Introduction
When, in the summer of 1994, a group of
Christians met in Tunkhannock to explore the possibilities of starting a
church it was the intent of this group to found a church that was
evangelical/fundamental in doctrine and non-Charismatic in practice. It was
not to be, however, an anti-Charismatic church. By this we meant that the
church would:
a) not embrace an attitude of overt hostility
toward Charismatics and
b) warmly welcome into the congregation
Charismatic brothers and sisters who, we hoped, would participate fully in
the work
God would give this
congregation.
In the first draft of our constitution
the issue was expressed this way:
Article VIII…Section 1…d
We recognize that the Church of
Jesus Christ is large and diverse and that the only requirement for entrance
into this "family of God" is through personal faith in the Atoning Death of
Jesus Christ on the sinner's behalf. We also recognize that aside from the
essential doctrines of the faith there are many secondary issues that
separate brothers and sisters in Christ. It is our desire to keep these
secondary issues that separate genuine believers in Christ to a minimum in
our congregation. But we also recognize that, by the very nature of some of
these secondary issues, it is essential that we as a church set down certain
guidelines for our worship services. We do so humbly and in the full
recognition that our understanding of God and His Word is not, by any means,
perfect.
The worship service of this Church shall not entertain the Charismatic
/Pentecostal distinctives of "speaking in tongues", "first person
prophecies," "Words of Faith", "Words of Knowledge" and other Charismatic
/Pentecostal activities that are distinctive from those worship services
that characterize the evangelical Christian community of believers.
This church is not anti-Charismatic/anti-Pentecostal and does not in any
way wish to separate itself from those congregations that consider
themselves as such. Neither do we wish to separate ourselves or to exclude
from membership and fellowship brothers and sisters in Christ who consider
themselves Charismatic or Pentecostal. We must, however, insist that those
activities that are distinctively Charismatic or Pentecostal not be
exercised as part of our church worship. This does not mean, however, that
we are demanding that these brothers and sisters not exercise these
distinctives in their homes or in other congregations.
The purpose of this paper
is to clarify this church's position on
the charismatic and Pentecostal distinctives, the place those distinctives
have in its worship services, and to explain why this church insists on
separating itself from some of those distinctives.
TOP OF PAGE
A. The Defining Character of a Church...
Amos 3:3 "Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?"
1. The
universal church...All of the
men and women who have placed their faith in the atoning death of Jesus
Christ as their only hope of salvation from God's wrath against sin are born
again into the Kingdom of God and as such are members of God's Family and
are part of the "church, which is His body..."
2. The
local church...The local
church is made up of men and women who are members of the "universal church"
and who live in a particular geographical area in a particular time. But,
because there are so many issues on which genuine Christians disagree, it is
important that a local church define itself more particularly or it will
find itself in a constant state of confusion and turmoil.
3. Isn't
being a Christian enough for membership?…No!
While it is critical that a man or woman who becomes a member of our church
be a Christian, being a Christian is not enough. And the reason is this:
Many Christians have very different ideas about God and man, the Scriptures
and the church, etc. If these differences are too great, problems can
result. A clear and well-defined church character can help to resolve many
of these problems.
4. What is meant by…"The
Defining Character of a Church?"
The defining character of a church...A
church is defined by what it believes to be true and how it wishes to
conduct itself. Usually, those things a church believes to be true and the
ways in which it chooses to conduct itself are expressed in its
constitution. The constitution then, should express the defining
character of a church.
5. Some reasons for a local church
to have a well-defined character:
a)
Chaos and turmoil...If there
are too many men and women with too many different ideas about God and man,
the
Scriptures and the church, there will be too many different directions in
which these men and women will be going in.
And, as is often the case, each will demand that the group go in its
particular direction. It is impossible for a group to go
simultaneously in a multitude of conflicting directions. If this
situation exists, chaos and turmoil will rule the day. The
only solution to this chaotic situation is for everyone to recognize that
each church has a certain defining character or
body of beliefs and practices and that it is unacceptable
for anyone to try and move the congregation outside of this
defining character.
b) Prospective members...It
important for prospective members to understand clearly who we are and what
we believe so
that they are then able to determine whether or not they want to
join with us.
c) Alleviate rehashing beliefs...A
well-defined character will alleviate the need for a church to be constantly
rehashing who
it is and what it believes. If the local church is going to devote
itself to building the Kingdom of God it cannot spend its
time arguing over issues that need to be settled at its inception.
