;)
Choosing Sides
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
It is human nature to choose sides. All of us do it all of the time. We choose: between good guys and bad guys; between those with white hats and those with black hats; between red-blooded Americans and everybody else; between Republicans and Democrats; between the Moral Majority and the Immoral Minority; between Baptists and those of other denominations; between Conservatives and Liberals; or—if you please—between Fundamentalists and Moderates; between Calvinists and Arminians; between Continuationists and Cessationists; between BI folks, GCR folks, and Institutional Traditionalists…
Or, as Dr. Seuss might say, between Star-Bellied Sneetches and Plain-Bellied Sneetches. You know, the Sneetches on Beaches who chose sides based on having stars on their bellies, or none, until the day Sylvester McMonkey McBean showed up with his amazing Star-On machine, allowing those without stars to have stars; then, pulled out his Star-Off machine, allowing those with stars to have none; and, then, allowed each Sneetch to do as he pleased “until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one… or what one was who.” And they all learned the lesson that day that, behind outward appearances, a Sneetch is a Sneetch is a Sneetch.
The Bible also has a few things to say about choosing sides…
For example, the time in Joshua 5:13-14 when Joshua “looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand,” and asked him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” and he replied “Neither, but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” It makes you wonder whose side the Lord would be on, if He were to come to earth today, and see some of the conflicts we get involved in.
That is not to imply there is never a time to choose sides. Once again, Joshua himself provides us with the classic example of this, when he says in Joshua 24:15, “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
We must choose sides. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.” However, as Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, as Christians, even though we must boldly choose sides, our criteria for choosing sides is to be different than that of “mere men” who see things from “a worldly point of view”:
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
Once we repent of our sin, and submit our lives to the lordship of Jesus, we see things differently. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view … Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
One of the big implications of this, as I see it, is that if anyone is truly in Christ (that is, if they are truly trusting in the gospel, and not in “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” to save them), we are to see them, more than anything else, not as members of this group or that group, with this label or that label, but as brothers and sisters in Christ. And, just as a Sneetch is a Sneetch is a Sneetch, a brother or sister in Christ is for us, above and beyond anything else they may happen to be, a brother or sister in Christ. And even those who are not yet in Christ we are to see as souls for whom Jesus died, and individuals with whom we may potentially spend eternity together in heaven.
I am aware that, as I write this, I run the risk of being misconstrued as saying there is no need to voice our convictions on what we believe on this issue or that, to discern truth from error, or to take a prophetic stand against sin. But that is not what I am saying.
As Christians, we are certainly never going to agree among ourselves on every single point of doctrine, political stance, or ethical standard. But that doesn’t mean we should just keep quiet, lest we run the risk of offending someone who thinks differently than we do. Nor does it mean there is not a time and a place for redemptive church discipline. It doesn’t even mean we should never call out certain groups of people or name names. Our Lord Jesus had some pretty choice words for the Pharisees and Sadducees. And He called Herod a fox.
However, as I understand it, no longer regarding anyone “from a worldly point of view” means approaching our brother or sister in Christ with whom we disagree with a different attitude. It means talking more about issues, and less about individuals. It means being more convictional and less political.
Politics is all about choosing sides. It’s largely about championing certain individuals, and demonizing others. But the truth is no one is perfect. Even our most reverenced heroes have their faults and shortcomings. And, if someone is truly in Christ, in spite of our disagreements with them, and in spite of the extent to which we may feel they are wrong on this issue or that issue, they are still our brother or sister in Christ, and are worthy of our unfailing love and respect.
In the Body of Christ, on the bottom line, we are all on the same team. We are all members of the same family. “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12). But “if [we] keep on biting and devouring each other, [we had better] watch out or [we] will be destroyed by each other” (Galatians 5:15).
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
This is the pentacle of truth for us as believers and a perfect Dr. Seuss illustration. Bravo! Thank you. I bet you think I’m going through something very similar at the moment, and you’re right. This has started my day out just right and has provided much needed answers. Again, thank you.
We must stand for what we believe, but need not do it by attacking personalities. I believe in the Doctrines of Grace. Yet I know no man will see it unless God reveals it to him. Therefore I try to stay away from those who attack it, ansd am careful not to attack them. Poorbsouls ”they know not what they do.”
I’m sorry, but I have to say it… “I’m with David on this one!”
Great post David
.
God Speed,
Lew
I think a big challenge for the us Southern Baptists is partnering with other “Great Commission Christians.” Any partnership outside the SBC is considered a heretical practice by some people, alienating those who chose to extend a hand. On the other hand, some people are so willing to open up that they partner with those who preach “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all,” or they partner with those who live unrepentant lifestyles.
