From Vague to Vagabond to Victory -- A Testimony of a Christian
by Roderick Edwards
This is a testimony of an individual Christian that went from vague, to vagabond, to victory. Join the author as he relates his story from being a new Christian, to putting his trust in pastoral leaders, to being rejected by those same leaders, to finally experiencing victory in Christ and the Word alone.
The testimony was originally written in seven parts, thus each part is still distinguishable by the part header.
Part | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Discuss this story in the forums
Saga of a Pew Sitter -- Part 1
Remember how we are called to give testimonies in church? How about a testimony of how sometimes false shepherds have damaged the "sheep" by pretending to stand in the place of the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:1-5)?
I don't mean this out of malice as many of these men sincerely think they are helping by pretending to fulfill this function. The problem is that the function is nothing like how they practice it, if such function is still even supposed to be in operation today. Imagine someone trying to behave like a High Priest (no need to imagine -- many do, such as the Roman Catholic pope or those claiming to be modern day apostles).
Like many of you, I started out in the traditional contemporary church (for me, it was an independent Baptist church). For over 12 years, I sat quietly and dutifully in the pew absorbing everything my "pastor" was being "led" to "feed" me. Oh, I read the Bible but only under the framework of what the pastor was saying.
The ah-ha moment came via the oddest way. Our church supported a "Bible College" across the street and often the students would be invited to come try out their preaching abilities on us. One Sunday a group of them began to preach on how Jesus never drank alcoholic wine and that the wine in Cana which the Lord turned from water was merely grape juice -- "new wine" they called it. Now, let me say here, I don't even drink alcoholic beverages, perhaps only a sip at ceremonies but no more. Plus I have seen my and other families ravaged by drunkenness so I in no way am trying to justify the drinking of alcohol. But having read enough of the Bible on my own I knew what these guys were trying to teach wasn't right.
Jesus was accused as being a "winebibber", which would make no sense if he were merely consuming unfermented grape juice. The men in Cana were "well-drunk" (which doesn't mean full) when Jesus brought out the "good stuff". Typically at such a celebration, a host would serve the good stuff first while the guests could distinguish, and then once they are "well-drunk" the host could then start serving the second-rate stuff (John 2).
Jesus even pointed out the distinction between Himself and John the Baptist, saying basically that the Jews didn't believe John who refrained from wine and yet they are seeming to say they won't listen to Jesus because He consumes wine.
So, with all of this and more Scripture against the concept that Jesus was a teetotaler, I questioned my pastor about the teaching, thinking he might say the young college students simply needed more study. I was shocked to find out he agreed with them and still tried to justify away the texts I brought forward.
This led me to think, what else does my pastor teach us
that is wrong? I began to really study my Bible on my own
more than ever. Boy, can that be dangerous 
-- dangerous to cultic control over
people since reading your Bible yourself allows you to
be in direct contact with Christ instead of a man.
My next encounter was with the word "Easter". You see my church was a strong KJV-only church where they taught that the KJV was God's preserved word to us. By this time I was comparing the Hebrew and the Greek, with concordances and lexicons spread out on the floor before me (this was before the computer days). I knew full well that the word "Easter" does NOT appear in the original text of Acts 12:4 but is really pascha which everywhere else is translated as passover. So I asked the pastor about this. I mean if the KJV translators were being guided to make this supposed preserved word of God, then why did they choose to ignore the original Greek word and replace it with the name of a pagan fertility goddess (Ishtar)? (For more on this see this link.)
What was the pastor's answer? "Well, the KJV translators must have known something we don't."
WHAT??? Have we overthrown one Pope simply to replace it with many mini-popes, be they our kindly old pastors or the KJV translators?
From Milk to Meat -- Part 2
Having been basically a quiet "pew warmer" for 12 years, I was now fully engaged in "proving/testing all things" (1 Thes 5:21) and I had 12+ years of things to examine in my own faith let alone all of Christian history. I was becoming a veracious Bible reader, again with concordance, lexicons and now commentaries and church history books spread out before me comparing them to Scripture. I don't say these things in a prideful way, but to my shame -- this is what I should have been doing all along.
The church was offering a course in "The Baptist Distinctives" which was a class to show us why we are Baptists. This seemed like a good class to add to my studies. It was being taught by one of the professors from the Bible College across the street.
The course revolved around a little booklet called, "The Trail of Blood" which as its premise claims Baptists never came from the Reformation but were theological descendants of a line of Christians that never "bowed to Rome". (The denomination called "The Church of Christ" makes the same kind of claim.) This claim is based upon pieced-together groups in history; often groups that even modern day Baptists would consider "heretics" and would have nothing to do with.