It cannot spend 20 years arguing over whether or not it
will be charismatic; it cannot spend 20 years arguing over infant
baptism; it cannot spend 20 years arguing over whether
the mission of the church is a) to build the Kingdom of God now (as
in amillennialism and postmillennialism) or b) wait for
Jesus Christ to come and set it up (as in premillennialism). Unless
the local church settles a number of these primary and
secondary issues at its beginning, it will end up wasting time. A
church that clearly defines what it believes to be true and
what it wants to be as a church will alleviate a lot of
controversy and can then get on with building the Kingdom of God.
6. How do
we define ourselves?...A more
complete definition of who we are and what we believe will be found in our
church constitution. Only a few of those defining characteristics
will be cited here to help illustrate the need for a church to define itself
clearly.
a) Primary defining characteristic:
Evangelical/Fundamental. Our primary defining characteristic is that
of being Evangelical or
Fundamental. By this we mean that we — along with
other Christians and churches who identify themselves by these names —
believe
in the great fundamentals of Christianity. They
are:
> The
Inerrancy and Authority of the Scriptures
> The
Deity of Christ
> The
Atoning Death of Christ
> The
Doctrine of Justification by Faith apart from works
> The
Return of Jesus Christ
b) Secondary defining
characteristics....These are
characteristics that are not as critical to the Faith as are the primary
defining
characteristics, but they are critical to the
harmonious well-being and the fruitfulness of the congregation. Without
substantial
agreement on these issues the church will fall
into quarreling and confusion.
> Let's
look at a few of these
secondary characteristics and examine the problems that arise when there
is disagreement on these
positions.
1. Dispensational, Premillennial...We
believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth following the Great
Tribulation and that He will set up a Millennial
Kingdom of righteousness and peace. We believe that this is the kingdom that the
Old Testament Jewish prophets longed for. We believe that the church is
not called to usher in this kingdom of peace, but rather, that we are
to build the kingdom by winning the lost to Christ and nurturing them to
maturity.
Disagreement...Now
suppose a man comes into our congregation who does not believe in
dispensational premillennialism but believes in postmillennialism.
While there are a variety of views within the postmillennial camp,
the general belief is that the church will usher in the kingdom of
peace and righteousness (not Jesus Christ) and that Christ will come
to earth after the church ushers in peace and righteousness on
earth. Many postmillennialists believe that in order for the church
to accomplish this mission from God it must involve itself heavily
in the social and political structures of our society so as to bring
about the necessary changes. As a result, this man will be
constantly urging our congregation to involve itself more and more
vigorously in our social and political institutions.
Now we have a problem…The premillennialists in the congregation will, for the most part, not
want to make much of an effort to change a society they believe will
only get worse until Jesus Christ comes and makes it better. On the
other hand, the postmillennialist, will want the church to do all it
can do to change society. How can we satisfy both?... We can't!
Resolution: Because
we have defined ourselves as premillennialists we will tell our
postmillennialist brother that he is welcome to attend, but he must
do so recognizing that we are premillennialist congregation and he
is not welcome to try and:
a) change us or
b) work within the ranks to get
his agenda adopted.
Are we
stifling differences of opinion? Yes and No...
No…We
are not telling him that he must believe exactly the way that we
believe in order to attend our church. And no, we are not
telling him that he must keep his opinions secret. And no, we
are not telling him that he is not free to express his
opinion.
No…We
are not suppressing truth. It is our intent that on all
legitimate Biblical issues, there be a full airing of opinions.
But, this does not mean that we as a church will have no
opinions on these issues, being "blown here and there by every
wind of teaching" (Eph. 4:14). We have come to some settled
persuasions on a number of issues and we are building a church
based on them.
