The Testimony of Philip P. Bliss, Hymnwriter and Song Leader

A couple weeks ago, our church choir did a concert that shared the story of the life of Philip P. Bliss, a 19th-century hymnwriter, song leader, and "chorister" [choir director] from Chicago.  Although he died at the young age of 38, he write many hymns and songs, and is best known for "It Is Well With My Soul," written after his four young children perished in a shipwreck.

Our church's choir director found the excerpt below and, at my request, shared it with me.  I lifted it from this website.  You can also find it here (Chapter 4).  It originally comes from a contemporary pastor's recollection of Bliss.

Please notice that Bliss believed church music to be integral to the worship, and that, contrary to ideas widespread today, those who participated needed to be singing for their God's glory, not for their own; not for their own recognition, but for His. 

Few pastors, I am persuaded, are privileged to have in their choristers such gifted, sympathizing, efficient helpers. Too often, it is to be feared, the pulpit and the choir gallery are out of harmony as to the ends proposed, or the methods by which the ends agreed on shall be sought; and the cases are not few, nor hard to find, where in the handling of choir-leaders and those who abet them, the Lord's house is turned into a concert hall, the service of song made largely a device for filling and renting pews, and the minister compelled to sandwich his part in between performances that suggest anything but the worship of God or the salvation of men. Sometimes, indeed, he has to come to his duties in the pulpit after the world and the flesh and the devil have, through the fingers and lips of an unconverted organist and choir-leader, set things moving to their liking, and then turn the service over to them after the sermon, to be finished up as they elect. Doubtless the devil likes that way of conducting Sabbath services. If he can only get people's heads full of waltzes and operas and sonatas and what-not else, before the preaching comes, and then have a chance to follow it up with a march or an aria of his own selection, the preacher's thirty minutes of Gospel will not damage his interests. Little wonder that preaching in such circumstances saves few souls. It is like expecting harvest with the enemy invited to go before the toiler, sowing tares, and to follow him gathering up and snatching away the seed.

To those who knew anything of P.P. Bliss, it will not be needful to say that he had no sympathy with any such idea of the music of the sanctuary. He shared to the fullest extent my feeling, that the disposition to make the song and service of God's house showy and entertaining was an abomination in God's sight. He held, as I did, that all music in connection with worship, whether by instrument or voice, should be consecrated and worshipful. In his conception, he who led at the organ should be one to come to the keys fresh from his closet, one who should pray, as his hands swept over the manuals, that the power of God might, through him, constrain the people's hearts to worship in spirit and in truth. So he believed that all who led in the service of song should sing with grace in their hearts; that the music should be strictly spiritual music - not selections made on grounds of taste, high musical character, but selections aimed at honoring God, exalting Jesus Christ, magnifying His Gospel - music, in a word, that God's Spirit could wholly own and use to comfort, strengthen, and inspire God's people, and lead unsaved souls to Christ. Accordingly, the highest devotional character marked all his selections, all his rehearsals, all his leadership in the Lord's house. It was his invariable custom to open his rehearsals by prayer. He often invited me to lead in that service, and to address the choir on the subject of the singing adapted to worship; and few weeks passed without his impressing the spiritual idea as the all-controlling one, and one never to be forgotten by those who were to lead the praises of the congregation.

As Mr. Bliss stood in the choir gallery, partly facing the singers, during his leadership, there was exactly in front of him, in the eastern window of the transept a large crimson cross. Many times during rehearsals he would point thither, saying, "I am glad we have the cross always before us. Let us forget everything else when we sing. Let us seek to have the people lose sight of us, of our efforts, our skill, and think only of Him who died thereon, and of the peace, comfort. strength, joy He gives them that trust him." It is not strange that, with such a chorister in charge, all solicitude about anthems and voluntaries vanished from the preacher's mind. Whatever the selection, I knew it would be full of worship alike in the sentiment and the rendering, would prepare the way for the Word of God; and when the sermon was ended, no matter what the final thought, whether admonition, encouragement or appeal, I always felt sure that the choirister's heart was one with mine, perfect confidence that the impression sought to be produced would be deepened.

Churches, Pastors, E-mail, and the Great Commission

Now that I have moved to Greenville, begun a job, and gotten my kids into school, one of the remaining big decisions is choosing a church. This is not as easy as it may sound. There are a plethora of Bible-preaching churches here in the Greenville area. I have already visited ten, some of them more than once.

I obtained a list of churches concerning which I had some confidence in their doctrine. They were from a variety of denominations, although most were independent and the majority were Baptist. After whittling the list down due to geography and other factors, there were still more about which I had interest.

Visiting a church by yourself, or with your spouse alone, isn't too bad. But when you have four children to farm out to Sunday School (or whatever childrens' ministries may be planned for that time), it's a bit more complicated. And quite frankly, I don't want to spend all of 2010 visiting more churches and making this decision. So for churches I had not yet visited, I decided to check out their websites for additional information, and after writing a generic letter with several key questions (designed to eliminate churches which were unlike what we are looking for), planned to send it to another ten churches.