We should never minister WITH people who are living an unrepentant lifestyle, but rather TO those people. Thus far, though, the error hasn’t, in my opinion, been that of being too open, but rather of being too closed to partnerships with genuine believers.
Bruce,
I’m glad this was helpful for you.
Andrew,
I think that is a valid application of the general principle I am addressing here. I believe we need to work toward greater unity, both on an inter-denominational as well as an intra-denominational level. But we also need to be careful not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, or negligent in the proper administration of church discipline.
Brother David,
About the best I can comment on this…is what has already been said by Christ to another disciple……
Mat 16:17-18 “And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (18) “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
The church is built on Christ for unity,…which you have very accurately portrayed while demonstrating the value of the commission!
Blessings,
Chris
David,
(Not sure what happened)
I appreciate your balance and the obvious struggle you have with bridging truth and practice (as well should). Answers are not always crisp and clean. “Strive for unity. . . not be unequally yoked.” You did not overstate which so many bloggers do. Thank you for your spirit and thought provoking stance.
Steve Young in Montana
Some subtle differences are the foxes within our own vineyard. In our church, one of the simple things that should be used to build the faith of the people is the “committee”. However, our pastor sits on the committee to help them with their decisions, answer questions as they go and prevents arguing and fighting, as well. Very subtle. (I know why he really wants to sit on the committee but we won’t go there this time.) Let’s just look at what is happening. The committee personnel and the church will never learn to trust God in the matter at hand because the committee’s hand is being held and their decisions are being influenced. They feel good but they have not trusted God, they have only trusted the preacher. The Bible tells us that without faith we cannot please God. The importance of faith to the church is paramount. We may be watching for the thief while the church dies from lack of intimate relationship with God through faith. Since we do not exercise faith we cannot see the thief and he breaks in and destroys anyway. This is where I have to Choose Sides.
I’m sure that there may be a circumstance where a pastor will properly guide and train, however, we should allow God to reveal the hearts of the church much the same way He revealed the hearts of unbelief in the children of Israel with Canaan. I know no one wants to be Moses and suffer along with a bunch of sinners, however, it is God’s way of revealing His true church. The only thing that matters is that God is allowed to bring the kind of glory to Himself that He determines. Pastors have tried to protect their people too long and the church is suffering from this one fleshly act. Our churches are full of babies that cannot walk and adult children that will not move out or become independent. We are ever learning and never capable of coming to the knowledge of truth because of this one subtlety. I would encourage pastors to use the committee to mature the saints and run off the devils.
David:
I believe 90% or more of the “debates” in recent SBC life have been about issues which, on balance, are not worth fighting for.
Put another way, the negative results of having the fight, outweighed whatever benefit there might be from winning the fight – or whatever detriment might happen from loosing the fight.
I take the fight in the BoT of the IMB in recent years as an example.
The incidence of PPL abuses was either small or zero. So there was no need for the BoT to be involved since whatever problems that existed could have been handled by management.
On the other hand, if I was on the BoT and the anti-PPL rule came up for a vote and the majority of the other members on the BoT voted for it, I’d just vote no and then submit to the majority. There could have been a few candidates with PPL who were kicked out from further consideration as missionaries working with the IMB — I don’t know. But even if that was the case, I still don’t see how all the division, rancor, and fighting that ensued was “worth it” just to be on the “right side” of some arcane PPL fight which “only” directly affected a very few people at the margin.
I think people in most SBC fights don’t do a cost/benefit analysis and ask the question: Given the amount of dust this fight is going to blow up – is this argument worth winning? If I get my way and move 3 steps forward; am I justified if there are negative side effects during the fight that cause 5 steps of regression?
I’ve seen up-close-and-personal how Baptists fight. I’ve seen otherwise rational people split and leave over such dumb things as music styles. If people can do that, then I guess it is not hard to extrapolate that they would really get riled up over some “doctrinal” issue such as PPL or Arminianism vs. Calvinism or closed/close/open communion, etc.
I don’t know why it is that people use the church as a sounding board to vent their own personal agenda. I guess it just because people’s ego is in the way. Once the “line is drawn in the sand” then it becomes “me against them” and the fight is self-perpuating.
I’ll tell you this. If you have five Baptists in a room, you will have eight different opinions and ten different fights will break out. If I got mad and left every time I couldn’t have it “my way”, there is not a single SBC congregation in the USA that I’d be able to attend. And that is really saying something given that there are 44K of them.