No…We
are not close minded, and unwilling to change. Most of us have
examined these issues thoroughly and have not heard a new
argument in years. Based on the arguments we have already heard,
we have developed some very strong opinions. If, however, some
new and persuasive argument came along, we will always be open
to it...
Yes…We
are stifling this difference of opinion in that he is not free
to teach it in our congregation, nor is he free to go about in
the congregation urging members to adopt his position and then
join him in working to change society according to his
particular doctrinal belief.
This would be divisive and cannot be allowed!
Rom. 16:17 "I urge
you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put
obstacles in your way..."
Tit. 3:10 "Warn a
divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that,
have nothing to do with him."
Why are we "stifling" him?…We
are doing so, because those of us who started this church studied
this question very carefully and came to a settled persuasion that
the premillennial position is the correct Biblical position. And
based on this persuasion, we want to build a church that acts
accordingly. We do not want to devote large amounts of time
re-examining a position we have already examined and have come to a
settled persuasion on. If we devote ourselves to constantly
re-examining every position that we have ever taken we will have
neither the time nor the direction to accomplish anything for the
kingdom of God. Also, if we allow every divergent opinion to have
full sway in our congregation, we will not be united, we will not
satisfy Amos's admonition (Amos 3:3) "Do two walk together unless
they have agreed to do so?" and we will have chaos and turmoil.
It is critical that:
a) A
church...embrace
very real opinions on major issues
b) A church...act
on those opinions
2. The Role of Women in the Church...We
believe that women may speak and sing in our church and that they may
teach women and children. We do not, however, believe that women should
be allowed to preach or teach the adult men.
Disagreement…Suppose
a man comes into our congregation who has a Plymouth Brethren
background. The Brethren are a remarkably fine group of Christians
to whom we Evangelicals owe a great debt (pretribulationalism and
premillennialism sprang from the Brethren). And suppose that after
he has been worshiping with us for a while we allow him to lead the
"prayer and share" time. After a few weeks we notice a real problem;
he calls only on men to share with the congregation and allows only
men to pray. Lots of women are upset...and a lot of men as well. We
talk to him about it and he tells us that based on 1 Cor. 14:34
women should not be allowed to speak in the assembly and so, he will
not call on women to speak nor will he allow them to pray. What do
we do? Do we allow him to have his way? And if we do not allow him
to lead the "prayer and share" time, do we still allow him to
promote this teaching in the congregation?
The answer is this:
> We do not allow him to lead the "Prayer and Share" if he refuses
to call on women.
> We do not allow him to promote his Plymouth Brethren teaching in
the congregation where it
would undoubtedly cause divisions.
Why would we not allow this?
We would not allow him to
exercise this particular Brethren belief in our congregation nor
would we allow him to promote it because:
> We are not a Plymouth Brethren church
> We do not embrace this particular teaching. We recognize that a
case can be made for his
position, but we also recognize that a case can be made for
allowing women to speak and
pray.
> His teaching is opposed to the
Defining Character of our Church. We are a church that will
allow women to speak (based on other Scriptures that seem to
support allowing them to
speak)
What if he protests..."I'm
a member of this church and as such I should have the right to
express my opinions and shape the direction of this
church."
Our answer would be this...We
would say: It is true that you are a member of this church and as a
member you have a right to express your opinion and to help shape
the direction of this church. But, you do not have the right to
change the defining character of this church. When you came
here you knew that this was not a Brethren
church and that we allow women to speak. Now that you are a member/attendee you
do not have a right to change the very character of who we are. We
are not a Brethren
church, we do not wish to become a
Brethren church and if you insist on us worshiping in a Brethren manner then you are not
welcome here...we suggest that you find a
Brethren
church.
3.
Infant baptism...What has
been said about a Christian who believes in postmillennialism and the
Christian who comes from a Plymouth Brethren background is true for the
man who believes in infant baptism. We do not believe in infant
baptism and would not allow this doctrine to be taught or promoted.
4.