As I began to independently study the history of the Baptists and the Anabaptists, it was clear they could NOT trace their line back so cleanly, but rather they mainly rose from the Peasants during the Reformation. The Peasants during the Reformation weren't as concerned with religious freedom as they were with political freedom which made them at odds both with Luther and the other Reformers and the Roman Catholics. The present day emphasis on "independence" in Baptistic denominations hails directly from this origin -- I am NOT saying that desire for independence is wrong; as I fully believe the 501C3 (tax-free status) churches of today are unwittingly subjects of the State. I am just pointing out how Baptistic congregations originated from Peasants seeking political freedom and NOT from a line traced back to the first-century.
During the class, I would ask such questions yet the professor would give some pat answer and move on. My friend, who saw my frustration suggested I bring in the documentation to show the professor. When I did, it was ignored. I even showed how the Waldenses (an Italian sect which Baptists often claim as forerunners) were paedo-baptists for the most part. I eventually dropped out of the class.
At this time, my studies shifted to the HOW -- how did we as denominational Christians get to this point of so many denominations? I had to work backwards to find an answer.
The key was the Reformation. Baptists don't often talk fondly if at all about the Reformation. It would seem church history in most Baptist congregations starts the day the congregation was incorporated. I never heard much about the Reformation from the pulpit except vague references and stray quotes from a famous Baptistic theologian named C.H. Spurgeon.
As I studied more I found out why. The Reformation's rallying cry was "by faith alone". No Baptist would disagree with this EXCEPT the Reformers declared that EVEN FAITH is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). It is NOT something we muster up in response to the Gospel call. Enter what is often called, "Calvinism". Baptists for the most part are extremely "freewill" (Arminianism/Semi-Pelagian) advocates. No wonder they didn't talk about the Reformation, no wonder they didn't talk about C.H. Spurgeon in great detail -- he was a big time "Calvinist".
I felt like a duped fool, like I had been "had" by a 12 year conspiracy. Of course this information was always accessible to me -- I just was never exposed to it.
Before I knew it, I too was becoming increasingly "Reformed" or "Calvinistic". The assistant pastor of the Baptist church was especially opposed to Calvinistic theology and would often vacillate between calling me a heretic and encouraging other members to avoid me, and then calling me a brother whenever it seemed he was getting me to change my mind. I eventually told him he must stop being double-minded and decide once and for all if I am a heretic or a brother.
About this same time, my church attendance had dropped off. I was spending more time in home Bible studies with family and friends who shared the Reformed view. At this point I pressed the assistant pastor to make up his mind: If he considered me a brother then engage me in brotherly discussion -- but if he considered me a heretic then take action and bring the matter before the church as the Bible instructs. When I did this, he told me he had no intention on allowing me to spread my "corrupt beliefs" to the whole congregation and that my lack of consistent attendance already gave him right to remove me from the church.
At first, I was going to force his hand and make him carry out a full blown church trial before the congregation but my wife and young daughter were not up for the strain. So, though I now regret it we simply quietly left after 12 years of membership. No official explanation was given from the pastors to the congregation -- our names were simply quietly removed from the rolls.
The House Church Experience -- Part 3
Having now basically been kicked out of the church my family had attended for over 12 years, the church in which my wife and I were married, the church in which I was baptized, the church in which my young daughter still, ironically enough, was allowed to attend their K-12 school -- we wondered what we would do.
The little study group of 3-4 families with which we had been meeting periodically suggested we move to actually form a church. This is our story of our experience with the "House Church" culture.
At first the House Church experience was exciting. We were all able to interact and study the things that always interested us but seemed to hardly ever be preached from the pulpit. The other families brought forth things the Lord was showing them, which blessed the entire group. We were spending lots of time together. Our spiritual lives were more active then ever because everything we did revolved around the fact we were "church" all the time, not just on Sundays. We thought this must have been closer to how it was in the first-century.
We wanted to share this experience with more people -- I mean it was such a blessing, we almost felt guilty not helping people to be able to participate. Various families came and went but I think the strong Reformed mindset was offsetting -- not because it was harsh or wrong but because it was so foreign to people who were accustomed to "therapeutic" preaching/teaching rather than "theological" preaching/teaching.
It seems this is when the smugness entered. Now, instead of being a humble reflection of a simple form of church, it seems our group was developing a sort of conceit. It seems much of the time during our get-togethers was now being spent talking badly about mainline groups.