I’ve had “let things ride” a few time over the years at various churches my wife and I have attended. I made my point to a few leaders who turned a deaf ear to my concerns. I guess I could have gone on some “noble crusade”. Instead I just let things go. The churches I’ve attend are not perfect. If they were they would have to kick me out.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Bruce,
Way back in the earliest days of the church, Ignatius of Antioch proposed submission to the bishop as the key to maintaining unity in the church. For example, “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8). I believe history has demonstrated Ignatius’ likely well-motivated stance to be mistaken. Many “duly-appointed” bishops have come and gone since that time, some of them better than others. But there have been key moments when God’s people have been forced to choose between their plain understanding of God’s will through the guidance of God’s Word and God’s Spirit, and express their dissent in the face of corrupt and/or heterodox leadership. True unity is not coerced unity, but unity that is subject to the teaching of the Word of God, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, as understood by the Body at large.
Roger,
I guess that Steve Young is on target in what he writes about “the obvious struggle [I] have with bridging truth and practice.” What I am proposing is freedom to discuss these matters, which, to some appear trivial, and to others, consequential, with an open Bible. In the long run, compromising on truth, if it is truly biblical truth, will not prove beneficial, even if it appears to some to be a trivial matter.
I am convinced that some of the matters we have struggled over as Southern Baptists in past years have indeed been consequential. Biblical inerrancy, for example, is somewhat of a theological continental divide, and to compromise a bit here, or a bit there, on that, in order to avoid conflict, in the long run, is not a good trade.
However, we must learn, not just as Southern Baptists, but as brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, to handle our disagreements with love and respect, and to treat those who truly are brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. And we must be as discerning as we possibly can to divide correctly between those matters that are truly consequential, and those that are really just “picking at gnats.”
Dave,
I had to read your response a couple of times. I’m Jethro. I have to read A.W. Tozer several times to pick up the truth he presents, too. It’s good for meditiation purposes. You said much more in such a short space and I can appreciate it more than you think. I am sensitive to approaches to faith and in faith that people say and do. I gravitate to those who have a similar feather. Thanks, David.
Bruce:
I agree that pastors — and other staff members in churches — should be more open regarding decision making.
I agree that the pastor, and by extension the staff, are leaders of the church. In a congregational form of church government, we in the pews have hired them to lead us. So we should give them significant leeway as they implement their vision.
However, there can be abuse. Let me give you a case study like they do in business school. When I was working on my MBA we had Harvard Case Studies. This one is fictitious but is pretty closely related to a real world situation that I’ve encountered personally at several chruches over the last 40 years.
>>>>>
In June of 20xx a noted “top 10″ Christian performing group XYZ booked the ABC Baptist Chruch for a concert. The concert was on Tuesday night. This concert was advertized on the internet and in local Christian bookstores, and they sold tickets using one of the major national ticket outlets. A promoter handled arrangement between the production company doing the concert and ABC Baptist.
The question for this case study is this: Is is “proper” for the staff to “expect” people involved with the music ministry — such as choir members — to sign up as ushers, as people manning the product tables to sell stuff, and as people to help unload/load the truck to “help” with the concert.
One opinion is that is exploitation because church members are asked to work for nothing in a concert which is a commercial enterprize. If the performers are being paid, and they should since that it their living, and if the sound guy and light guys are being paid, and they should since that is their job, and if the promoter is being paid, and he should since that is his living, then is it good Christian stewardship that this business model should be supported by slave labor for whatever stuff is done by the church members?
Another way to look at this is that such a concert is a “ministry of the church” because it happens to be in ABC’s church building so therefore by definition it is a “ministry of the church” and to the extent that church members are working for nothing this is “a service to the Lord”.
The question is where to draw the line when complying with what the staff of the church asks members to do.
>>>>>>>>
Do not confuse this case study with a different set of facts. Different facts would be (a) there was no admission charge to the event, (b) the event happened on Sunday during a regular service time, (c) there was no promoter in the deal, and/or (d) the event was financed by the regular church budget or a freewill offering so people didn’t have to pay for tickets.
My bottom line: Just because the church staff tells us to do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should follow.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Thank you, Roger.
I agree with what you are saying. The illustration was different than what I imagined but made the best point.
One of the things about New Testament authority structure that I am seeing (This is not a conclusion because I am doing further study) is that there are two (2) structures that exist simultaneously. There is a vertical structure and a horizontal structure that comes into play when we function within the kingdom of God. It is true that there is a vertical chain of command in the church, home and society that all men must submit to. Within the kingdom here on earth I also see a horizontal structure that places all of us on level ground. Christ is the head of the church in both dimensions. I see this particularly in the area of discipline. Even a child recognizes sin and has the free right to approach an adult privately and respectfully to point out sin that has affected them or others. I believe this is appropriate for the entire body of Christ. Since Christ is the Head, what He says in His word supersedes the vertical when appropriate.