Charismatic distinctives...What
has been said about Christians who are postmillennialists or who have a
Plymouth Brethren background or who believe in infant baptism is true
for those Christians who are Charismatic or Pentecostal. Our church is
not Charismatic or Pentecostal and while these brothers and sisters are
welcome to attend they are not welcome to teach or promote or practice
these distinctives in our church. The reasons should be obvious. It is
impossible to have both a Charismatic and non-Charismatic service.
Separate group...Some
might suggest that we allow the Charismatic brothers and sisters to
have a separate service, but this would create two bodies (each
convinced that it "had seen the light") and the unity that is
required for a church to function as it should would be lost. This
would also create confusion in the minds of new and immature
believers who would not really know what to believe because they
would be hearing two voices. There will be only one voice on this
issue in this church, and that is this: This church is
non-Charismatic and it is non-Charismatic because we do not agree
with many of the Charismatic distinctives. We think they are wrong.
Charismatics are welcome to join
but they are not welcome to try and change the defining character
of this church. Just as others whose theology on some of these
secondary issues is at odds with the defining character of this
church are welcome to attend but not act to change who we are, so it
must be for our Charismatic brothers and sisters.
TOP OF PAGE
B. Why We Are Not
Charismatic -
There
are many reasons why the men and women who started this church are not
Charismatic. It is not the purpose of this paper to go into all of the
reasons; many of those reasons are covered each time we teach on the subject
of spiritual gifts.
1. A partial
list of problems we have with
the charismatic movement...
> The
emphasis on "speaking in tongues"
> First
person prophecies...in which an individual stands up and acts as though
God is speaking through him
> Healing
services
> "Naming
it and claiming it"
> An
emphasis on health and wealth...as opposed to sacrifice
2. We
have not failed to see the light…Before
going into some of the reasons why we are not a Charismatic congregation, we
must deal with a bit of fiction that Charismatics often hold to and that is
this: Many Charismatics believe that non-Charismatics are not Charismatics
because they have failed to see the light.
This is a delusion…It
has been my experience over the years that many of my well-meaning, but
mistaken, Charismatic brothers are under the delusion that non-Charismatic
Christians are non-Charismatic because they have "failed to see the light"
or that they have not "progressed sufficiently" in their Christian lives to
embrace the Charismatic distinctives. This sort of thinking is based upon
the assumption that to have failed to embrace the Charismatic distinctives
is to have failed to be all that God wants a Christian to be. Let me state
as clearly and as emphatically as possible that this is a delusion in the
mind of the Charismatics.
We have seen the light…While
it may be true that many non-Charismatic Christians have not examined the
Charismatic distinctives with any thoroughness, many of us have. A great
many non-Charismatic Christians have examined the Charismatic distinctives
very closely and have found many of them to be wrong (that is, contrary to
the Scriptures). Not only have we found many of them to be wrong, we have
also found many of these distinctive to be without sufficient Biblical
support to justify embracing them. We have also found that some of the
Charismatic distinctives to be closely associated with false and occult
religious practices. To suggest that non-Charismatics are such because they
have "failed to see the light" is silly. Many of us have "seen the light"
and that light has shown us the errors in the Charismatic movement. The
truth is that we have looked at the Charismatic movement and found in it a
lot of darkness…so much darkness that we have deliberately
chosen to separate ourselves from it.
3. The
elevation of the subjective…The major problem with the Charismatic
movement – in our opinion – is not "speaking in tongues" and healing
services, etc., but with the elevation of the subjective over the
objective in determining truth.
Emphasis on the subjective…The
Charismatic movement has placed an enormous emphasis on the subjective
(perceived experiences) as opposed to the objective Word of God. (I
called these experiences "perceived" experiences because they may not be
real, but only "perceived" to be real). There is in the Charismatic
movement a trend toward developing a body of beliefs that are based on
perceived experiences. And these experiences – which may or may not agree
with the Scriptures – become the doctrine that drives the movement.
John MacArthur wrote,
"As experience after experience is reported in the press and religious radio
and television, a subtle but sinister pattern is developing. Instead of
responding to proper interpretation of God's Word, Christianity is
collecting fantastic and preposterous experiences. The Bible is either
mangled to fit those experiences or simply ignored altogether. The result is
pseudo-Christianity.
