Menu

Church Fundraising: How Is Church Fundraising to Be Done?

Church fundraising. Some interesting questions have been raised with regard to how a local church should gain the funds needed for its operation. Here are some thoughts on the subject.

What other churches do is up to them of course. Each congregation must follow its own convictions in the matter. But I believe God’s people need to be discerning, and not simply do something because others are doing it.

Over the years, we’ve all known churches that have used bake sales, and rummage sales, raffles, car washes, walk-a-thons, lotteries, bingos, or two-hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets to bring in money. Or maybe they’ve sold magazines, calendars, candles and so on, in church fundraising, with a portion of the income going into the church coffers.

Is this something your church should be doing? And are there biblical principles that should affect the decision?

One thing that should be noted is that the methods listed above are not all equal. They differ from one another in important ways.

1) Have Some Pie

Some methods offer goods or services for sale at fair value. Car washes or bake sales can fall into that category. As long as what is offered is not over-priced, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this.

And notice who it is that does the donating. It isn’t the purchaser, but the ones providing the goods or services. In a bake sale, it’s probably the church ladies who buy the ingredients, and donate their time and effort to produce the baking. If a youth group holds a car wash to raise money for their program, the materials needed likely come from them, or from the church, and the time and energy invested is theirs.

This is all well and good. But what if the principles of grace and Christian love governed these same practices (Lk. 6:35; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 6:10)?

Suppose the baked goods were donated and sold at prices well below market value. Suppose a weekly or monthly “Pie and Coffee” time were a program carried on by Christians of the local church as an opportunity for engaging others in conversation, and using the time to be an encouragement and blessing to others, in Jesus’ name.

Or what if the young people offered a free car wash. When drivers brought their vehicles, they could simply explain that they want to show the love of Christ to others, and there’s no charge for the service. The result of this could be worth infinitely more than a few dollars gained.

2) Marching for Money

Some methods are thinly disguised appeals for donations. Walk-a-thons and fund-raising banquets are like that.

Walking five miles (or eight kilometres) provides neither goods nor a service. It doesn’t offer anything to the donor. And we know that a banquet doesn’t cost two hundred dollars a plate, especially if it’s held on church property, and much of the work is done by the ladies of the church. These are simply appeals for money, and it becomes very significant who’s asked to donate.

Likely no programs such as these would be worthwhile if only people from the church’s own congregation were approached. Rather, contact is made with the whole community, sometimes door-to-door. This means almost certainly that to support the church we would be appealing to non-Christians. Or perhaps those who attend churches that don’t preach the gospel. But is that what God wants us to be doing?

Early in biblical history, Abraham recognized the danger in that. His nephew Lot and his family were living in wicked Sodom when a raiding army carried them off, and looted the city. Abraham and a band of servants pursued, and brought the people and the booty back. Then the king of Sodom offered all the looted goods to Abraham as a reward. But he replied:

“I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich'” (Genesis 14:22-23).

So, will others in the community say of us, “They claim to be trusting in the Lord. But notice that when they need money they come to us! How come God isn’t strong enough to help them with that too?” We serve “the Possessor of heaven and earth.” It would be a sad thing if we had to depend on the unsaved to save the church!

And there’s a further problem. We are preaching the free grace of God, His unearned, unmerited favour and blessing. Salvation is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9). How would it look if we offered salvation as a free gift to the unsaved, and asked them to pay us to tell them about it?

In Scripture, appeals for money are made to the people of God, not to those outside the body of Christ (cf. I Cor. 16:1-2; II Cor. 8:1-5; 9:6-8; Phil. 4:13-19).

3) You Bet Your Life

Some methods involve games of chance. Bingos and lotteries are examples of that. This is the most questionable form of fund raising imaginable. Gambling is a scourge on our society, and many have become slaves to it. It holds out the seductive appeal of a get-rich-quick scheme, but the Bible says, “A man with an evil [covetous] eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him” (Prov. 28:22).

A Salvation Army writer defines gambling as “an act of risking property that gives material advantage, based on chance, and at the expense of others.” This is entirely the opposite of Christian love, which involves selfless and sacrificial giving. “Through love [we are to] serve one another” (Gal. 5:13), not risk what God has given us to gain selfish advantage over others.

Christians are called to be different (II Cor. 6:17), and it’s okay to be different. It can be a testimony to our confidence in God. What others do, is up to them, but we don’t need to follow suit. If the Lord wants a ministry to continue He will provide, as His people look to Him, and give consistently and sacrificially. Depending on the Lord to supply through His people is not a position of weakness, but of strength. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

The Lord can work in wonderful ways through our obedient faith, and we know by experience that He can do much with even a little. We ought to say, with Jonathan, “It may be that the Lord will work for us. For nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few” (I Sam. 14:6).

“God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work” (II Corinthians 9:8).

USA in Prophecy: Is the United States of America mentioned in Bible prophecy?

,

Question: Is the United States found in prophecy? Isn’t America too large and powerful to not be mentioned in the Bible?

United States of America flag

Answer: If you are asking whether the Bible specifically refers to the United States by name, the answer is no. Not directly. However, there are some points to be considered.

Of course, America did not exist until more than sixteen centuries after the Bible was completed. But it would be no problem for God to refer to it, since He knows all things, and can speak of things that are far in the future (Isa. 46:10). However, the Bible is not a geography book. There are about 200 countries in the world now, and very few of them are named in the Scriptures.

The Beginning of the Nations

After the worldwide flood of Noah’s day, the human family began again with Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In a remarkable passage, Genesis chapter 10 explains how all the nations of the world began with the descendants of those three men: Japheth (vs. 1-5); Ham (vs. 6-20); and Shem (vs. 21-31). “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood” (Gen. 10:32). In his fascinating book After the Flood (New Wine Press, 1995, revised and expanded in 2014), author William R. Cooper traces the history of modern nations from the Genesis record, confirming the accuracy of God’s Word.

The beginning of the world’s nations is certainly of interest to us, but the main story God has to tell is of His chosen people, Israel. From late in Genesis chapter 11, all the way through to the early chapters of Acts, the central focus of the Bible is Israel. Other nations enter the picture mainly because they affect Israel, for good or ill. It stands to reason that this would involve specifically the nations of the Mediterranean world and a bit beyond.

The Nations of Today

You suggest the USA is too large and powerful to not be mentioned. But both Canada and Russia are larger in area. And both India and China are about four times larger by population, and none of them is named. God does not deal with nations according to their size or status. Israel was, and is, very tiny (cf. Deut. 7:6-8).

Granted that America had tremendous power and influence during the twentieth century, that seems to be waning somewhat now–just as the British Empire was the greatest global power in the centuries before, then gave way to America, particularly at the time of the Second World War. It could be that at the time the events of the book of Revelation unfold the centre of global power will have moved elsewhere.

Even so, the nations of the world, including America, and my own country of Canada, enter the biblical account in a general way. Here is how.

The nations of the world, apart from Israel, are “the Gentiles,” a term used in Scripture one hundred and forty-three times. The New Testament often substitutes the word “Greeks” to contrast with Jews (e.g. Col. 3:11). My point is that what is said of the Gentiles, or Greeks, would certainly include the nations of today, even the United States.

