Are you an agent of change in your local church? Maybe you should be —
of a certain very specific sort,
of course.
Several recent studies in other areas of the Bible have led me back into Revelation 2 and 3, the
letters to the seven churches. And one thing we see the Head of the Church
saying repeatedly to those he loves is that they need change of one sort or another: to Ephesus,
get back to the first works; to Pergamum,
stop subscribing to false teaching; to Thyatira,
stop tolerating it; to Sardis,
finish the job you started; and to Laodicea,
be zealous and repent.
Change, change, change.
Does Any of This Sound Familiar?
Assuming these were
real churches in real cities, over 70% of them already needed major changes, even in the first
century when Christianity was a brand new thing. Of the two that didn’t, both
were weak and either actively suffering or just
barely hanging on.
Suffering? Weak? Does that sound like your church? Didn’t think so.
Since it doesn’t, odds are not insignificant that your church, like those the Lord rebukes in
Revelation, may also need to change something about the course it is currently
taking. These letters were given to John, and to us, for a reason. They are not
simply historical artefacts of mere intellectual interest, but practical
warnings about things that will almost invariably tend to go wrong within local expressions of the
Body of Christ throughout the course of the Church Age.
Before You Tear Up Your Statement of Faith ...
Thus, change is frequently necessary to bring us back on course. And change doesn’t happen
unless Christians take careful stock of what needs to be modified in their
particular situation, pray for it, model it and encourage it in others.
So far, I think most our readers will probably agree. There is something in almost every local
situation that is not quite right and could do with some modification.
But before you tear up your statement of faith and start from scratch, consider again the churches in
Revelation. Chances are that from the Lord’s perspective, your real issues are
less doctrinal and more practical, as was the case in Ephesus, Thyatira, Sardis
and Laodicea. More often than not, our problem is not so much how
we read the word of God and what we construe it to say, but whether or not we then follow what we have read.
A Highly Probable Target
An aside: If the problems the Lord addressed are in any way representative, it is quite unlikely your church’s problem is being too conservative, too uptight, or too
fastidious about obeying the word of God. Even the specific variety of false
teaching that needed to be rooted out in Pergamum, like so much false teaching
today, is easily recognizable in that it panders to the appetites, sexual or
otherwise. Whatever specific details you attribute to the teaching of the Nicolaitans, it
is universally agreed their teaching promoted fleshly indulgence, not excessive asceticism. It was liberal Christianity run amuck; not stuffy,
legalistic nit-picking.
We had a few of the latter sort of churches around last century. They are almost nonexistent today.
That’s not to say we want them back, but to point out on which front the danger
to our faith is most likely to arise: any supposed new interpretation of scripture that gives Christians greater
scope for sexual expression than has been traditionally understood ought to be
viewed as a probable frontal attack on the churches of God.
Leave the Doctrine to the Elders
In any case, of the seven churches addressed in Revelation, the need for doctrinal
change was a factor only in Pergamum, where they needed to get back to the Word and away from their false teaching rather than being more tolerant and granting one another
greater and greater license in Christian living and worship.
Today, denominationalism has almost entirely obviated the need for pushing purely doctrinal
change in local churches. While there was one church in Thyatira, there are
many local churches in any reasonable sized city or town, offering a veritable
buffet of doctrinal options. For the individual who feels he or she is out of
sync with what the elders teach, by far the most
constructive option is to seek out a church with which he or she is more in
doctrinal harmony. For any of us to try to force a local church into our
preferred doctrinal shape when nobody else there has any interest in changing
is the equivalent of 0.3% of the population telling the rest of us who should
be using which public washroom. It’s always good to keep in mind that “If anyone
destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him.” The word for
“destroy” there means to contaminate or corrupt. Introducing new ingredients into the teaching in Someone
Else’s church is generally a bad idea.
Unnecessary Division
It’s also unnecessary. If you come into membership or fellowship in an existing local church knowing full well what
they teach, and then find yourself irked that most of the women wear head coverings
and remain silent in the meetings, there are likely ten evangelical churches
within driving distance where that won’t be a problem for you. Relocating to
one of them has the merit of at least being undivisive. If you find your new
church’s views on John Calvin overly critical, there is almost surely a
Reformed church of one sort or another around. Going there will damage nobody. If,
despite all that, you still feel an overwhelming compulsion to muck about with
what your new church believes because your own view of things is so all-fired
important, consider the not-so-remote possibility that the problem might just
be yours.
Now, that’s not to say your more controversial opinions about doctrine will never be heard; some Christians are
remarkable courteous about exchanging views. But they may not look kindly on
you publicly advocating for a different interpretation than the one they have
collectively endorsed. If they do not, you can hardly call them inconsistent.
In short, change agency from outside — especially of the doctrinal sort — is usually unwelcome, and with good reason.
A Closer Harmony
On the other hand, nobody can reasonably object to the sort of change agent who is looking to
bring his or her fellow believers into closer harmony with their own professed beliefs as currently articulated by church
leadership. (This is maybe as close as we can come in a practical sense to
bringing a church into harmony with the word of God; the place where the
maximum number of believers acts consistently in good conscience toward their
Father.) If a great majority of believers in any given local church object to
being encouraged to be more like that thing they all agreed to be in their
statement of faith and practice, the problem is likely with the statement, in
that it no longer accurately expresses the beliefs of the congregation or the
teaching of scripture. Perhaps it never did. (Of course if the departure is of
the sinful sort, it goes without saying there is a problem with the people too.)
But it seems to me it is these sorts of changes — more faithfulness,
renewed intensity of commitment, and a more determined adherence to the faith
once delivered — that the Head of the Church is consistently looking for in Revelation.
That doesn’t mean that everyone is likely to get enthusiastic about being encouraged to get back to
the first works and being more like what you profess to be as a church. Even
less will many Christians enthuse about being told to be zealous and repent,
especially when they need to. But if you are encouraging your fellow believers
back toward that to which they already pay lip service and once used to do
(especially when they have put it in writing, and especially when you are
practicing what you preach), you can hardly be criticized for trying to foist
on them some sort of strange new emphasis.
That’s the sort of change agent more congregations could use. Certainly, such a person would be
behaving consistently with the expressed wishes of the Church’s Head.
No comments :
Post a Comment