Some of us saw this and thought perhaps it was merely the collective immaturity of our group. Our solution was to seek out an established group of like-minds and supplement our time with attending with them. Our little group considered ourselves "Reformed Baptists", thus we began to seek out other Reformed Baptists. There was one congregation about 60 miles away. As we attended this congregation it became clear that although the pastors may have understood Reformed theology and history, the bulk of the congregation did not. The "Bible Studies" run by deacons and other members of the congregation were still of the typical "40 days of purpose" mentality. Yet, we wanted to give this every opportunity so we stuck it out for a few months. We even spoke with the pastors about what we were seeing and they fully admitted most of the congregation was not knowledgeable of the Reformed heritage and indeed has little interest in it. Sadly, our group parted from the congregation.
A family within our group started talking about our group actually becoming a church (as if a fellowship is somehow not a real church). One guy within our group had actually been taking schooling to be a pastor someday, so he was starting to be considered the de facto pastor of our group.
This is where our little group entered a new phase and perhaps the start of the group's collapse. You see, first off this young man was the youngest among us. Although that doesn't always mean he is unqualified to "lead", in this case the stereotype fit. His personal life and marriage life was obviously in conflict with the kind of character required to be respected. Sure, he could preach a moving and theologically accurate sermon but that is not enough. The entire time he preached, there was a little voice in the back of my head saying "hypocrisy". It is one thing if the person preaching fully admits his shortcomings as he preaches, especially if the sermon is directly related -- but it is another if those shortcomings are glossed over and even the person's very own preaching seems without effect.
Again, we began to see a need for influence from a more established congregation. The next closest established Reformed Baptist congregation was over 125 miles away, yet for several weeks we would all drive down on Sundays to attend all day with this congregation. We told them what we were trying to do and they instructed us that a church cannot simply be formed by the desire of a few people but must be a "plant" from an established church. They wanted to bring our group under their direction. At least one family was very excited about this and hosted the pastors/elders in his house during a few of our meetings. (They drove up to our meetings.)
They began to instruct us about how a Reformed Baptist church should operate. The first thing we needed according to them was a "confession" -- not a confessional booth but rather a document which spelled out what we all believed as a group. As Reformed Baptists, there was already a confession being utilized. The elders introduced our group to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The first thing that came to my mind was the date, 1689. Why such a recent document? Why a document that is static? Did the authors suppose there was nothing else to ever consider?
Next, the elder introduced us to Sabbatarianism via "The Lord's Day", especially through the writings of such men as Robert Murray McCheyne. As the elders introduced us to more and more historical Reformed literature I began to notice something. All of the authors were Presbyterians. Being a Baptist most of my life, I guess I never really thought much about this, but if we as Baptists are holding the writings of these Presbyterians in such high regard to be mimicking them (especially as I later found out the 1689 Baptist Confession is simply a Baptistic copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith), then why are we toying around with being Baptists?
Our little group was already going through upheaval as the stress between the wannabe pastor, the introduction of so many new concepts and general immaturity, but now I was expressing serious concerns about why we were Baptists instead of Presbyterians. The immediate answer was obviously because Presbyterians are <gasp!> "baby-baptizers" (see paedobaptists). I pushed the group a little harder on this issue. I mean, if we think these Presbyterians are so correct on these other issues, maybe they are correct on baptism as well. This did not sit well with the group.
I asked if we as a group could at least visit a local Reformed Presbyterian congregation. You would have thought I uttered the unforgivable sin. By this point, I had a keen concept that as the head of my family I was ultimately responsible for my family in all regards -- physical needs and spiritual needs. I decided if the group would not at least visit the Reformed Presbyterian congregation, which ironically was from the very heritage of one of our favorite theologians (John Knox), then my family and I would visit without the group. The congregation was part of the Reformed Presbyterians of North America (see RPCNA).
The Reforming Years -- Part 4
As my family began attending the Reformed Presbyterian congregation we noticed some immediate differences from our dispensationist background.
- The average congregant was better versed in the Bible
- Women on average were better versed in the Bible
- There was a serious reverence (no jokes typically from the pulpit)
- There was a downplaying of individualized focus (no solo singers)
- There was equal focus on the OT and NT
- There was a focus on knowing Christian history along with the Bible
I'm not trying to say these things aren't present in other types of Christian heritage, just that I noticed a marked contrast from my former denomination.
The congregation was instructed to conduct discussion in the foyer and enter into the "sanctuary" in quiet reverence as if you are coming before the very presence of God.
