and for us, the text is the first (but not the only) point of evaluation before we consider the inclusion of a song in our services. Because of the emphasis we place on the texts of our worship music, and since we had already been using a projector to place a premium on the text during other musical moments in our services, it seemed logical for us to begin projecting the lyrics of our congregational songs.

We kept our hymnals.

We did not make this step with the desire to sell our hymnals on eBay the following week. We still provide printed notation for our people for almost every song we sing together by either announcing the hymn number or providing handouts for songs not in our hymnal. Many in our congregation are musically literate and appreciate our desire to provide notation for them, especially when we learn a new song. And, as long as the desire to sing a harmony part does not take one's focus from the text of a hymn, providing notation also encourages what I consider to be a beautiful (although not necessary) aspect of congregational singing—vocal harmony.

However, even though we kept our hymnals, here are some benefits from using projected text:

1. Helps focus on the textual progression of a hymn

So why we would continue to take steps to provide musical notation for our people but also use technology that may draw people away from the written music? When you view a poem set to music in small chunks (2-5 verses at a time—verses are different from stanzas!) without the surrounding musical notation, it highlights the text and its progression throughout a hymn. The textual progression of a hymn can be lost with non-musicians as they attempt to wade through the four written parts on the page of a hymnal. Intelligibility is an important aspect of biblical worship (I Corinthians 14) that we believed could be improved through the projection of song lyrics.

2. Breathes new life into familiar hymns

Textual focus can also be lost with musicians and non-musicians alike when we sing familiar songs. We can find ourselves tuning out on even good songs if we are not careful. When we sing a hymn that is musically and textually familiar to our congregation, it is an encouragement as a song leader to see most heads up and focused on the projected text rather than singing into a hymnal that they do not need for musical purposes.

3. Makes the text easier to read

One of the most surprising benefits of projecting all of our song lyrics has been the appreciation we have received from our senior citizens. Many in this demographic have expressed their frustration with their failing eyesight that makes it difficult for them to read out of a hymnal. With the song lyrics in large font available for them on a screen, they have told me that they are able to more easily participate in congregational signing.

4. Helps the song leader in textual evaluation

In preparation for each service, it is my duty to type out the lyrics for every song used in our services. This exercise has made me more aware of the doctrine I am placing in front of my congregation through the songs that we sing. As visually prominent as the texts of our songs are now, it is imperative that I do not highlight weak doctrine or poor poetry by putting it in size 57 bold font on the screens behind the platform. Because congregational singing must be used as a truth-proclaiming ministry (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:18, 19), the song service is not just a checklist to get through until the preaching happens—preaching happens in addition the pulpit ministry! This demands a careful examination of the lyrics of the songs we sing together, just as we should examine the content of the public prayers and the preaching that take place in our churches each week. What would you think if your pastor publicly prayed, without music, the text to your favorite hymn or worship song? Would it continue to survive as poetry if it was not set to music?

In addition to its use in corporate worship, a good hymnal is a wonderful devotional companion as a way to pray and meditate on God's work and character. Many hymns stood alone as poetry before they were set to music. There are also plenty of texts of hymns, gospel songs, and choruses written in every era that would not be around if people were not sentimentally attached to the tune they are set to. I would question the use of any weak text in worship services, despite its sentimental value, even if it means the slaying of some sacred cows.

We have decided to keep our hymnals and to project the text, too. We as a ministry have seen the benefits of maintaining printed notation in the form of hymnals, supplements, and handouts for those who read music or are learning to read music. We have also observed that projecting our song lyrics helps our people be more focused on the texts that they sing and listen to in our worship services.

One of the most encouraging observations that I have made as I read blog posts about this and other second-tier issues is that many recognize the need for a Romans 14 ethic when we disagree with someone else's opinion about a doubtful issue. Since this issue affects corporate worship, it calls for a great deal of consideration before deciding how to best provide words and music to a congregation. However, this decision is not worthy of a "war." Hymnals and projection technology are tools to help congregations musically worship God in spirit and in truth. The true worship war should be against the world, the devil, and our own flesh as we struggle in our individual and corporate worship to maintain a right view of God. Waging this war biblically will help shape the form and content of your corporate worship. Whether you use printed notation, projected lyrics, or both, be sure the truth you affirm properly reflects the God you are worshiping. Besides, who doesn't like the smell of old hymnals?