Though, in the early chapters of Acts, the gospel was extended to the Jews only (Acts 11:19; cf. Rom. 1:16), it was eventually to be offered to all the world. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” Jesus commanded (Mk. 16:15; cf. Acts 1:8). Again, the people of the United States would be included as part of the unsaved world needing the gospel.

A General Term

There is a term the prophet Isaiah uses that seems designed by God to include, not only the nations surrounding Israel, but those far off, and perhaps unknown to them at the time. It is translated “coastlands” by many Bible versions. The KJV often has isles or islands, but that does not seem to be an adequate translation. Better would be distant shores.

As Isaiah uses the word, it seems at times to include all the nations of earth. “The coastlands [distant shores] saw it and feared, the ends of the earth were afraid; they drew near and came” (Isa. 41:5). “He will not fail nor be discouraged, till He has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands [distant shores] shall wait for His law” (Isa. 42:4; cf. 42:10; 49:1; 66:18-19). This would include North America.

A dominating power of the last days would seem to be a revived Roman Empire. The feet of iron mixed with clay in the image of Daniel chapter 2 (vs. 41-44) represent a federation of European nations, relatively weaker than the unified Roman Empire of the past, but still powerful. It’s possible that nations such as the United States, and Canada, founded largely by Europeans, will join with the European Union, and be included in prophecy that way.

The “nations” of earth are mentioned eighteen times in Revelation–sometimes the phrase “all nations” is used–which would include the USA (cf. Rev. 7:9; 12:5; 14:8; 15:4). Chapters 17 and 18 of the book describe the violent destruction of “Babylon,” both as to its religious and political aspects. Some Bible teachers suggest that actual Babylon of old will be rebuilt, and that is what’s in view. Others see Babylon used in a symbolic way, to represent godless world power. If the description is meant in the latter sense, it could include nations such as the United States.

Many have tried to speculate far beyond what I’ve given here. But that’s all it is–speculation. Sadly, it often brings discredit to the Bible, because the untaught assume that the Bible actually “proves” that certain current events involving the United States were predicted. The date of Christ’s return, the identity of the final Antichrist, the place of America in prophecy, all have been grist for the dreamer’s mill. Prophetic teachers need to be careful not to be dogmatic where God is not!

Rock in Church: What is wrong with using rock style music to convey a Christian message?

, ,

Question: A conversation started with me lamenting the awful rock music used in church. I insist it does not invite the Holy Spirit, and I feel it hinders Him from coming. My friend tries to justify the music by saying the words seem biblical. (I feel even the words are not all biblical.)

So he says Luther’s hymns were put to bar tunes. I wanted proof they weren’t, and found your writing. He conceded I was right about Luther, but is wondering about Fanny Crosby and William Booth?

Answer: You refer to my article on Barroom Tunes. I looked it over again, and I stand by my basic contention that if any of our familiar hymns did use tunes previously set to secular words sung in bars, it is very rare for this to be so. Most tunes were either written for a particular hymn, or borrowed from another hymn.

Then, of course, there are barroom tunes, and there are barroom tunes. In other words, they’re not all equal. If you listen to the secular music likely sung in taverns centuries ago, much of it consists of sentimental ballads. Nothing like the raucous, sensual, driving beat, and deafening noise of some modern rock.

Also, it’s important to recognize that music is a language too. It carries a message of its own. If what the music is saying doesn’t match up with what the words are saying, the result is confusing, to say the least, and it weakens the message of the text.

Rock music’s common message is two-fold: rage and rebellion on the one hand, and unbridled sensuality and sex on the other. This is made clear by such things as the volume and the beat, the words of the songs, and the dress and actions of those on stage. It is also admitted by the rockers themselves. How does that fit with the words of our hymns, or words with any kind of Christian message?

The actual performance of rock has another aim. It is aiming to give listeners a spin-tingling, adrenalin-pumping experience. But that should not be our goal with the sacred songs we sing. We are dealing with eternal truth in the presence of God. We will either be expressing praise and prayer to the Lord, or sharing truths and personal witness with one another (Col. 3:16; Ps. 28:7). That is what should thrill us!

Rock seeks to deliver a sensual and self-centred experience, driven by the music. And the key word there is experience. Carnal sensations are awakened that may well get in the way of fellowship with the Lord. Our joy and excitement should be found in Him, and in reflecting on truths expressed that come from His holy Word.

As to Fanny Crosby, she was an amazingly gifted person. In her early years, she composed and played classical music, and wrote secular songs. But, in her forties and onward, she dedicated herself wholly to writing the words of hymns and gospel songs.

Though she could write music herself, she had a number of musical collaborators supplying the tunes for many of her hymns–men such as William Bradbury, John Sweney, Ira Sankey, George Stebbins, and William H. Doane. These were each godly servants of the Lord.

I haven’t studied all of the 8,500 or so sacred songs Fanny wrote, but the ones found in many hymn books today do not use “barroom tunes.” One exception: Fanny wrote some lovely Christian lyrics (“How sweet the hour of praise and prayer…”) to the tune for Auld Lang Syne that is often sung to welcome in the new year–perhaps in bars!

The Salvation Army’s founder, William Booth, is another story. Working among the slums of London, he looked for a means to communicate Christian truth in a way people would recognize and remember. Yes, he did use secular tunes for some songs.

None of the tunes that I know of were as vulgar as modern secular rock, but I still think he crossed the line at times. One song he produced was, “We’ve Got Salvation.” Fine, so far. But it was set to the tune of, “Roll out the barrel, and we’ll have a barrel of fun”!

If the secular association of a song is current and common, this kind of thing becomes dangerous. That is, in the song mentioned, if people hearing that tune will immediately think of consuming a barrel of booze, it certainly muddies the message!

On the other hand, if the secular tune is centuries old, and is a good one musically, and if it has lost its connection in people’s minds with the secular text (as I illustrate in the article you mention), then it’s possible it can be turned to a sacred purpose.

One more example. In 1616, poet and playwright Ben Jonson wrote a love song for a woman named Celia. In 1790, composer John Callcott set the words to a beautiful tune. First, there is nothing immoral in the text of Jonson, and it was written over 400 years ago, so few even know the words today.

This separation, and the exquisite beauty of Callcott’s tune, it seems to me, could make it available for use with a hymn. It has been used for two that I know of: I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say (by Horatius Bonar, and How Blest a Home (by Janetta Trench).

As to the words of the songs we sing or share in church, we should be concerned to make the message biblical, clear, and enriching. Too many modern lyrics I’ve seen are shallow, vague, and sometimes downright contrary to God’s truth.

Now, admittedly, that’s not exclusive to modern songs. A song isn’t good simply because it’s old, or bad because its new. But on the whole, what’s found in our hymn books has an ocean’s devotional and doctrinal depth, while with contemporary songs written today we’re sometimes dealing with the depth of a puddle.

Finally, I’m not sure about your statement: “I insist [this carnal music] does not invite the Holy Spirit, and I feel it hinders Him from coming.”

The Spirit of God is omnipresent, He is fully everywhere at once. He doesn’t need to “come” into a church. The real issue is, are we truly open to His ministry.

We can “grieve” the Spirit (Eph. 4:30), or “quench” the Spirit (I Thess. 5:19). In simplified terms, we grieve Him when we do what He doesn’t want us to do; we quench Him when we don’t do what He does want us to do. To my mind, both of those can be involved when we attempt to convey a Christian message using carnal music.