The RPCNA is what is called an exclusive psalmody group, meaning they only sing psalms in worship and only a capella (without instruments). I don't want to use this testimony to make a case either way for this practice but simply wanted to say I found it a blessing for two reasons: (1) it allowed me to actually learn Scripture while worshiping rather than singing some manmade hymn that may even be theologically incorrect, and (2) it allowed me to sing God's Word back to Him in affirmation that nothing I could bring would match His own gift to us, just as Christ's work on the Cross trumps any work we could do to obtain our salvation.
The psalm sang would then start off the service by being explained by an elder and typically would be reinforced by being sung again at end of the service. Our congregation had a choir (not all RPCNA congregations do), but the choir stood in the back so as not to be the focus and would only sing one or two songs along with the entire congregation. The rest of the singing was done by the entire congregation.
Another practice in the RPCNA is what they would call the "fenced table" approach to the Communion/Lord's Supper. As the Bible explains, any self-examined Christian can partake of Communion (1 Cor 11:27-32) yet in the RPCNA the elders (collectively called the session) must first affirm the person has made an acceptable profession of faith before they are allowed to partake. (See these articles: 1, 2.)
I have heard it explained and related to how a "fence" was placed around the mountain where Moses met with God (Ex 19:12-13) but how the priests could come up the mountain before God (Ex 19:23-24, Ex 24:1-2). This would certainly explain in part why in Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodoxy only the priests can approach the "elements" of the bread and wine and only by them may a person receive such. It seems the RPCNA has kept some element of this.
The people of the Reformed heritage also try to understand and express being a "covenantal people", distinct, elected -- not by their own merits but by the grace and mercy of God alone. This does not exclude people who have not manifested/professed their faith -- but only requires this profession before others so that they can be considered part of the covenant people (with exception of infant baptism) -- simply calling yourself a "Christian" is not enough.
Presbyterians, as I mentioned earlier are paedobaptists meaning they baptize their infants. Some people are confused by this, thinking that Presbyterians are supposing that infants born to Christians and thus baptized are now considered "saved". Presbyterians are only affirming that their children are part of the "covenant people" -- the covenant community and will be raised, instructed, and trained up in the ways of Christ. Only in time it might be shown via actual profession of faith that the person is actually a regenerated Christian.
Presbyterians see continuity between circumcision and baptism which just like in the OT only means you are part of the covenant community but does not speak to your actual individual standing before God.
The structure of the clergy-laity should be mentioned as Presbyterianism is, in theory, much different than most contemporary churches. Whereas most churches (typically after the Lutheran/Baptist model) have one pastor with perhaps associate or assistant pastors and a board of deacons -- Presbyterians have a plurality of elders and deacons. Again, in theory all of the elders are supposed to have equal voice and authority but in practice it still seems to generate the one man model, especially since there is further distinction with the elders being "ruling" or "teaching" elders. There can typically be only one teaching elder, which seems to act like the head as does the individual pastor model. (See this link.)
The soteriology (salvific model) of the RPCNA is decidedly Calvinistic/Reformed whereas the eschatology (end times model) is a range from premillennial, amillennial, to postmillennial to even preteristic.
I enjoyed my time among the RPCNA. I gained a deeper appreciation for Christian history, how doctrines have been formulated, how Christians are supposed to be a peculiar people in the world but not of the world. My soteriological understanding was enriched because these are the theological descendants of much of what the Reformation was about -- it was a Reformation of soteriology more than anything else and thus Reformed Christians know their soteriology.
But my family's six year stint with this group was about to come to an unexpected and abrupt end, predicated on differences about the motto of the Reformation itself -- REFORMED and ALWAYS REFORMING.
The End is Not Near -- Part 5
For those people who have been graciously reading this, I am sure some of you have been provoked by some of the things herein -- perhaps you found yourself strongly disagreeing with various points. This was supposed to be an honest account of how I "got from there to here" and the trip isn't always smooth, but in all things we ought to give glory to God -- amen?
Perhaps some things were especially grating because you have never experienced it. For instance, when I related my transition from a staunch Baptist to a Presbyterian it may have seemed drastic, but keep in mind this happened over a long period of time. It is not a simple case of "church hopping" or being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. These transitions were building upon former lessons from the Bible. They were not radical destructions of one system to be replaced with another.