"Mysticism is a system
of belief that attempts to perceive spiritual reality apart from objective,
verifiable facts. It seeks truth through feelings, intuition, and other
internal senses. Objective data is usually discounted, so mysticism derives
its authority from within. Spontaneous feeling becomes more significant than
objective fact. Intuition outweighs reason. An internal awareness supersedes
external reality...mysticism is at the heart of modern existentialism,
humanism, and even many forms of paganism – most notably Hinduism and its
close ally, New Age philosophy.
"Irrational mysticism
is at the heart of the Charismatic experience. It has subverted
biblical authority within the movement and replaced it with a new standard:
personal experience. And make no mistake – the practical effect of
Charismatic teaching is to set one's experience on a higher plane than a
proper understanding of Scripture. That is precisely why [one Charismatic
leader went so far as to tell a woman], 'put away your Bible
and your books and stop studying." Her private 'revelations'
and personal feelings mean more to her than the eternal truth of God's
inspired Word."
"There are only two basic approaches to
biblical truth. One is the
historical, objective approach, which emphasizes God's action toward men and
women as taught in Scripture. The other is the personal, subjective
approach, which emphasizes the human experience of God. How should we build
our theology? Should we go to the Bible – or to the experiences of thousands
of people? If we go to the people, we will have as many views as there are
individuals. And that is exactly what is happening throughout the
Charismatic movement today."
This is what some major
Charismatic leaders have said about the mind…
Kenneth Hagin
"...the mind is something that will trip you up and cause you to
fall"
Kenneth
Copland "...the problem area is not in your spirit; it lies in your
mind and your body"
4.
Self-induced ecstasy…There is
much in Charismatic worship services that is good and godly and well-worth
imitating. There is, however, much that is not good. The mysticism
(seeking spiritual reality through feelings, intuition and internal senses,
apart from objective, verifiable fact) that so permeates the preaching and
teaching in Charismatic churches also permeates their "worship services."
The Charismatic practice of repeating phrases of songs over and over and
over again in such a way as to induce ecstasy experiences in
which the worshipers feel as if they are becoming one with God is
dangerous because this is exactly what takes place in Eastern religions and
in the Occult.
Eastern and Occult religions…Eastern
and Occult religions have recognized for thousands of years that there is
something in the human mind that enables it to move into a euphoric or
ecstatic or even hypnotic trance when phrases are repeated over and over
again. The repetition of words and phrases (and even the repetition of
musical sounds and rhythms) create hypnotic trances and ecstatic frenzies.
Scholars call this phenomenon the ecstasy experience. This ecstatic
experience is self-induced. It is created by turning the mind off by
engaging in mindless repetitions.
While it would be wrong to assume
that all of the ecstasy experiences in those Charismatic services where
phrases of songs are repeated over and over again are self-induced, it is,
at the same time, difficult to sort out what is the genuine the work of the
Holy Spirit and what is self-induced. One thing we do know, the roots of
this practice of repeating phrases to produce ecstasy experiences are found
in Eastern religions and in the Occult and this should raise red flags.
·
Eastern religions…Eastern
religious practices – especially Hinduism and its many offspring – encourage
the practitioner to become
"one with god" by turning off the mind and allowing the "spirit" to
achieve oneness with god. Meditation with mindless repetitions of
mantras is one of several ways in which this can be achieved.
Walter Martin
wrote, "...one's goal is to lose his own personality in the oneness of
God...This realization comes through practicing
the meditations of TM" [TM or Transcendental Meditation is
one of many Hindu offspring]
Eastern religious
meditation...The whole point
of Eastern religious meditation is to turn off the mind so that the soul or
spirit can
become one with God. Since it is often hard to turn off the mind,
many practitioners of meditation recite mantras – a hymn or portion of
text, especially from the Veda, chanted or intoned as an
incantation or prayer. These mantras are memorized and repeated over and
over again – thousands of times. Mantras aid the one meditating by
tying up the mind in endless, repetitive chants – a mindless
activity – and yet the mind is not really engaged in thinking; it
has been, for all practical purposes, turned off. This then frees the soul
or spirit to become "one with God."