Overcoming Elections Blues

How are you feeling today? The feeling I had as I pillowed my cranium last night was similar to the sick feeling I experienced on Sunday evening, February 3, 2008. It was that empty, “what could have been” feeling I had when Plaxico Burress caught a 13-yard pass from Eli Manning with 35 seconds remaining in Super Bowl XLII. The Giants, in one of the biggest upsets in sports history, defeated our undefeated New England Patriots. The friends that had gathered in my den to watch the big game with me dispersed quietly. Somberly. I couldn’t even bring myself to watch ESPN for months!

The difference between losing a Super Bowl and an election, however, could only be compared emotively. An election has real-life consequences. Football doesn’t.  But comparatively, in some significant metaphorical way, I believe patriotism (undefeated each time it has been tried!) was upset and rejected on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. I am not saying that the over 60 million people that voted for the re-election of President Barack Obama are intrinsically unpatriotic. But patriotism as an idea was rejected. Obviously, patriotism is a love and devotion to one’s country. Historically, in our country, “patriots” referred to those colonists, after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, who wanted independence from Great Britain. Of course the “loyalists” were those who wanted to remain English and loyal to King George III of England. So, there were 1/3 of the colonists who wanted to have dependence and another 1/3 who desired independence. Thankfully, the patriots won the American Revolution and our country was born!

So, with that, I can’t help but believe that patriotism, a love of independence rather than dependence, was defeated during this year’s presidential election. Evidently, in just four short years, our country has a majority opinion that desires free stuff from the government more than individual freedom. More voters desired governmental dependence rather than responsible independence.  Comparably, we could say the loyalists won this election.  They voted for food stamps, government bailouts, national healthcare, and an ever-increasing big-brother government funded by massive indebtedness that is nothing less than immoral. President Kennedy’s inaugural challenge has been perverted to read, “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.” So, in the sense of independence versus dependence, patriotism received an upsetting, unexpected defeat on Tuesday.

That is hardly the whole story of patriotism, though. Patriotism is love not only for the economic viability of a country, but the moral stability of that beloved country. Patriots are willing to revolt for the purpose of obeying God rather than men. Remember, in the history of our patriotic country, there has never been a political party’s platform or sitting United States President that have endorsed same-sex marriage. That position was embraced by the majority of voters. Yesterday also marked the 55th millionth baby that was legally killed in the United States under the Roe v Wade ruling of 1973. That position was embraced by the majority of voters as well. Patriotism, the love of a country’s morality and ethical moorings, was handily defeated last night.

So there is a hollow, discouraged, disappointed, and blue feeling in the hearts of patriotism fans this morning. We know that Richard Weaver is correct in saying, “ideas have consequences.”  There was an ideology that was accepted last night. A world-view rejected.

            But do we have to remain “blue” this day? Absolutely not! We are Christians—children of the King! We “hope all things, believe all things!” If “the fullness of time” that “God sent forth His Son” was an era in which Herod the Great was in office, we can be confident that this too, is “the fullness of time!”  Jesus the Savior reigns!  Our commission to preach the Gospel to every creature is unaltered.  The majority world-view of our country was displayed on election day.  Frankly, it is discouraging to feel like you are playing an “away game” on your “home field.” Yet perhaps as Christians, we are being reminded of our true commission—political  activism or Gospel proclamation?  With patriotism losing last night, we can expect the consequences. No doubt, there will be social, financial, moral, and religious freedom ramifications. Remember that such an atmosphere has historically and biblically been the normal aroma of the spreading of the Gospel! So, get ready! Preach the Good News to those “sitting in darkness.”  Rejoice, the Lord is King!

The Sacrifice Sunday Story

There are some stories that you are born into; there are others that you want to join.  The story of Sacrifice Sunday at Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, New Hampshire, is one such narrative.