I've said all of this to get to the point where I left off. My family had been attending a Reformed Presbyterian congregation for about six years. All was going well. We were growing in faith and biblical understanding. I really started studying our Christian heritage. As a Baptist for 12 years, we weren't really taught Christian heritage, but only Baptist heritage. That heritage, working backwards from the present to the first-century led to many interesting stops along the way. The more provocative of the first stops was that of the Protestant Reformation. It was at this point in history (1300-1600s) that Christianity was radically redefined. Any non-Catholic Christian that ignores this part of our heritage is ignoring much.
I began to really dig in and read Christian history from this period. I found that it was primarily a Reformation of "salvation": that is, the theologians of this period were most interested in the process of how and why a person is "saved" whereas in earlier centuries the Church grappled to define the nature of Christ as the God-man and other issues. So, my focus was on understanding the various salvific models.
I already had dismissed the notion of "freewill" for mankind since the Bible makes it clear mankind is always in bondage -- we are either slaves to sin or slaves of righteousness -- there is no neutral middle ground. (Rom 6:16). But now I began to study even deeper concerns about salvation. Questions like:
- Why didn't God warn Adam about the Serpent?
- Doesn't this ultimately make God the author of sin?
- Why did God need to go through this whole process when He could have simply prevented the Fall?
These issues get at the heart of God's character and the purpose for creation. It is all about the glory of God and what brings Him the maximum glory. Having mankind fall so that God can gloriously save mankind via grace and mercy brings the most glory to God.
This is a repugnant thought to some Christians since it seems to make God a giant puppet master in the sky that simply does things for His own good pleasure. Indeed, THAT is exactly what the Bible says. (Good pleasure of God.)
In studying this subject about the Fall, I learned there were several positions, but most of the Reformers took what is called an infralapsarian or supralapsarian, which simply means infra = "below" and supra = "over" + lapsus = "decline" or "fall". Thus the infralapsarian view advocates that God foresaw the Fall and allowed it whereas the supralapsarian view advocates that God actually decreed/planned the Fall but is not guilty of it in the same way He was not guilty of decreeing Joseph's ordeal to go to Egypt (Gen 50:20).
The only other view is that God was completely unaware of the impending Fall and had to react to it. I don't know too many Christians that would subscribe to that.
While the study of soteriology was my primary focus at this time, I could not help but to see how often eschatology ("end times") was intertwined with soteriology. Jesus' very Gospel message was so intertwined wherein He called people to REPENT and BELIEVE... because the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Mark 1:15).
Back when I was a Baptist, I would like to listen to TV preachers talk about the end times and how they would use the latest news headlines to warn that the end could be here at any moment. I had moved away from those eschatological notions, yet I had not really replaced it with anything. As I said previously, many Reformed folks are either postmillenialists or amilleneialists, ultimately advocating a continued advancement (rather than decline) of the kingdom until Christ would come to completely fulfill His role as King. I guess without realizing it, I had come to hold a postmillennial view.
During my course of studying soteriology, I was reading a book by a theologian named John Owen. The book was called "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". Let that title sink in for a moment. What are the implications of the "death of Death"?
The book mainly concerned itself with advocating "limited atonement" -- Christ dying for/laying His life down for His sheep (John 10:11). But the implications of the title kept haunting me, especially since according to the Bible the "last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:16). This sparked my research into eschatology -- I was already seeing that soteriology and eschatology are intertwined and now here in a book on soteriology there are blatant eschatological implications.
Before long, I was completely re-examining what I used to think about the so-called "end times". Since I had fully parted from the premillennial stance which had a "church age" and a "rapture", and because I never really solidified my Reformed postmillennialism, I was unhindered to start my studies. I could simply let the Scriptures speak.
One of the first dramatic understandings is that the Bible DIDN'T talk about the "end of the world" but more accurately (as seen by several translations and confirmed in every Greek text), the Bible speaks about the "end of the AGE". Only the KJV version (and derivatives of it) used the word "world" -- which really confuses the issue. (See translation comparisons.) And as I said, even the Greek proves that "age" is the proper translation (source).
Next, the Bible never talks about the "end of time" but rather the "time of the end" -- this is a big difference. (See these examples.) So, the question becomes, "The end of what?" This was really affecting everything. If it isn't about the end of the world and it isn't about the end of time, then what is it about?
My studies increased and I began to look at what Jesus actually said about eschatology instead of merely listening to preachers. You can find Jesus' main discussion on this subject in a section called "The Olivet Discourse", so-called because He was having a discussion with His disciples while seated on the Mt of Olives overlooking Jerusalem. (Parallel accounts: Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21.)