Douglas R. Groothuis
wrote, "The basic problem to be overcome in the Eastern systems is the
illusion of separation and individuality...In Hinduism the experience of
oneness with the One may be called Moksha, Satchidananda or
Samadhi; in Buddhism it is Nirvana or Satori. According to
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, a popular and controversial Indian guru with a large
Western following, 'moksha is not freedom of the self, but freedom from
the self.' Through meditation, he says, 'you will be tuned to the
infinite, then you will be tuned to the cosmic – then you will be one with
the whole'...The One is found and experienced through a process of
self-discovery, whether it be meditation, yoga or some other spiritual
discipline... Eastern meditative practices emphasize emptying the mind of
the illusion of separation...A holy word (mantra) may be repeated in order
to change one's consciousness...When the Bible speaks of meditation it means
rumination on God and His Word; a filling of the mind with God's truth.
Vain, irrational repetitions are excluded (Mt. 6:7)...God, in many of the
religions of the East, is...beyond rationality....Rajneesh himself teaches
people to distrust reason and to pass into an experience beyond
it..."
Matthew 6:7
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they
think they will be heard because of their many
words."
Ecstasy experience...The
results of prolonged meditative states lead to a sense of euphoria, ecstasy,
hypnotic trances, etc.
5.
Occult religious practices and self-induced ecstasy.
Many occult religious practices employ the mindlessness, the unbridled
emotionalism and the repetition of words and phrases (and even repetition of
musical sounds and rhythms) that are seen in Eastern religions to create
hypnotic trances and ecstatic frenzies.
MacArthur
writes, "...nothing was more characteristic of the mystery religions than
what they called ecstasy. Believers in the mystery religions sought
to cultivate a magical, sensuous communion with the divine. They would do
almost anything to get themselves into a semiconscious, hallucinatory,
hypnotic, or orgiastic spell in which they believed they were sensually in
contact with deity. Some used wine to assist in the euphoric experience, as
Paul implied in Ephesians 5:18. Whether from literal intoxication or
emotional exhilaration, when worshippers fell into a state of euphoria, it
was as if they had been drugged. They assumed they were in union with God."
According to S. Angus, once professor of New Testament and
historical theology at St. Andrews College, Sydney, the ecstasy
experienced by the mystery religion worshiper brought him
into a "mystic ineffable condition in which the normal functions of
personality were in abeyance and the moral strivings which
form character virtually ceased or were relaxed, while the emotional
and the intuitive were accentuated." In other words, the
worshiper would get into a state where his mind would go into neutral
and
his emotions would take over. The intellect and conscience
would give way to passion, sentiment, and emotion. This was ecstasy;
an intoxicating condition of euphoria. Angus further
reported:
"[Ecstasy] might be induced by vigil and
fasting, tense religious expectancy, whirling dances, physical stimuli,
the contemplation of the sacred objects, the effect of stirring music,
inhalation of fumes, revivalistic contagion (such as happened in the
Church at Corinth), hallucination, suggestion, and all the other means
belonging to the apparatus of the Mysteries...[One ancient writer]
speaks of men 'going out of themselves to be wholly established in the
Divine and to be enraptured."
"As
the mystery worshiper experienced such ecstasy, he was lifted
above the level of his ordinary experience into an abnormal
sense of consciousness. He experienced an exhilarating condition
in which he believed his body ceased being a hindrance to his
soul."
"According to Angus, ecstasy could 'range anywhere from
non-moral delirium to that consciousness of oneness with the
Invisible and the dissolution of painful individuality which
marks the mystics of all ages." In other words, ecstasy could
emancipate the soul from the confinement of the body and enable
a person to commune with the spirit world. It created an
extraordinarily buoyant sensation. In that state a person
supposedly had the capacity to see and understand things that
only the eyes of the spirit can behold.