That's when the problems began.

Of the ten churches, it appears five do not have websites.

One of the churches with a website had no contact information beyond the church address and phone number and service times.

Another church—and this was annoying—did not contain an e-mail address but instead had a place to type your message and send it on one of the pages. Trouble was, I had to enter a six-character security code to send the message...and it wouldn't let me! So that church hasn't heard from me.

So if you're keeping track, that means I sent three e-mails at approximately 11:00 p.m. yesterday. Here are the results:

One pastor responded about an hour later. He wrote a message of near-sermon length which, indeed, sounded like a sermon transcript on ecclesiology (the study or doctrine of the church). The whole tenor of the response, though both thorough and innocuous, was vaguely disconcerting. Perhaps we will visit this church. Perhaps not.

A second pastor responded the following afternoon. This was the polar opposite of the first response: Curt. He did not answer some of my questions, yet threw in some information I had not asked about. We will not be visiting this church.

The third pastor has not responded yet. [Update: The third pastor gave me a phone call the day after I wrote the original post, answering my questions in a friendly and helpful way. We will likely visit his church.]

So what have I learned from this?

The first thing I learned is that if I ever become a pastor or leader of a church, there will be a website and it will have every possible means of getting in touch with our church. This is not simply a matter of convenience; it is a means of fulfilling the Great Commission. If I am a pastor, and there is someone out there who is actually seeking a church (and especially if they are asking questions relevant to their faith), don't I want to be doing whatever I can to draw them to my church like a magnet draws iron?

The first pastor who responded to me, to his credit, seems to understand this. He wasted no time—writing near midnight—responding and inviting me to his church. The second pastor does not; his response came across as, at best, dutiful; at worst, annoyed that I would bother him.

But apparently at least six other pastors also do not understand this...the ones whom I could not e-mail. Surely we all must recognize by now that so many people who don't care to darken the door of a church will still use e-mail to communicate! The lost can be reached this way—why are pastors and churches not taking advantage?

If you are a pastor (or you have influence on a pastor), I implore you: Get a website and a church e-mail address. Emblazon it upon all your materials, from bulletins to tracts. Let the world know how, even if in the privacy of their own bedroom, they can contact you. And if you have a facebook page, a blog, or a Twitter feed, so much the better. You can still give your address and phone, draw a map, and give the service times, but take advantage of 21st-century technology to reach the world around you.

Thoughts on Worship

I read an article today describing a church in PA that recently opened a "branch" in a building that formerly housed a car dealership. While I certainly have no disagreement with the use of such a building for a church, I disagreed strongly with the type of "worship" this church practiced. It was self-focused and attempting to draw people into the facility, rather than God-focused and attempting to please Him.

Worship of God is not up to us. It is not about what we think it should be. It is not about what we want or think is right.

Worship of God is decided by God. It is about what He thinks it should be. It is about what He wants and what He determines is right.

Let us all learn what the Bible teaches about worship. I think it would surprise a lot of people today.

Scary Hillary Clinton Photo

This troubles me on more levels than I can keep track of (Thanks to blogprof for finding it):


Correct me if I'm wrong, but which political party is it that threatens to sic the IRS on your church if it takes positions politically??

Obama at Notre Dame, and an Interesting Quote

According to this article, in comments today to Catholics at a national prayer breakfast, Archbishop Raymond Burke slammed Notre Dame University for inviting President Obama to speak and to receive an honorary degree; specifically, he called it a "scandal." I have addressed this subject already.

He also spoke about Katherine Sibelius, a Catholic, who has been appointed to Obama's Cabinet, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians; the article contains this quotation from the archbishop, in reference to these various Catholic politicians:

He added that it "grieves me to say that the support of anti-life legislation by Catholics in public office is so common that those who are not Catholics have justifiably questioned whether the church's teachings regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is firm and unchanging. It gives the impression that the church herself can change the law that God has written on every human heart since the beginning of time." [Emphasis mine]

Wow! As a Baptist myself, concerned with my own testimony and that of my church, it scares me to think what we would be like if, due to the pervasive subversion by us of Bible doctrine, we gave the impression that we (Christians individually, or the church collectively) were able to change that doctrine to suit our own purposes.

This does not extend only to the "sanctity of human life" issue. If thousands of Christians (or Baptists in particular) were to publicly support a doctrine that says Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, would that give an impression? If thousands were to claim that salvation could be achieved through our own works, would that give an impression? If thousands were to claim that evolution is the explanation for how we got here, would that give an impression?

What impression are you giving those around you? What impression does your church give on Scriptural matters?

Something to think about for the weekend.

Barack Obama and the Catholics: Will the Catholics Ever Learn?

According to this foxnews.com article, when Barack Obama spoke at Georgetown University on Tuesday (see my preceding post), his administration requested—and Georgetown University complied—that the religious symbols behind the lecturn in the chapel, including the name of Christ, be covered.