Our churches today have people who will allow sin to thrive simply because they are living in a single dimension. If anything is said to an authority figure that may have negative outcome they simply say or do nothing because they may be wrong and God will strike them down. This may come across a little nonchalant toward authority but that is not my intent. I’m only stressing it this way so the thinking of how we function in the body is balanced. Everyone from top to bottom and right to left should be able to, or attempt to, balance themselves rightly in order to enjoy and experience the fullness of God’s kingdom here on earth. Once we are in heaven we will never be able to experience some of the things we are able to do here on earth.
Would it be difficult or scary for this to be taught to the church? Would it create anarchy? Would everyone begin to police everything and others excessively? Would the leadership lose control? Maybe it would have consequences in some churches today that have a different understanding of scriptural authority. I think it would bring balance to some churches. Many SBC churches in the south are close to the Catholic authority structure and the people have allowed it to happen, if not, promoted it. The pendulum must swing slowly back to center and we must work knowledgably and unified toward the goal of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus. We must promote His headship through both vertical and horizontal alignment.
With whom did the group book the ABC Baptist Church? As pastor of the churches I have served, I did not have the authority to book our facility with anyone. I have asked the church if they wanted to host a concert group, made it clear how it would be handled, and the part they would play. If they agreed, then yes, they would be expected to take part.
Sometimes church members are asked to rubber stamp leadership desires, I understand that, and it is not right, but church members need to take seriously their vote. Example: If a church body votes to build a building, do they need a seperate vote to fund it?
Steve in Monatana
Steve Young in Montana:
In regard to my “case study” of “ABC” Baptist. This case study is a blend of several incidents that have happened that I’m aware of personally at churches I’ve been a member of over the years.
In the incidents that are “behind” this generic case study, it may well have been that some lay leadership participated in the decision to lease the auditorium to group “X” or to “invite group Y”. Since I was not on either the deacons and/or trustees of any of the churches involved, I can’t comment regarding the extent that some lay leadership was involved — at least at some “abstract high level” in signing-off on the concerts.
However, I think it is unlikely, that anyone in lay leadership contemplated that church members would be expected to sign up for various job positions on the day of the concert to donate labor to help facilitate the concerts — given that they were professionally run with road crews, advance men, promoters, ticket sales, huge product tables pitching all kinds of books, CDs, videos, etc.
There were several instances of this that I’ve seen over the years. Typically there would be signup sheets made up by church staff (such as assistants to the music minister) for people to “volunteer” with setting up and tearing down staging, taking stuff out of the truck and putting stuff back in the truck. Also people were expected to sign up for taking tickets, ushering, running follow-spots, “helping repair costumes” (I’m not making this up), “taking costumes to the laundry to wash them after the show”, and manning product tables where all manner of show related stuff was sold. In some cases there were multiple shows on such as matinee and evening and a crew of 30 people were being recruited PER SHOW.
The case study is just a bare recital of the facts. I’m telling you exactly what happened without weighing in myself on my own opinion of the propriety of such stuff happening in any church.
Now for my own editorial opinion. The concerts were grossly commercial. I’m not saying this it is inappropriate for the church to lease the building for commercial Christian concerts. But any such lease should be revenue neutral — or even turn a small profit — for the church. To the extent that the economics of the concert are dependent upon slave labor, this I think this is not Christian. A man is worthy of his hire. To have church staff canvas their own members to work for free to subsidize a Nashville production company is at the very least “poor judgment” and the very worst exploitation of the members of the church.
By the way, if I were to drop names of some of the acts that were involved, you would know them instantly.
Here is my guess (I ADMIT THIS IS A GUESS) as to how stuff like this happens. The promoter calls the minister of music and asks about having group “X” on a certain day (a weekday / weeknight) at the church. The minister of music says “It sounds OK to me but I have to get approval from the Executive Pastor”. The executive pastor looks over the proposed contract and says “given that they are paying $10,000 (a made up number) I guess it is OK — the group does have a big following for a certain age group and this is good PR for our church”. The music minister calls back the promotor and says, “OK your booked”. The promoter says “I’ll have my guy call your guy” (that is what they say in Hollywood or Nashville). When the road manager calls a low level music assistant of the church staff to actually setup the logistics that is when the road manager says, “BTW, I need x and y and z.” And the music assistant having been told by his boss to “set things up” agrees with this stuff and then proceeds to make the sign up sheets. This whole things springs up like topsy without any “adult supervision”. The music assistant probably thinks that every one in the church is a groupie — like he is — who would do anything to have a chance to be involved.
Seminaries should have a capstone class in “management” and “ethics” like I had at the graduate school of business at my Alma Mater. I went to a Jesuit school. We would have symposiums with case studies of various situations and guys from the graduate school of business as well as the law school would weigh in on them.
The problem is that many chruches really don’t have management structures in place to mentor junior staff members. They are basically thrown to the sharks.