The year after our young church occupied its first auditorium on 80 Clinton Street, our founding pastor, Tim Valentine, called for a special offering to be received. He called the special offering, “a Sacrifice Sunday.” Pastor Tim couldn’t have imagined that this special Sacrifice Sunday would launch a nearly 30-year tradition at Trinity.

In the musical Fiddler on the Roof, the Russian Jew Tevye believed that there was only one thing that gave his village of Anatevka stability. In the musical he asks the audience, “And how do we keep our balance?” He answers, “That I can tell you in one word—tradition!”  Traditions are actually very helpful. None of us can stand living in a state of constant flux and change. Traditions help us embody and transfer our values to the next generation. Be aware, there is a stark difference between tradition and traditionalism.  Whenever you add ism to a word, we rightly become alarmed. Traditionalism takes traditions and codifies them in such a manner that those observing them actually forget the reason behind the tradition. Traditionalism is tradition for tradition’s sake. It tends towards mindless, heartless repetition.

Yet, when traditions are used as a tool for transferring timeless values to the next generation, they are redeeming. It is easy (tempting!), especially for the younger generation to view the words “tradition,” “heritage,” or “the past” in a negative and almost pejorative sense. Traditions of the past can often be contrasted negatively with the “freedom” of the present.

Consider this. When the children of Israel, after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, had crossed the Jordan, there was instruction from the Lord about the implementation of a tradition. Joshua was told to retrieve twelve stones from the Jordan. These stones were to be erected on the Canaan side of the Jordan so that they would be a testimony to the children of these who had just witnessed the miracle of the waters dividing. In fact, the Lord predicts that in the future, this tradition would be a teaching tool. The Lord predicted that their children would look at the stack of stones and would inquire, “What do these stones mean?”  Sure, this tradition could have devolved into mindless traditionalism. Here’s a question: Whose responsibility was it to pass on a tradition that taught rather than traditionalism that was heartless?  It was the older generation! It was the group of folks who crossed the Jordan! It was the demographic who was born into the story originally, rather than the ones who joined the story subsequently.

What has the LORD done through the tradition of Sacrifice Sunday at Trinity Baptist Church? Well, over the course of thirty Sacrifice Sundays, God’s people have given $3,839,055! If you add up the goals set for that same number of years, it totals $3,726,465. That means, over the course of the last 30 years, there has been $112,590 given over the annual goals that were set. That comes out to an average of a $3,753 annual difference between the goal set and the gift received. Amazing! 

But, that is just the financial story! The story, the tradition, goes much deeper! It is impossible to calculate what the Lord has done in and through His people over the course of the past thirty years. How do we graph the faith that has been built internally in the lives of our church family over the years? Can you chart a statistic of what our people have learned about eternal values and sacrificial giving? In addition, it is impossible to measure the confidence in God meeting the needs of His people that has been built in the lives of our children!

Last night the story of God’s goodness to Trinity Baptist Church through Sacrifice Sunday was extended. The goal set was $179,000. As of last evening, the total for this year’s Sacrifice Sunday was $226, 535. 

I wasn’t privileged to be born into the story of Sacrifice Sunday; but, I am blessed to have joined it!

O teach me Lord to walk this road,

The road of simple living.

To be content with what I own

And generous in giving.

And when I cling to what I have

Please wrest it quickly from my grasp;

I'd rather lose all the things of earth

To gain the things of heaven.

            ̶ S.Townend, K.Getty

Can Christians vote for a Mormon on 11-6-12 ?

“The Kingdom is not riding on whatever happens on election day and the church’s mission isn’t going to change regardless of what happens . . . on Election Day.”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler

January 20, 1961, marked the Inauguration of the 35^th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Catholic. January 20, 2013, could mark the Inauguration of the 45^th President of the United States, Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Evangelicals across the fruited plains are weighing carefully the potential consequence that electing a Mormon will present Mormonism as more acceptable to Americans as electing a Catholic in 1961 did for Roman Catholicism; it seemed to cast it as more mainstream.  I suggest that the particular competence of the candidate for governing and protecting the American people is the question that should be answered, rather than “Is this candidate a born-again Christian?” or “Will this candidate’s faith, if elected, make his faith more acceptable world-wide?”  So, without endorsing any one candidate, here are some compelling questions to ask:

Morally, does the Mormon candidate support and protect the sanctity of human life?