Rural Churches: The Waiting Harvest

Is it a forgotten mission field? Or an often neglected one? Perhaps so. There is definitely an unmet need there. And I’m not speaking of a remote jungle tribe, or people in a country closed to the gospel. What I have in mind is those in the hundreds of small rural communities scattered across North America.

rural church

I can only speak about Canada, where I’ve lived and ministered. The numbers in the United States are ten times larger, but I suspect percentages of urban and rural are somewhat similar for them.

Canada is a vast and beautiful country, with a population spread from coast to coast. But in recent years many have gravitated to the cities for various reasons–schooling, jobs, medical care, and so on. As of the 2011 census, the population of our country was around 34 million. Of these, 81% are in the urban centres, leaving 19%–or 6.5 million people–living in the hundreds of small communities spread across the land.

But…six and a half million people–that’s a true mission field! And surely the gospel is for “all the world” (Mk. 16:15).

My Own Experience

In over forty years of ministry, I’ve served in one larger city church, and several smaller ones in rural communities. One of the latter was in a tourist area circled by beautiful woods and lakes; another in farming country, in the midst of a boundless vista of western prairie.

I know something of the challenges and opportunities that come with each situation, but the Lord has given me a special burden for the smaller centres. I grieve to see church buildings, once open and a vital part of the community, shut down and boarded up. Or ones that have been turned into private homes, stores, museums and other things.

The Pressing Need

Though some smaller communities continue to thrive, others are in decline. Highways and railroads now bypass them, and the population has been dwindling. Often churches in these towns are forced to close, or are seriously struggling. In many towns, there’s no evangelical witness at all. Perhaps an urban centre is situated within reasonable driving distance, where people can shop, receive medical care, and even attend church. But in some cases there isn’t one conveniently nearby.

Of course the larger centres have their appeal. Easier access to the things just mentioned, and much more variety in the way of culture and entertainment. They can also support larger churches, with more programs for more people. But there are advantages to the smaller communities as well. Lower cost housing is one and, generally speaking, there is less crime. They are a great place to raise a family.

In terms of ministry, there’s the possibility of belonging to a closely knit social structure where almost no one is a stranger. Values may be a little more conservative–one reason why simply cloning what is done in the city may not work there. On the other hand, country folk tend to be very accepting of the effort pastors or Christian workers put forth to serve them, even if it’s not fancy enough to suit a large city church.

The Lord’s Concern

Sometimes it’s argued that we need to focus on the cities because we can reach more people there. In many cases that’s true. But we should ask whether numbers are always the bottom line with God.

The Lord drew Philip away from a successful evangelistic campaign in Samaria, where multitudes were being saved, to minister to one man on a journey through the desert (Acts 8:5-12, 26-39). But who can say what the impact of that one convert was, when he returned to his homeland of Ethiopia? And who can say what the impact will be of one convert in a small rural church, if Jesus tarries?

The Lord speaks, in a parable, about going out into “the highways and hedges” (Lk. 14:23, NKJV) to draw people into the bounty of the master’s house. The word “hedges” likely refers to those grown around fields along country roads, to protect the crops. Folks in those areas are clearly important to God as well. Yes, “the dying groan in the city” (Job 24:12), and a compassionate Saviour hears their cry. But those in small and scattered farming communities have need of the life-changing gospel too.

A Call to Prayer

Some individuals are gifted to be involved in the kind of ministries available in urban centres. But surely the Lord has provided others with a passion to serve in our smaller communities. Are you alert to the opportunity? Are you informed about the need? I can’t tell you to take up the kind of ministry I’ve  described. Only the Lord can issue a call like that. But will you pray, and ask Him if it is His will for you? I urge you to bring the possibility of your involvement to the Lord.

  • Pray with perception. Be informed. Learn as much as you can about the opportunities and challenges in the smaller centres. “Lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest” (Jn. 4:35).
  • Pray with passion. There is definitely a need. Pray earnestly, with the kind of caring heart the Lord Jesus had. “When He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
  • Pray with persistence, not just on one occasion. Tennyson speaks in one of his poems of “battering the gates of heaven with storms of prayer.” That is persistence! Pray with a readiness to respond to God’s call, like the prophet who said, “Here am I! Send me” (Isa. 6:8).

A Ministry in Rural Communities
For 65 years Village Missions has been providing (and subsidizing) pastors for rural communities. Their motto is: “Preach the Word and love the people.” Small struggling churches have been built up, and the Lord has used them to bring thousands to Christ. Do check them out if you have an interest in this work. I know they would be blessed by your support and involvement, as the Lord leads.

Barroom Tunes? Did the Melodies of Our Hymns Originate as Barroom Tunes?

Barroom tunes for hymns? This is an oft-repeated claim. It implies that it was the general practice of earlier hymn writers to wed sacred words with secular tunes–and not just any secular tunes. The contention is that they purposely used the music of the rowdy beer hall crowd, so the people who frequented such places would be attracted to the gospel.

music notes on piano keys

But is that historically accurate? It may be for some a comforting and convenient notion, but is it true? If not, repeating it over and over will not somehow make it true. I heard this claim so often years ago that one day I took a large hymn book and went through it, checking every tune. I failed to find any melodies that could clearly be called “barroom tunes.”

If you study the history of the hundreds of tunes currently found in our hymn books (as I have done) here is what you will discover. A large percentage of the melodies for the hymns we sing were written especially for their texts, or were borrowed from earlier hymns.

Those that did not originate in this way come to us from a variety of sources. Some are of unknown or uncertain origin. A very small number were adapted from Christian oratorios or operatic melodies. And a few are recognized as adaptations of traditional ballads or folk melodies. Were any of these ever sung in taverns? Perhaps. We were not there to hear. But we must not place too much stock in such claims.

Martin Luther is one on whom this argument is based. Sometimes, those who want to excuse bringing the excesses of worldly music into the church do so on the basis of something they heard or read somewhere about Luther–that he commonly used the music of the drinking songs of his day and put Christian words to them. We hear about Luther’s use of “barroom tunes.” But careful research has shown that is a myth. Of the 37 chorales (hymns) written by Martin Luther, here is the source of his music:

  • 15 original tunes composed by Luther himself
  • 13 tunes from Latin hymns
  • 4 tunes adapted from German religious folk songs
  • 2 tunes that were from religious pilgrim songs
  • 2 tunes for which the source is unknown
  • 1 tune taken from a secular folk song

(Source: Robert Harrell, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message (Greenville, SC, 1980), p. 18. )

Even if the story ended there, it would show that Martin Luther was not in the habit of taking drinking songs and making hymns of them. But there is an interesting postscript regarding that last tune. The original secular words were “I Arrived from an Alien Country.” Luther wrote the lyrics for a Christmas hymn, and adopted the tune.

But within the next four years, for reasons not completely explained, he wrote an original melody for the hymn, and replaced the secular one. One scholar suggests that he may have been embarrassed to hear the tune for his Christmas hymn being used in inns and dance halls. The associations of the tune diverted people’s attention from the worship of God and defeated his purpose, so he discarded it.

In earlier times, simple hymn tunes were written to different metres. These were often used interchangeably with various hymn poems. Even today, a look at most hymn books will reveal many tunes that are used more than once. An example is the tune, Darwall, written in 1770, by John Darwell, as a tune for a paraphrase of Psalm 148. Later, it came to be used for the hymns “Come, Thou Almighty King,” and “Join All the Glorious Names.”