Testimonies by Pentecostal-charismatic believers describe exactly the same
kinds of experiences. Charismatics who experience various states of euphoria
attribute their experiences to certain gifts of the Holy Spirit,
particularly tongues. The common testimony is, "It feels so good., I never
felt this way before! It must be of God." Not necessarily, as we are
about to see from the Corinthian experience....
1
Cor. 12:2 "Do not
conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by
the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve
what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."
...As pagans, [the Corinthians] used to get carried away in mindless,
ecstatic, orgiastic kinds of activities, but that was not supposed to be
true now. The truly spiritual person is not someone who is swept away into
trances, ecstasies, and emotional frenzies. When a person is out of control,
it is never because of the Spirit. Those who claim to have been slain in the
Spirit may indeed have been 'slain,' but it is not by the Holy Spirit.
Nowhere in Scripture do we see real gifts of the Spirit operating when
someone is out of control or under some sort of supernatural seizure.
Nowhere does the New Testament teach that the Spirit of God causes
Christians to fall into a trance, faint, or lapse into frenzied behavior. On
the contrary:
Gal.
5:22-23 "The fruit of
the Spirit is...Self-control"
1
Pet. 1:13 "Therefore,
gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your
hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ."
Some final thoughts
on self-induced ecstasy…
There is something in the human makeup that allows men and women to move
into an ecstatic state when their minds are turned off through mindless
repetition of words, phrases, choruses, musical rhythms, etc. These ecstatic
states are euphoric, even hypnotic, and on occasion may even be influenced
by the demonic.
Whatever the case, it is definitely not a part of Biblically-approved
worship. It is more akin to the occult. It springs from man and is
self-induced, not Spirit induced. It is earthly, not heavenly. It is fleshy,
not spiritual. It has no place in the
church of Jesus Christ.
TOP OF PAGE
C. What
About the Freedom of the Spirit?
Whenever there is a discussion of worship, the question of the "freedom of
the Spirit" to move and act and direct the proceedings is raised. The idea
being that we, the people of God, come together in the name of Jesus Christ
and in the presence of the Holy Spirit to worship our God. And because we
are human and fallen and flawed it is preferable if we allow God's Spirit to
direct the proceedings. On this we all agree! But there is a problem, and
the problem is this: There are essentially two ways in which we can "allow
the Spirit to move." Which do we choose?
1. Very
little planning…Many
charismatic churches choose to allow the "Spirit to move" and direct the
proceedings by limiting the planning of the worship service. The amount of
planning that precedes the service will vary from church to church, but the
key element is this: as the worship service proceeds, the worship leader
adds songs, removes songs, repeats songs, repeats verses, prays, reads
scripture, etc....."as the spirit leads"
Problems and advantages with this
approach:
> But
how do we know that the Holy Spirit is leading…Those
who promote the idea of very little planning for the service
claim that they are giving the Holy Spirit room to lead. But how do we
know that it is the Holy Spirit and not the leaders of the
service who directing?
> Why limit the Holy Spirit to the service
time?…Why are we limiting the "moving of the Spirit" to only the
15-20 minutes of
the worship service?
> Why
not allow the Holy Spirit a full week?…Why
not allow the Holy Spirit to have all week to "move" and direct
the
service. Why not allow the Holy Spirit to start working on the worship
service on Monday morning, when the worship leader
starts planning the service. Which is better?…the 15-20 minutes the Holy
Spirit has during the worship service or the 168
hours there are in a week?
>
Confusion among musicians…Impromptu
direction from the worship leader makes it difficult for musicians to
play well. They
can't plan for his changes; they often don't know what is going on; they
are often confused…etc. The results are often less
than what is hoped for in a worship service.
>
Confusion in the congregation…The
confusion among the musicians is often reflected in the congregation.
When confusion
exists, men and women take their eyes off the Lord and begin to focus on
trying to figure out what's happening.
> Confusion and disorder are earthly, Satanic
and evil…Confusion and disorder are
associated with that which is earthy
and Satanic and evil. Confusion and disorder are not associated with
that which is heavenly and godly and righteous.
1. 1
Cor. 14:33 For God is not
a God of disorder but of peace.
2. Galatians 5:9-10
"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."
10.