I just could not get around the imminency/impending tone of the words of Jesus. In the Olivet Discourse, He is speaking to a specific audience -- His disciples -- and He is telling THEM they would witness and partake in the things He was telling them about -- things typically considered the "signs of the end times". Of course, all my past notions began to flood into my mind, objecting to the very obvious conclusions. I inwardly objected, "But, but but... this hasn't happened and that has happened." I was no longer waiting for a rapture since the Bible doesn't teach it, but in case someone is still holding on to a rapture, let's look briefly at some texts within the Olivet Discourse that are often quoted as referring to the rapture.
It is mainly from this passage that we are taught the so-called "Left Behind" theory, where in the rapture, Christians will be taken to heaven and non-Christians will be left behind. But again, if we read the full context instead of bits cut out of context, we can see the larger, more accurate picture:
Notice, how it was to be with the coming of the Son of Man -- as it was in the days of Noah. How was it in the days of Noah? People were eating and drinking and going about their business, not heeding the warning that destruction was upon them. Then what happened? A flood came and TOOK THEM AWAY. Those "taken" weren't taken to safety but they were taken in destruction. So, when we re-read verses 40-41 we see that those TAKEN were also taken in destruction. Two would be going about their daily work and one would be TAKEN and another would be left behind -- the one left behind lived, the one taken died. It was good to be left behind. The modern prophecy teachers have that backwards -- but hey, it's selling books and movies, eh?
I felt like I had been duped once again by so-called preachers/pastors/teachers. I was now convinced more than ever that if a person is to have a real relationship with Christ, that person needed to stop trying to have that relationship through a third party, be it a pope or a pastor. Each person has access to God via prayer and personal Bible study and yet we often are willing to relinquish this great privilege to other men. I decided at that point I would no longer do such, not out of some rebellious notion that I am smarter than others but out of the awesome duty I have to have a direct, personal relationship with my Lord and King. God's revealed character is in the Scriptures and I had been allowing other men to filter that to me. What an insult to God that I would not seek Him out myself. How many of us would hire or allow a third party to carry on a relationship with our spouse and then report back to us about their experience?
About this time, the advent of the Internet was really coming to force. This allowed me to seek out others who might be seeing the same things I was beginning to see -- since I was still leery that I might be wrong -- I did not want to be egotistical to think I was the first to see these things and sure enough I was not. I found out that what I was seeing about the so-called end times had a theological name: PRETERISM.
I was now able to seek out others by name, and I was amazed to find there were so many and that the preteristic conclusions were so prevalent especially among Reformed theologians of the past.
The Mini-Popes -- Part 6
Having now this stumbled-up eschatology that Jesus was indeed victorious when and how He said He would be, I was eager to see how that affected everything else. The first effect was that the Church is not to be viewed as this cowering group surviving against the persecutions from the world, waiting for the Lord to return. If the Lord HAS returned in a manner He said He would in the Bible, then what should the Church be and what should it be doing?
My first desire was to see more of THE Church, not just the denominations that I had experienced. With this notion in mind, my family and I decided to take six months and go on a "tour of the Church".
Our expressed purpose was not to look for a church that we liked or nitpick at the various practices but merely to observe how "church" is being practiced by others. We wanted to do this in an orderly manner so we decided to visit different denominations in as much of a chronological order as possible and perhaps different congregations of the same denomination just so as to get a full perspective. We started out with the Latin Rite Roman Catholics (they still do things the way much of pre-Reformation Catholics did) and also Greek Orthodox. One thing was immediately apparent with these denominations, they had more reverence for the ceremony than did the Protestant based congregations we have been part of (and would visit). Now, perhaps it was just going through the motions and a show, but for instance in the Latin Rite, the women had to wear head coverings and no idle chit-chat was allowed in the "sanctuary". In the Greek Orthodox church, the Scriptures were brought in for reading among a very elaborate procession where the Bible was carried aloft for all to see. Also, the sermon was recited as a "chant" and there were many responsive readings rather than mere lecture.
We went on to spend time in Lutheran congregations, Church of Christ and others (we had already been part of Baptist and Presbyterian).
Finally, when we returned to the Reformed Presbyterian the elders were upset with us. We were called into a private meeting and told we could not continue to visit other congregations like that. We were told we must be committed to this one congregation and that we were confusing people by not settling down (we weren't even members there). I protested first from Scripture how in the N.T. the Church was united and people moved seamlessly from one location of the Church to the other, but the elders would not listen. I then tried to quote Luther on the nature of the "universal church" but I was told I was not allowed to quote Luther. I did anyhow.