And there were practical reasons for this multiple usage. First, many of the hymn writers were not trained musicians. They wrote poetry, but were not able to supply music for it. So they borrowed a hymn tune already in use. Then, in teaching a new hymn to a congregation, they were greatly aided by adopting a tune that was known. However, to suggest these were previously drunken beer hall songs is ridiculous.

But, let us look more closely at a possible example of a “barroom tune”–or at least one that was formerly used with secular words. It is the melody used for Paul Gerhardt’s reverent text,

O sacred Head now wounded, With grief and shame weighed down, Now scornfully surrounded With thorns Thine only crown….

Paul Gerhardt

Gerhardt’s words are a German translation of a poem attributed to the medieval monk, Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

The tune which we commonly use for this hymn appeared as a secular love song, in 1601. The song was called “My Heart Is Distracted by a Gentle Maid,” and it was published in a collection of music by Hans Leo Hassler, one of the best German composers of the later Renaissance. Significantly, the melody was not wedded with Gerhardt’s sacred lyric until 1644, more than forty years later (before which it had been associated with another German hymn for thirty years).

Then, the hymn was harmonized by Christian composer Johann Sebastian Bach in 1729, and included in his oratorio, the St. Matthew Passion. (This gave the tune its present name, Passion Chorale.) Using this hymn for illustrative purposes, we can raise several important points.

1) Let us suppose that Hassler’s secular song was originally sung in the taverns of his day. It is important to ask whether the atmosphere of the taverns of that period is analogous to what is experienced today. We cannot indiscriminately impose our present culture on an earlier time. Often, the taverns were local meeting places or they functioned as restaurants in conjunction with inns. That may not be quite the same as a modern barroom.

Further, we must consider another cultural difference. There was not, in former days, a distinction made between the music of the younger and the older generations. Junior’s music was also grandpa’s music. Making and enjoying music was a family affair. Sometimes, the issue behind the “beer hall tunes” argument today is the desire to impose the music of one generation upon another which may not want it. That is quite a different matter.

2) Then, consider the importance of historical separation. The fact that the tune, Passion Chorale, is not now being used in bars and taverns (as far as I know!) means that it does not have that current association in people’s minds. How many Christians, singing this hymn on a Sunday morning, would find it shifting their thoughts back to some scene in the local bar? (I venture to say, None!) Perhaps it is even significant that it took forty years before the words of “O Sacred Head” were put with this tune–not to mention that Bach’s use came over a century later still.

3) While it has undoubtedly been done at times–this wedding of sacred words to a secular tunes–we must not ignore the forceful a reaction against this practice by many. There has been at least as strong an argument in the other direction. Christian revivalists and reformers were sensitive to anything in the church that was tainted with worldly values. Luther states that he provided his own tunes for his hymns, “To wean [people] from the love ballads and carnal songs, and teach them something of value in their place.”

Another comment of Luther’s is even more pointed. “Take special care to shun perverted minds who prostitute this lovely gift of nature and of art with their erotic rantings; and be quite assured that none but the devil goads them on.” Luther, Wesley and others were appalled that Christians should be singing the degrading songs of the world. They certainly would not condone using something that would remind people explicitly of immoral conduct or a sinful lifestyle. Many down through the ages have laboured to keep the church’s music distinct and separate, recognizably different from the secular music of the day.

4) We need to remember, also, that the process of history is not cyclical. We must be careful of saying that what is happening now is simply history repeating itself. God warns us that in the last days, “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Tim. 3:13). The morals of today are not necessarily the same as those of four hundred years ago. Nor is the quality of music. To say that a popular song of that earlier day had a standard of excellence worthy of better words, is not to say that the music of today necessarily has. It may be suitable for such a use or it may not.

5) But, some will tell us, “We mustn’t let the devil have all the good tunes.” This saying has been variously attributed to Luther, Wesley and others. It has been used as an excuse to bring worldly music into the church, on the contention that this somehow sanctifies it. In fact, evidence indicates that the statement was first made in 1844, in a sermon by Rev. Rowland Hill. His church, Surrey Chapel, in London, had just installed a new pipe organ. He was referring to this, and to the church’s efforts to keep their music of high quality. He was not condoning the introduction of worldly melodies or music styles into the house of God.

There is a saying that “all truth is God’s truth.” In a limited sense, perhaps we could say that all beauty and fine craftsmanship is the Lord’s too. In other words, a well-structured melody is worthy of being united with sacred words unless:

☼ Its style is unsuited to the sacred lyric
☼ It is associated in people’s minds with a prior lyric that is corrupt
☼ It is associated, because of its former use, with a lifestyle or practices that are dishonouring to the Lord
☼ It is of a clearly recognizable style, and the style itself has these strong sinful associations

6) It would be interesting to propose that we reverse the process. That is, what if we took the tune for “O Sacred Head,” or for the hymn “Abide With Me” (for example) and played them in a bar today, would this be accepted by the patrons? Would such tunes be well received if we played them in precisely the traditional style that is used in our churches?–because that is what is being proposed for music coming from the other direction, the duplication of a style. The answer is probably not.

7) In the final analysis, we must not use the practices of others as our standard. We cannot say, “Because some hymn writer did this, it is permissible for me to do the same.” We cannot even be sure that these hymn writers, in their own time, did not face difficulties because of their occasional use of secular tunes. And the bottom line is that our ultimate standard is Christ (Eph. 4:13).

When Jesus met with His disciples after His resurrection, Peter, curious about what the future held for John, asked, “Lord, what about this man?” The Lord’s answer affirms a basic principle of personal responsibility: “What is that to you? You follow Me.” (Jn. 21:21-22).

To sum up: No, our hymn melodies were not previously barroom tunes. If this can be said for one or two of them it is a rare exception. If someone makes that claim, ask him to give you a list of the tunes, and send the list to me. I’d love to check it out. The following Scripture issues a clear condemnation of the practice of bringing the ways of the world into the assembly of God’s people. When Israel was about the enter the Promised Land, Jehovah God gave the people a pertinent warning through Moses:

“When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:29-32; cf. Lk. 16:15).

Seven Pillars of Unity

Seven pillars of unity are found in Ephesians. Merrill Unger calls Ephesians 4:4-6 a description of “scriptural ecumenicity.” In our day when some seek organizational unity on the basis of the lowest common denominator, this passage outlines the nature of true Christian oneness. (Note that all three Persons of the Trinity are involved.)

1) “One body.” The universal church is a spiritual entity made up of all born again believers from Pentecost to the coming rapture of the church. All are part of “the whole family in heaven and earth” (Eph. 3:14-15). All Christians, in other words, described as “those who are Christ’s” (I Cor. 15:23), and including “the dead in Christ” (I Thess. 4:16).

2) “One Spirit.” The Holy Spirit who indwells each individual believer and is at work in and through the body of Christ (Eph. 1:12-14; cf. Rom. 8:9).

3) “One hope of your calling.” This likely refers to the believer’s hope of ultimate perfection in Christlikeness (vs. 13; cf. Col. 1:27, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”). Our progressive sanctification is also the work of the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 3:18).

4) “One Lord.” The Lord Jesus Christ, who is both our Saviour and the Head of the body (Eph. 1:22-23). (Note that this is the central reality of the seven.)