I am confident in the Lord that you will take no
other view. The one who
is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he
may be.
3.
James 3:16 For where you
have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
4.
Revelation 4…You will
notice in Revelation chapter four that the worship before God’s throne
has the appearance of being
ordered and sequential.
> The
only real advantage in
limited planning is that it allows for genuine spontaneity.
But is spontaneity necessarily spiritual?
If
so, where are we told this?
2. A lot
of planning…There is a
second approach to allowing the Holy Spirit to direct the worship service
and that is the approach used by most non- Charismatic churches. The Holy
Spirit is consulted (or at least, should be) for the entire week preceding
the worship service. As the week progresses changes are made – as "the
Spirit leads" - and then, prior to the service the order of events is
finalized.
Problems and advantages with this
approach:
> How do we know that the "order of
events" is Spirit directed? We don't know this to be the case any more
than we know that
the impromptu and spontaneous direction of the leader in his 15-20
minute worship service is Spirit directed.
> But
we have this advantage:
The Holy Spirit has had 168 hours to work out "His program"
through fallen men and not just
15-20 minutes during the service.
> What
if the Holy Spirit wants a particular piece of music
to be played during the worship service. If that is revealed during
the 15-20 minute worship service, there is no way that this can be
accomplished. But, if the worship leader has worked this
out with the Spirit of God during the week, there is ample time to get
the music and include it in the worship service.
>
Musicians who know exactly
what God's Spirit has led them to play during a particular worship
service have a tremendous
advantage over those who do not. Music can be laid out and practiced and
coordinated with the others participating in the
service.
>
Confusion (which is earthly) is minimized...for both musicians and the
congregation
> Order (which is from God) is maximized...for both musicians and the
congregation
Some final thoughts
about the Freedom of the Spirit…To suggest, as many have, that
an impromptu and spontaneous worship service is "more spiritual" because it
allows for greater "freedom of the Spirit" is just not true. In fact, the
exact opposite is true. Allowing the Holy Spirit a full week to work out His
program almost guarantees that what we end up with will more clearly reflect
His thinking than will the spontaneous and impromptu models that severely
limit the time God's Spirit has to work...on his program.
The need for planning is seen in
teaching and preaching...This
is clearly demonstrated in teaching and preaching. The preacher/teacher who
walks into a service – without having spent many hours of preparation – and
depends on the Holy Spirit to give him the words to say, will end up saying
very little of value. On the other hand, the teacher or preacher who devotes
15-30 hours during the week to Bible study and to seeking God’s guidance, is
a man – if God is directing – who has something worthwhile to say.
D.L. Moody,
once encountered a young student studying for the ministry. The young
student told Moody that he never involved himself in sermon preparation,
but rather "allowed the Holy Spirit to give him the words to say when he got
up to speak." Moody suggested that, under these circumstances, the young
man's sermons would more closely resemble a "hot east wind" rather
than the expository messages God expected.
A worship service without preparation
all too often resembles a "hot east wind" rather than a service in
which the mind of man reaches out to touch the mind of God in
praise and adoration and worship.
1 Cor. 14:15
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray
with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also
sing
with my mind.
TOP OF PAGE
D. The Role
of Elders in Fulfilling the Church’s Mission
A church can lay down all sorts of
Biblical guidelines for both
faith and practice, but in the end, if it does not act on those guidelines
they are of little value. How do churches insure that they become all that
they have proposed to be?
The elders are responsible…The
answer, in part, is that the elders of the church are given the
responsibility – by God – to "oversee" the work of the church and see
to it that everything that takes place within the church is done in a
Biblically prescribed manner.
Acts 20:17,25-28
"From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.
When they arrived, he said to them...Guard
yourselves and all the flock of
which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the
church of God, which he bought
with his own blood."
1 Tim. 5:17
"The elders and deacons who direct the affairs of the
church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose
work is
preaching and teaching."
1 Pet. 5:1-4
"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of
Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the
glory to be revealed:
Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers - not because you must, but because
you are willing, as God
wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it
over those entrusted to you, but being
examples to the flock. And when the
Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never
fade away." |