 In the June 2011 edition of the National Review, Mitt Romney stated his position on life by saying,

“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade because it is bad law and bad medicine.” He continued, “I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of Federal funds for abortions. . . . I will support efforts to prohibit Federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood.”

 President Obama, when speaking about the nearly 40 years of the consequences of Roe v Wade and 50 million babies legally killed, said,

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. . . . And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Morally, does the Mormon candidate support the Biblical, traditional definition of marriage?  Mitt Romney, while speaking at the Liberty University commencement ceremony in Lynchburg, VA, on May 12, 2012, said to the 30,000 attendees:

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

A few days prior to Romney’s stated position, President Barack Obama became the first sitting President of the United States to affirm same-sex marriage.  In a sit-down interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, the President stated,

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Domestically and financially, does the Mormon candidate have a record of competence in managing and balancing a governmental budget responsibly? As of today, the National Debt Clock had $16,211,381,872,754.61 as the total indebtedness of the United States. Now that is a snapshot, because as you know, the numbers are constantly rising at a mind-boggling rate! The National Debt continues to increase an average of $3.88 billion per day! With an estimated population in the USA of 313,773,479, each US citizen’s share of this debt is $51,665.88! The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7). Do not be a man who strikes hands in a pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you. (Proverbs 22:26-27) This is the Word of the LORD! President Obama’s answer to the country’s indebtedness was a 787 billion dollar stimulus, a mandatory health care system that will remove 700 billion dollars from Medicare, and looming penalties for over 6 million Americans who fail to purchase healthcare. In addition, the President submitted a budget with $1.5 trillion in deficit spending. It was so abysmal, when the Senate brought it up for a vote, not even one Democratic Senator voted in favor of the Obama proposed budget. The vote was 0-97! As Governor of the state of Massachusetts, Governor Romney presented a balanced budget each year.

Militarily, does the Mormon candidate believe in “peace through strength” and is he pro-Israel?  A Gallup poll reported that the United States Military overwhelmingly supports Governor Romney by a margin of 58% to 38%, and that veterans’ support was even more significant at 59% to 32%. One of the main reasons is because the military doesn’t believe that the President supports them fully. For instance, the President has supported a “Sequestration” as part of the Budget Control Acts that would devastatingly reduce our Defense. These cuts come as a result of a fairy-tale narrative that the President and his administration believe, namely, “that war is receding.” Osama Bin Laden is dead, and that pretty much ended the “war on terrorism,” in their mind. This “living in their own world” for foreign policy seems to have played a significant role in the Benghazi debacle.

Earlier this month, a lawmaker from the Israeli Prime Minister’s political party said of President Obama, “He is no friend of Israel . . . . His policies have been catastrophic.”  Governor Romney, in contrast, has enjoyed a personal friendship with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for over 35 years. Romney has convincingly argued that under President Obama, the USA has “downgraded Israel from being our ‘closest ally’ in the Middle East to being only ‘one of our closest allies.’” Romney’s perspective appears to be true by considering the President’s own words: "During the [Bush Presidency] there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."

Practically, are you voting for a “President” or a “pastor?”  President Obama claims to be a believer in Jesus Christ. Do you have fundamental disagreements with him morally and domestically? Governor Romney claims to be a believer of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Do you support much of his political platform? When I vote for a President, should their particular doctrinal statement be a litmus test for whom I should vote? Maybe an illustration would bring clarity. When flying in an airplane, how concerned are you that the pilot is a believer? (Now, this question should not figure in in one’s view of the Rapture! :-) Mostly, we are concerned that the pilot is qualified, alert, and experienced as a pilot. What about an upcoming surgery? Do you ask about the particular orthodoxy of the surgeon prior to the surgery? Again, probably not. So, what about a President? Similar logic should guide us. 

So, CHRISTIANS SHOULD VOTE  on November 6, 2012! Be informed. To be properly informed, visit Cornerstone to find out how the candidates running in our town voted on these issues in the last legislative session. Click Here