5) “One faith.” One way of salvation–for Jew and Gentile–personal faith in the finished work of Christ. Others suggest Paul may mean the body of truth in which we put our faith (Jude 1:3; cf. Paul’s testimony, “I have kept the faith,” II Tim. 4:7).

6) “One baptism.” The baptism of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-28) occurring at the time of conversion, by which we are united to Christ and to one another as Christians. (Water baptism is not another baptism, but rather a symbolic representation of the spiritual reality. It pictures our identification with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4), but it does not initiate or affect it.)

7) “One God and Father” (or one God even the Father), who is the “Father of all [believers]” and “in you all” (cf. Jn. 14:23).

Repentance: What is it?

Repentance. What is it? It’s an excellent question, and it is a subject on which there is considerable misunderstanding. Some believe repentance is feeling sorry for what I’ve done wrong. And that is a fine thing, but it’s not the same as repentance.

A Change of Mind Affecting Our Lives

“Repentance,” in the New Testament, translates the Greek word metanoeo, meaning a change of mind. And not simply a superficial change of some opinion we have–such as, “I’ve decided I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream.” Repentance is a genuine change of attitudes and values that affects our lives in a significant way. Paul said he preached to the Gentiles, “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20). It was expected their repentance would fundamentally change the way they lived.

Check out what happened in the church at Ephesus. When Paul first knew them, they were a loving congregation (Eph. 1:15). But somewhere along the line, over a period of about 30 years, that love withered and died. John’s instruction to them later (a message sent from the Lord Jesus Himself) was, “I [Christ] have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent [change your mind about how you’re acting] and do the first works” (Rev. 2:4-5).

A Restored Relationship with God

Biblical repentance always involves our relationship with the Lord. It involves seeing our sin as an offense against a holy God. In repentance, the person changes his mind about self, sin, and God. When we sin, we are actually rejecting God’s rule over our lives and placing ourselves on the throne. We imply–whether or not we actually say it–that God is wrong, and we are right about how we should act. In repentance we change our minds about that false view of ourselves and our sin, and admit that God is right. And that change of mind affects how we behave.

False Views of Repentance

There are several things that are sometimes mistaken for repentance. Some are an aspect of the process, but they miss the heart of it.

1) Remorse is sorrow for our actions–or sorrow that we got caught doing something! But a person can be remorseful and still not determine to change his course. Cain was sorry for the consequences he suffered for murdering his brother Abel (Gen. 4:13), but that is not repentance. Judas was sorry he had betrayed Christ (Matt. 27:3-5), but that also fell short of true repentance. Sorrow for sin comes before repentance (II Cor. 7:8-9), but it is only of value if it leads to repentance.

2) Penitence is not repentance. Penitence goes a bit further than remorse. It is sorrow for sin that is accompanied by a sense of guilt. A person who repents may feel this way, guilty and ashamed for what he (or she) has done, but the two are not the same.

3) Reformation is not repentance. A person can try to make a fresh start and do better without true repentance toward God. New Year’s resolutions are an made to begin a reformation. But they may not involve repentance.

4) Penance is not repentance. Performing an act of penance is an attempt to pay for a wrong done. And sometimes such compensation is necessary. If a person writes graffiti on the wall of someone’s home, he may have to pay to have the markings removed, but this still falls short of true repentance.

A 180-degree Turn

A Hebrew word translated repent in the Old Testament is shuwb, meaning to turn. Changing our mind in repentance involves a turning.

Moses told the Israelites, “When you turn [shuwb] to the Lord your God and obey His voice…He will not forsake you nor destroy you” (Deut. 4:30-31). The same word is used three times in Ezekiel 14:6, “Thus says the Lord God: ‘Repent [shuwb], turn away [shuwb] from your idols, and turn away [shuwb] your faces from all your abominations.'” It is for this kind of turning that Paul commends the Thessalonian believers: “You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (I Thess. 1:9).

Repentance and Faith

You can see from this that repentance and faith go together. Jesus’ message to the Jews of His day was, “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). Think of it this way. If you turn around 180 degrees and face the opposite direction, you are turning away from something, and turning toward something else. And in biblical repentance, we turn away from our sin and self rule, and turn toward God in faith.

That is not really two steps, but two aspects of one step. It’s like the two sides of a coin. We can discuss each side separately, but there would be no coin without its two sides. In the same way, we can discuss repentance and faith separately, but in practice they go together. If true repentance is involved, the turning from will always mean turning toward as well.

For Sinners and Saints

Sinners can repent, and so can saints.

1) Unsaved people repent unto salvation (II Pet. 3:9). This involves particularly a change of mind about the Lord Jesus Christ. Before, if the person thought about Christ at all, he may have considered Him a great religious leader, or a great teacher. But that will not save him. He must come to the place where he sees in Christ the One who took the punishment for his sins on the cross. The One who is his only hope for forgiveness of his sins, and his only hope of heaven. Then he turns to Christ in faith. He turns from sin to the Saviour–the two sides of the coin (Acts 20:21).

2) Actually, the major usage of the word repent in the New Testament concerns not sinners getting saved, but Christians who have sinned and who need to deal with sin in their lives. Sin does not destroy the Christian’s relationship with the Lord. A sinning believer is still a child of God, just as a misbehaving child is still a child of his parents. But sin hinders our fellowship with the Lord, and hinders our service for Him, and robs us of joy and peace. David experienced the latter. And after his terrible sins of adultery and murder, he confessed his sin to God (Ps. 51:3-4), and prayed, “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation” (vs. 12).

Repentance and Confession

One last thought. There is a close relationship between repentance and confession.

The Bible says to Christians who have sinned, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” To confess (homologeo in Greek) means to say the same, or to agree. When we confess our sins to God, we are agreeing with Him. We are saying that we are wrong, and He is right. And if we really believe that, it will result in a change of behaviour. You can see how close this is to the act of repentance.

Factors Molding a Church: Seven Keys to Church Growth

Factors molding a church are numerous. But to begin at the beginning, the church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again Christians since Pentecost (I Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-28; Eph. 3:14-15). It is a spiritual body of which He is the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). It is a spiritual edifice with the Lord Himself the divine Builder, daily adding to the church those who are being saved (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47).

This work is accomplished through the agency of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:19-22). And yet, in the purpose and providence of God, He has enlisted human beings to be His instruments in the practical outworking of the process (I Cor. 3:6, 9; II Cor. 6:1). Therefore, though the fashioning of the church is God’s work, yet it is accurate to speak of it also as resulting from the labour of weak and fallible men and women. This is particularly evident at the local level, where members of the body are responsible to serve.

In each local assembly of believers, there is a variety of factors at work, each affected by this human influence and activity. As they interrelate, they give the church its unique character, and influence its development. This brief paper will list a few such factors, raising some questions, identifying relevant Scripture passages, and expressing some personal convictions along the way.

1. Its Handling of the Scriptures

The inspired Word of God is our final authority in all things (Deut. 8:3; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). This includes both the spiritual growth of individuals (II Tim. 3:16-17; I Pet. 2:2), and the overall operation of the church (I Cor. 14:20, 33, 40; cf. II Thess. 3:14; Tit. 1:5, etc.). Unless the Scriptures remain central to everything else, there will be, sooner or later, a drift into organizational anarchy, a subjective, experientially grounded Christianity, or perhaps into outright heresy.