This seemed to be the turning point. My family was not
asked to lunch or dinner as often or at all from some of
the people we formerly knew. But something was about to
really change. Most of the elders already knew I was a
"full preterist" -- and some actually knew what it
even meant. So, that really was not much of a
problem, nor did I try to convert everyone.
The problem came when the church called a new pastor (the old one resigned and we were operating under an interim). This new pastor was a staunch "pastors lead the sheep" kind of guy. The first week he was there he put several books he had authored on our book table for people to purchase -- hmmm.
One day, he was at the pulpit and said, "It is not enough to read your Bible but you must be under the preaching of a pastor." This was too much to bear. This was supposed to be a "Reformed" church where the heritage hails from those who had thrown off the Papal system, and here is this guy installing a new kind of pope -- called pastors. Of course, I didn't stand up and shout "You're Wrong!" (though looking back perhaps I should have). Rather, I wrote a letter to the entire congregation and to the elders as to why that statement is not only wrong but very dangerous and goes against everything it means to be Reformed. This was not received well.
The pastor and a few of the elders called me to repent. I asked that I be able to speak with the entire elder board (including the pastor) to work out the issue, but the pastor would not allow it, telling me he is the one that sets the terms not me. I guess this new pastor needed something to discredit me with, so he was directed toward a website I ran, wherein I discussed at length some of the very things contained in this testimony. He latched on to my "full preterism" and declared me a heretic. At this time, he was still emailing me demands to repent and he was copying this to the elder board. Well as providence would have it, he sent me an email he had only meant for the elders. In this email he told the elder board he had never heard of preterism until two days ago when someone pointed him to my website, yet it was enough to call for my family to be shunned by the congregation. I would have been amused if I were not so appalled that a man can admit he's never studied a specific theological point yet can declare a person a heretic and shun them for it. I was even more shocked that the 150 members of this congregation dutifully did just that. They were instructed to have no more contact with me and no one has to this day. Four years of fellowshipping and they cast it away without any care -- not over immorality but over a disagreement with doctrine, and not even over the initial issue but some side issue that was used. Unbelievable!
My family was discouraged and for that I regret, but the lesson learned, even for my family was that popes come in different sizes. There are a host of mini-popes out there.
This has caused me to really research the structure of the Church especially in relation to the full preterist view that the Chief Shepherd has returned. How should we be "doing church" today? If we really are no longer cowering and waiting (the church militant) and instead are supposed to be the Church Triumphant, ever advancing the Kingdom and ruling and reigning with Christ as kings and priests -- something must be different than the structure we see in the N.T. where that church was waiting for the "Second Coming".
Why the Church is Needed -- Part 7
With the last part, we left off with the introduction of the "endtimes" teaching called preterism. I would here like to warn people to steer clear of organized groups of preterists -- for the most part, these groups are still in a 1 Cor 11:19 stage where they are experiencing and indeed require much "division" to show which teaching is approved by God (if any of them). Full Preterism is rife with arrogance, viciousness, self-servicing, and even tolerance of immorality akin to the tolerance and fake grace and mercy of the 1 Cor 5 congregation. You would do well to avoid "joining" with any website or group that is primarily expressing a preterist agenda... and this from me, a guy who has been a preteristic Christian for over 12 years.
But what we really want to talk about in this final part is the necessity of Church. The simple question is, "Why do we even need to go to church?" We have all seen many responses to this question.
If you don't go to church...
- you won't be spiritually fed.
- you will have no accountability
- you think you are better than others
- you probably aren't really a Christian
I'm sure we could add more but these few are the most common. Now, let's make sure we honestly contrast this with some reasons people give for NOT going to church.
Reasons people give for not attending church...
- Churches are full of hypocrites
- Churches just want your money
- Christians are the meanest people to meet
- People can worship God in their private way
Add some of the reasons we are told we must go to church with the reasons some people say they don't go to church and we have quite a mess. Let's deal with the first list.
- Where is spiritual food? Who would say we must be spoon-fed the rest of our lives? If a person really is a new creature, "re-born", then at some point they MUST mature enough to bring the spoon to their own mouths. No modern day pastor or elder is required to feed people their entire lives because pastors and elders draw the food from the same source that all of us can -- the Bible. We need to mature to a point where we are feeding from the Word without the aid of a caretaker. Quite frankly, we need to at some point be weaned off the milk-bottle and start eating the meat of the Word (Heb 5:13).