Proper handling of the Word means preserving doctrinal orthodoxy (Jude 3), and balance (the systematic proclamation of the “whole counsel of God,” Acts 20:27). It involves a determination to maintain the primacy of biblical preaching and teaching in the schedule of the church.

Preaching has too often succumbed to a kind of consumerism, appealing to those who resist the necessity of doing some serious thinking, craving instead emotional thrills and chills. To them the Lord says, “come now, and let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). God’s people must become increasingly familiar with the deeper things of His Word (I Cor. 2:10, 12; cf. Heb. 5:11-14). After Paul had ministered in Thessalonica for less than a month, he wrote the believers there a letter. Did he take it easy on them, and stick to elementary truths? No. A perusal of First Thessalonians reveals strong doctrinal teaching–about the Trinity, the work of the Holy Spirit, the second coming, election, sanctification, and so on. Our preaching and teaching ought to reflect a similar breadth.

2. Its Philosophy

What is the local church’s vision for the future? What is its purpose (or mission) statement? What are its measurable goals and objectives–both current and long-range? A biblically based, practical purpose–both as this relates to the church’s responsibility in the immediate community, and to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel–is an important factor in its growth. With no vision, there is no sense of direction. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18, KJV). And it should be added that to be useful, such a vision must be translated into measurable goals, intermediate steps that can be evaluated in a concrete way.

That being said, in some circles, there is a tendency to give numerical objectives an importance far beyond anything else. How many people attend? How many programs do we have? How much money is given to missions? Etc. But a study of Scripture will indicate how often the Lord chooses to work with the few, instead of the many. It will show how quantity is frequently downplayed in favour of quality. When Paul talks about the purpose of his ministry, numbers are not an issue (except in the general sense that he wants to help everyone he can). He says, “Him [Christ] we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect [completely mature] in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28).

Though numbers cannot be totally ignored, fostering character goals–faithfulness, holiness and love–is far more in keeping with what the Lord is seeking. After all, love is identified as the distinguishing mark of a follower of Christ (Jn. 13:34-35; cf. Gal. 6:2, 10). This quality, an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, is the essential core of Christ-likeness (Gal. 5:22-23; Col. 3:12-14).

3. Its Leadership

Who are the leaders? What is their leadership style? (These can be roughly divided into decision-making by the minority–those in leadership, and decision-making by the majority. There likely needs to be a balance, and a healthy combination of these.) How efficient–and clearly understood!–is the chain of command? And what about appropriate lines of communication? What is the level of lay-involvement? And of lay-empowerment? (That is, does the average member in the pew have a sense of ownership of major decisions?) How effective is the process of recruitment and leadership training?

The criteria for church leaders are carefully spelled out in several passages (Acts 20:17, 28-30; I Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; I Pet. 5:1-4). Judging by the biblical pattern, the upper level of leadership is to be taken by men only (called variously, and interchangeably, elders, pastors–meaning shepherds, and also bishops). The latter term simply indicates a superintendent. Originally it was not used of a supervisor over a group of churches, but of an administrator of the local church–which the leaders are.

Under the authority of these men, whose gifts and calling have been duly recognized by the congregation, both men and women are to labour in a wide variety of roles. Among these are the deacons (and likely deaconesses, Rom. 16:1). The Greek word, diakonos, simply means one who serves, or waits on others. These are to serve the congregation in practical ways. In a sense, each Sunday School teacher, usher, choir member, etc. is a “deacon,” a servant–though often churches will identify certain individuals with that title to assist at baptisms, care for the needy, etc. The terms “elder” and “deacon” apparently were not yet in use, in the early days of Acts 6:1-7, but it is generally accepted that those appointed to serve food to widows in the congregation were deacons. It should be noted that the qualifications for these were high (Acts 6:3; cf. I Tim. 3:8-13). Even mundane and routine physical work is a ministry for Christ, a spiritual calling.

4. Its History and Traditions

The history and traditions of a church give it a sense of identity–both for its members, and for the broader community. This may include such diverse things as the denominational affiliation of the church, its physical building, and even its annual turkey suppers, and the quality of its Christmas programs. “That is the Anglican church,” is a means of identification. “They go to that big church on the corner,” is as well. But a church develops an identity over the years in many different ways–the style of its worship, its doctrinal emphases, its music, the warmth of its fellowship, its activity in the community, the men who have served as its pastors, and so on.

Scripture is replete with evidence of the importance of keeping our history in view. It becomes a means both of reminding us of our own weakness and inadequacy, apart from grace, and of celebrating God’s faithfulness (cf. Josh. 4:1-7; I Sam. 7:12; Ps. 44:1-3; 78:1-8; Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:6, 11; 15:1, 3-4).

As to “tradition,” the Bible word (paradosis, in Greek) simply indicates that which is handed over, or given into the hands of another. This may refer to inspired Scripture itself, as it does in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians (cf. 2:15; 3:6, 14, where the Greek word is used). But it can be applied more broadly to any information or practice that is passed on from one group to another, from one generation to another. For some, the term seems to breathe an air of the out-dated and old-fashioned, but that is not a part of its essential meaning. It just speaks of that which is handed on. Tradition gives us a sense of belonging, of continuity with former times. Passing on various elements of the past is a worthwhile practice, as long as we avoid investing human tradition with the authority of inspired Scripture.

Unfortunately, the church’s community identity can develop a negative connotation just as easily as a positive one. It could be said of some group, “That is the church where they are always feuding.” (Cf. I Cor. 1:11, “It has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren…that there are contentions among you.”) Too little attention is given to the way in which such things influence the church’s identity in the neighbourhood–and ultimately its effectiveness, sometimes for years to come. Keeping this in view could help to hold in check unwise words and actions.

5. Its Circumstances

Everything from contemporary trends to local needs can have an impact on the life and work of the church. When I was a small boy, “lantern slides” were an amazing wonder–hymns and choruses projected on the wall. Christian motion pictures were virtually non-existent. Now, we have videos proliferating by the dozen–both helpful and not so helpful! It is a trend. So is the evolutions of foreign mission methodology, the changes in church music, and the general movement of the population to the cities and the like.

There are trends (and fads) in society, changes occurring all the time. In the church, these must be evaluated carefully before the Lord. We are to “use” the things of this world, without “misusing” them (I Cor. 7:31). We are to be careful to keep ourselves “unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27), which means we avoid being contaminated with such things as its unspiritual values and attitudes, its dependence on the flesh, and its time-bound goals. Some trends can be accepted and even put to use with no violation of biblical principles; others cannot. The fact that another church does it–or even that “everybody’s doing it,” is not enough. We are told to “test all things [and] hold fast what is good” (I Thess. 5:21; cf. Isa. 8:20; Matt. 7:20; Acts 17:11; Phil. 1:10; I Jn. 4:1).

When Paul talks about becoming “all things to all men” (I Cor. 9:22), he is not referring to making immoral or worldly compromises, but to adapting his ministry style to the needs of the specific people he is dealing with. (Compare his ministry to Jews, using the Old Testament, and his preaching before pagan Gentiles, where he made use of what their own poets had written, Acts 17:2-3, 22-23,28.) A thriving, biblically balanced church will have learned the wisdom of applying the Bible’s teachings, and of carefully combining the best of old and new. In the words of an old slogan, it will be “geared to the times and anchored to the Rock.”

Included in the general category of the church’s “circumstances” is the nature of the local community, and the needs this reflects. Is it rural? Suburban? Urban? Affluent? Middle class? Impoverished? A rescue mission style of outreach may work in one place but not in another. Thus, the location of the church affects its character. In the case of a church functioning in a community for generations, it needs to be sensitive to changes in the makeup of its constituency and to adjust accordingly.

There may be some inflexible traditions that are deeply entrenched, whose only rationale is “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” There may be programs that once met a need but no longer do. These must receive careful scrutiny, and be adapted or jettisoned, as necessary. As someone has put it, the seven last words of a church may well be “we never did it that way before.”

6. Its Resources

Under God, the people of the church, and their unique spiritual gifts, are its greatest resource (Eph. 4:16). The ministry of the church will be affected by those available to serve, and faithful in service. Other significant resources include its facilities, its equipment, and its financial assets. Jesus told two stories–one about building a tower, another of going to war (Lk. 14:28-32)–which emphasize the need to sit down and evaluate our resources before we launch a new venture. Not to do so would show a lack of wisdom.

However, there are balancing truths which need to be set against this. First, we tend to evaluate in terms of what can be seen. But that is not God’s way. The Lord looks on the heart (I Sam. 16:7). He evaluates on another plain entirely (Isa. 59:8-9; Lk. 16:15). Potential is not always obvious when we are dealing with the spiritual and eternal dimension. Second, as Jesus put it one day, “With God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26; cf. Jn. 15:5). The divine promise is, “God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work” (II Cor. 9:8).To evaluate in mere human terms, without the insight of spiritual vision, and faith in Him, is to miss God’s best. “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God” (William Carey).

7. Its Programs and Activities

What is happening at the church, or through the auspices of the church? What agencies have been designed to carry out its work? So many things could be listed here: its Christian education program (Sunday School, children’s church, week-day clubs, etc.), its music, its prayer life, its worship, its proclamation of the Word, its evangelistic outreach and world missions involvement, its ordinances, its fellowship, its discipline, its community involvement, and so on. In a sense, these are the tip of the iceberg. They are what everyone sees. But each of the factors mentioned previously will affect them and the ultimate results. In the description of the apostolic church, little is said about this subject. That is not because there is something evil about structured programs. Rather, it simply relates to the infancy of the church. The issue had not yet been addressed. In dealing with it today, what is required is that we insure that biblical principles are understood, and consistently applied.

Programs are merely tools to accomplish certain goals. If they are added with little thought of how they fit the overall picture, they can needlessly burden God’s people with “another night out” without accomplishing much for the kingdom. Ongoing evaluation may indicate the need to trim back programs that are not worthy of the time and energy and other resources they consume. Cancelling “Program B” because it no longer meets a need (as perhaps it once did) should not be seen as a step backward–particularly if resources are redirected into some other area where the need is current and significant.

It is not possible in a brief paper to cover the ground thoroughly. However, the factors identified are critical ones, and worthy of the continuing attention of leadership. If the local church is to be all that God intends, we will need to consider these elements in the light of His Word, and adjust them as He directs, many times over.

War Room Movie: Is the film War Room true to God’s Word?

, ,

Question: What do you think of the Christian movie War Room?

Answer: My wife and I watched this recently released film. Later, I went back and watched it again, double-checking some things. Here are a few personal observations.

War Room provides an interesting and emotionally intense story about a husband and wife in serious conflict (an all too common problem), and how God answered prayer and got them on the right path. Great! Miss Clara’s desire to pass on what the Lord had taught her was also good, providing an example of personal discipling (cf. II Tim. 2:2).

However, there were a number of things that concerned me, so that, in spite of what is positive, I would not personally recommend the film to others.

1) First, there’s the “closet” issue–going into a clothes closet to pray. It’s apparently based on Matthew 6:6, in the old King James Version, “when thou prayest, enter into thy closet.” Most modern translations simply have “room,” or “private room.” In the context of the Matthew text, the Lord is decrying the hypocritical Pharisees’ practice of offering their personal prayers out in public, “that they may be seen by men” (vs. 5).

In narration over what Elizabeth is doing to her closet, Miss Clara does acknowledge that the place is not the critical thing,  But Clara, Elizabeth, and the couple’s young daughter, all turn their clothes closets into a prayer rooms. If that’s not an essential point, why not show alternatives by having one or two choose someplace different? (And what have they done with their clothes and other things? Closets are storage areas.)

Personal prayers are best offered in a quiet and private place. I often pray in the living room, before my wife is up, in the car on my way to the city, and in the office alone, while I work.

At the end of the film, a pastor goes in Clara’s closet (now stripped of everything she had there) and somehow senses that someone has been praying in the closet (“It’s almost like it’s baked in.”). That seems downright spooky! And it’s nonsense.

2) Elizabeth, in her “prayer closet,” quotes James 4:7 several times,  “Submit to God, resist the devil,” which basically means we are to say “Yes” to God’s Word and will, and “No” to the devil’s temptations. (When we sin, we are doing the opposite.)

But then, using an unscriptural technique popular in some “spiritual warfare” circles, she goes through the house, shouting angry insults and orders to Satan. “I know you can hear me,” she says. Really? How does she know that? The devil is neither omniscient nor omnipresent, but she “knows.”

“Get out, in Jesus’ name,” she cries. That is not what the Scripture means by resisting Satan. Nor is it appropriate for a Christian to do. Elizabeth needed to read on a little further in her Bible. Jude tells us, “Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!'” (Jude 1:9).

Leave Satan to God. It’s not up to us to tell him off. Instead of taking a more biblical approach, praying for strength to “resist” the devil’s attacks, Elizabeth went to reviling and ridiculing the devil’s person in an angry way. And Miss Clara’s comment about “kicking the devil’s butt” was wrong, in bad taste, and totally uncalled for.

3) In the same rant, Elizabeth cries, “Jesus is the Lord of this house.” I wonder what she meant by that. It sounded a bit like the “territorial spirits” notion. Drive the devil out, and let Jesus in to rule over the building. However, I know of no text that speaks in these terms. Some might appeal to Luke 11:24-26. But that is something of a parable. The “house” in that case is a figurative picture of a “man” (vs. 26), not a man-made structure.

Jesus Christ is Lord (Acts 10:36), and we need to recognize His lordship over us personally and individually. But the only houses God was said to have occupied specifically were the tabernacle in the wilderness and, later, the temple in Jerusalem. Both are gone, now.

And if, by “house,” Elizabeth meant their family (as Joshua likely did in Joshua 24:15), rather than the building, it was still incorrect, since her husband, the head of their home, was far from God at that time.

4) I was turned off by all the shouting in prayer, especially by Miss Clara. Is yelling our words supposed to make the prayers more effective? God is not hard of hearing! It seemed too much like the prophets of Baal, “crying aloud and cutting themselves” to get their god’s attention (I Kgs. 18:26, 28), and not enough like the reverent prayer of Elijah that God answered with fire from heaven (vs. 36-37).

And more noise. Three or four times in the film we were subjected to blaring rock music. (I finally put my hands over my ears!) I know this is a pet peeve of mine, and that I’m going against a modern trend, but so be it. I couldn’t understand the words that were being sung, and it simply injected the ways of the world into what was supposed to be a spiritually significant moment.