- What is meant by "accountability"? Do we mean someone to keep us from falling into temptation and sin? That apparently isn't working too well in many of the churches in America today as not only are churches full of people committing fornication and adultery but often even the "clergy" are committing these sins, right under the nose of the church's "accountability". What we need is a community of believers that don't just interact one day a week, but that our entire lives are of such where we aren't so much holding one another to account, but that we are edifying and building up one another in the Lord so that our every movement is one in the service of Christ, our very identity is that of a Christian and not compartmentalized as it often is today where we are different people throughout the week.
- This accusation that someone thinks they are better and therefore do not think they have to attend church could be a valid accusation or it could be even more evidence that most churches have become self-help therapy sessions, rather than places where Christians go to rejuvenate by focusing on worship of God and reading of His Word in the company of likeminded believers. Many churches have such a program of trying to get new people into the church that the seasoned Christians are surrounded by weak Christians (if even Christians at all) and often the leadership spends most of their time holding the milk-bottle or feeding sweet treats to the immature Christians, that the more mature Christians have to seek out other places to re-charge their batteries to face the world every day. Sure, perhaps you say that the more seasoned Christians could help in the feeding of the new Christians, but this still does not answer the problem of the growth of the seasoned Christian. They can't grow if they are spending their full time babysitting. Nor do many Christians think it is right to constantly feed sweets to new Christians and prefer not to participate in this activity. We should all be feeding on the good food -- the Word, not spiffy little role-playing routines or entertainment sessions and such.
- The implication that a person may not be a Christian if they don't attend a church is so far off the mark. There are many Christians at this very moment that due to extreme persecution are only able to meet, maybe with one or two other people -- yet how dare we claim they aren't Christians because they don't attend a building with designer window shades and plush covered pews. Granted, though -- if a person claims to be a Christian and has no desire to seek out other Christians, this may be cause for concern. It seems God has put in the heart of Christians to seek one another out wherever they can -- at work, at school and if someone claims not to have this desire, I would be concerned. We should not forsake the assembling together, but this doesn't mean we must attend an organized, institutional church.
Now let us look at the second list.
- Even if many of the people in a church are hypocrites, what makes staying away from them any better? Isn't someone who avoids hypocrites, especially hypocrites within their own social group actually worse than the hypocrites because they are neglecting confronting such people, for the eventual end to the hypocritical behavior? How much good could come if more Christians started pointing out the hypocrisy among us so that eventually hypocrisy had no place to dwell, but instead we neglect to say anything because that might be seen as intrusive or cause too much tension. So much for this claim of "accountability" if we can't even exercise it on this most basic level for fear of being "judgmental". We neglect our duty to one another as brothers and sisters.
- I have yet to attend a church where they hold you down and take your money, no matter how much they may try to guilt you into giving. If you are resisting going to church because you feel like they are always asking for money, just don't give them anything or find a church that isn't constantly trying to add on to the building. This really isn't much of a reason not to go to church.
- As for Christians being the meanest people, well wouldn't you be mean too if most of your life someone was hyping you up with sugar? So many preachers these days are only preaching feel-goodism and fake love and mercy without the need for true restorative repentance, that many Christians are literally walking babies with the bodies of adults but the spiritual minds of infants. We shouldn't be surprised if some of these people throw themselves on the floor and pout like children whenever they don't get their way. Again, we can go on neglecting the state of the Church or we can try to reform it.
- This answer should be compared to the previous #4 -- I have yet to see a Christian that doesn't love the blessing of finding a dedicated likeminded believer with whom they can share their dedication to the Lord. Of course, even if you were the last Christian alive you should still be able to worship Christ, but what a blessing when you find you are not the last "Elijah"! (Rom 11:3-4)
The Church is the Bride/Wife of Christ and at the wedding, one Body with Christ as Adam and Eve became one body "flesh of flesh and bone of bone" -- the Church is supposed to be an expression of Christ. Instead, because of years of neglect by God's people she is hardly able to lift her head, and when the veil is pushed aside, people do not see the reflection of Christ in her eyes, but they see a glassy dazed stare sapped of all power, glory, and dignity. A "revival" is not enough, we need a reformation to once again bring honor to the name of Christ and to His Bride.
Let us not retreat from Church but to reclaim it from those people (be they "laymen" or "clergy") who have made it a den of thieves and a cesspool of pop-culture.
We need the Church and it needs us.
I hope you have enjoyed this not so brief testimony. I pray that something I said encourages you and sparks a renewed spirit of dedication in you.
In Christ alone,
Roderick 03/27/07
Part | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Discuss this story in the forums
Note: Roderick Edwards runs the thekingdomcome.com website.