5) We get a lot of references to “Jesus” in the film, which does bother me a bit. Jesus was the earthly name of the Son of God. He is called Jesus hundreds of times in the Gospels. And yes, it’s still an important name (Phil. 2:10). But He is only rarely called “Jesus” by itself, after His resurrection and ascension.

Almost always, in Acts and the Epistles, He is “the Lord Jesus,” or “the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g. Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 9:29; 11:17, etc.). It is a recognition that He is not only our Saviour, but our Lord, now exalted in glory, and that He should be spoken of (and to) with submission and reverent respect.

6) When a robber confronts Elizabeth and Miss Clara, asking for money, and threatening them with a knife, Miss Clara boldly commands, “In Jesus’ name, drop the knife!” And he does so. This makes for exciting drama, but it’s poor theology. It may be based on the faulty idea that whatever happened in Acts must, of necessity, be happening today.

That is not the case. We do not have God-given apostolic authority (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4). Nor do we have the right to command other people to do what we think God wants them to do–assuming that, if necessary, He will supernaturally force them to comply. This too is nonsense.

Does God ever work that way. I’d be hesitant to say it never happens, but it is not the general rule for God’s people. It’s not for every Christian to go here and there, commanding this and that, “in Jesus’ name.” We cannot simply assume we know God’s will in every situation.

We need to be very cautious about making such grandiose assumptions (cf. the “but if not” of the three Hebrews, Dan. 3:15-18). We are to pray to God the Father, on the authority of Jesus’ name and in the energy of the Spirit of God, and in submission to His will (Eph. 2:18; Jas. 4:15).

A flash prayer to heaven from Miss Clara would have been appropriate (cf. Neh. 1:4-5). Then, the two women should have dealt graciously and gently with the man, trusting the Lord to work in the situation, dealing with him according to His will.

7) The text of Second Chronicles 7:14 is displayed at the end of the film. I realize this verse is dear to the hearts of those who teach a particular kind of revivalism, but a closer look at the context needs to be considered. Here is the verse:

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

2 Chronicles 7:14

It is a promise specifically for the nation of Israel, whom the Lord spoke of as “My people” from early days (cf. Exod. 3:7, 10; 5:1). Beginning with their forefather Jacob (Gen. 32:28), they are the people called (by God Himself) by His name.

The “El” in their name (a version of the Hebrew Elohim) is the name of God. They are literally, therefore, called by God’s name. The whole name “Israel” has been variously interpreted, but it seems to mean God Fights, that God is the Defender of the nation of Israel, and of their God-given land.

There is a special covenant relationship of that nation to the Lord. God promised obedience would bring the people blessing, in their land. (Deut. 28:9-10), but that if they sinned, He would discipline them by destroying their crops (II Chron. 7:13), and by exiling them from the land (vs. 20).

Returning to the Lord would bring restoration. “Healing” the land means just that–driving out the locusts, and bringing the rain to water the crops. The whole issue of the prosperity of the land of Israel being attached to the obedience of the people is dealt with in detail in Leviticus 26:3-45, and Deuteronomy 28–30.

The Lord makes no such promise to other countries–that, in fact, is one thing that makes Israel unique above all the nations of the earth (cf. Deut. 7:6). Nor does His promise of “healing” the physical land of Israel apply to the spiritual healing of the people of Canada, or the United States, or any other nation.

Nor can we take material promises made to this one earthly nation, and apply them in some spiritual sense to the church of Jesus Christ. The church is a spiritual body of people made up of all nations. We cannot lift verses out of context and apply them as we like.

8) In conclusion, the “general rule” for God’s people today, that I mentioned earlier, is where the film should have been aimed. There are numerous general principles and admonitions in Scripture that give us plenty to work on.

These are many times embodied in “one another” exhortations–of which there are dozens. For instance, we are to love one another (Jn. 13:34; I Jn. 3:11), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), forgive one another (Eph. 4:32), comfort one another (I Thess. 5:11), and pray for one another (Jas. 5:16). See also: Rom. 12:5, 10, 16; 15:7, 14; I Cor. 12:25; Eph. 4:2, 25; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:25; I Pet. 4:9-10.

Surely the intent of the film is to instruct, and show us what we all should be doing. For that reason, more care should have been taken to avoid error, and the odd or extreme things mentioned earlier. They set forth a bad, and sometimes quite unbiblical example.

The First Noel: Birthday! Birthday!

That God should take upon Himself our humanity and walk among us, that is the breathtaking reality we celebrate at the Christmas season. As the Apostle John puts it, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14). Even God’s revelation about the virgin birth (Matt. 1:22-23), and the supernatural conception of the Baby through a work of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35) does little to lessen the mystery and the wonder of it. It is no wonder Mary exclaimed, when she was told of God’s plan, “How can this be?” (Lk. 34).

The saints have celebrated this amazing event since the beginning. No doubt Mary and Joseph had their own time of rejoicing, though it is not recorded for us. The first celebration of which the Bible speaks is that of the angels. Their “Glory to God in the highest!” (Lk. 2:14) is later echoed by the shepherds who returned from the stable “glorifying and praising God” (Lk. 2:20). Beyond the bounds of Holy Scripture, dozens of hymns and carols have been created to express the joyful praise of God’s people at the birth of Christ. One of these is so old a precise record of its origin has been lost. Written anywhere from 300 to 600 years ago, we know it as “The First Noel.” (To see the full text, click here: link ) The word “noel” (in old English, “nowell”) means birthday. It is intended in the refrain of the carol as a fourfold shout of joy, “Birthday! Birthday! Birthday! Birthday! Born is the King of Israel!” In England, centuries ago, travelling troubadours (folk singers) went from town to town sharing the news and telling stories in song. The whole community would gather to hear them. One of the songs originating at that time (today’s carol) proclaimed the news of Christ’s birth. Eventually, someone carried it across the English Channel, and the French spelling “Noel” was adopted. The tune and lyrics as we now have them were first published in 1833.

The song begins, “The first Noel, the angel did say, / Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay; / In fields where they lay keeping their sheep, / On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.” The originator of this carol was clearly excited about the birth of the Saviour. But his Bible knowledge was limited. It should be remembered that the Middle Ages (ca. 500-1500) are referred to as the Dark Ages for good reason. Copies of God’s Word were relatively scarce–especially before Gutenberg’s invention of the modern printing press (around 1455). Fanciful legends and superstitions encrusted the biblical record. This accounts for the fact that the carol, in its second stanza, has the shepherds following the star to Bethlehem!

But what the story teller lacked in knowledge of the event he somewhat makes up for in his application. His message to his listeners is: “Then let us all with one accord, / Sing praises to our heav’nly Lord; / That hath made heaven and earth of naught, / And with His blood mankind hath bought.” Consider this verse, and you will see it has captured some important truths. Christ is “our heavenly Lord.” That speaks of His sovereign rule over us, and perhaps of His deity as well (Matt. 1:23; Acts 10:36). He “made heaven and earth of naught.” Not only is He the Creator of all, but He created all things out of “naught” (nothing). He called all that is into existence by His word (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 11:3). And finally, there is His redeeming sacrifice on the cross. He is the One who “with His blood mankind hath bought” (I Pet. 1:18-19; I Jn. 1:7b) That is reason to celebrate above all, and to “sing praises to our heavenly Lord.”

Load More