Does it strike anyone besides me that it is the height of arrogance to request to speak in a chapel and then to request that the religious elements in the background be covered? When you are the guest? If you wish to speak in an environment free of religious symbolism, surely a university the size of Georgetown has an auditorium, or theatre, or some similar venue where a speech could be given?

Combined with the fact that he then goes to this Catholic university and misuses the Holy Scriptures? (Again, see preceding post)

Obama spoke at Georgetown University before, in September of 2006, at this same chapel, where he gave a typically liberal/statist speech on energy independence. As Senator, it does not appear that he was given the opportunity to change the background.

Catholic leadership (and laity) need to recognize that no matter how much they coddle or befriend Obama, there is no reason to believe that he will conform his views to match theirs. Giving him an honorary doctorate at a prestigious school? No. Allowing him to speak and essentially backhand you by asking you to cover up what you consider important symbolism? Not gonna matter.

Obama's views are, and have been, at odds with Catholic doctrine and teaching. Catholics need to stand up, not bow down.

Contemptible, Evil, and Perverse!

It is a troubling day in America, when according to this story, a group of about thirty perverse sodomites entered a church on a Sunday morning and began to...

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

There is more. You can check the link. Where did this happen? San Francisco or some other California den of iniquity? Key West? New York City? No.

It happened in Lansing, Michigan, at the Mount Hope Church.

It is also contemptible that the mainstream media, which would blaze it throughout the western world if a Christian group did something of this sort at a homosexual crowd's meeting, has not picked up on this story. The only other article I could find on the topic is here...and please note, this is an "alternative newspaper." More on this later.

Sarah Palin and Her Church

Some more resources of information:

Here is a Newsweek article from last week about Wasilla Bible Church. Like the New York Times article I cited a few days ago, it's a relatively liberal publication which still comes across making Palin look like a conservative churchgoer.

Here is the website of Wasilla Bible Church, Palin's current home church. According to the Newsweek article, Sarah Palin was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church, began attending the Assembly of God church in her teens....

"Todd Stafford, an associate pastor at Wasilla Assembly of God, says Palin often publicly thanks Riley--now nearly 80 and still working as a prison chaplain--for bringing her to Jesus when she visits the church. She attended that Pentecostal church until she was 38 years old, when she switched to Wasilla Bible Church, saying she preferred the children's ministries there."

The church's statement of faith can be viewed here. Although some of us would be inclined to add to it or rephrase a little bit here or there, it will be recognized as orthodox by those of us who are fundamental baptists.

Here is a link to my first post on this topic.

Sarah Palin and Her Religion: An Article and Video

In a New York Times article entitled, In Palin's Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God's Will, this eminent publication [all the liberal commentary that's fit to print, the saying goes] takes a look at Sarah Palin and her churchgoing ways.

I encourage you to read the article, keeping in mind that the NYT has a habit of trying to make conservatives look as bad as possible while still clinging to threads of objectivity.

Gov. Palin spent much of her life attending the Assembly of God church in her hometown of Wasilla, but in recent years has attended Wasilla Bible Church. One person interviewed, who knew the Palin family for many years, suggested that they moved because the Assembly of God church was more "extreme," practicing tongues speaking and miraculous healings.

The article also links to a youtube video of Palin addressing a group of seminary students at Wasilla Assembly of God earlier this year, which has been in the news recently. She asks prayer for a number of things, which devout Christians would recognize as worthy, important matters to pray about.

Several observations from the article:

• She asked for spiritual advice from her former, retired pastor, when she became governor. The pastor says he thinks she followed the advice.
• Interviews with her pastors and friends point to this conclusion, and I quote from the article: "her foundation and source of guidance is the Bible, and with it has come a conviction to be God’s servant."
• She acknowledges that God has sent her to her place of leadership.
• Another friend and associate from Wasilla said of her: “The churches that Sarah has attended all believe in a literal translation of the Bible....Her principal ethical and moral beliefs stem from this.”
• This same friend also said that Gov. Palin believes in prayer and the power of prayer: “Her beliefs are firm in the power of prayer — let’s put it that way,” she said.
• In her video presentation, only several minutes long, she asks that those assembled pray for several things, emphasizing that God's plan be accomplished.

A quote from the pastor of Wasilla Bible Church:

“I trust my people can go out with that [the ability to analyze the Bible] and they can deal with an issue such as abortion — any issue out there — whether it’s in the public arena, or in the hospital room with their relative dying of cancer, because they will be equipped with a biblical perspective that will enable them to react in that situation,” said Mr. Kroon, who described himself as “pro-life.”

Her church also baptizes by immersion.

On the video, she says, "all of that stuff [various governmental functions had been listed] doesn't do any good, if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

It is important to note here that this article comes from the New York Times, a rather liberal paper—and she still comes across as a conservative Christian! On the youtube video you see someone who is familiar with Christianity, who feels comfortable on the stage of her former church, who speaks as one who has felt the hand of God leading her. I cannot judge her heart, but I am encouraged by what I see.

Additional information can be found at this post from 9/8/08.

What Kind of Message?

According to this somewhat disturbing foxnews.com article, there is now a website that offers an interesting service: It will forward messages to up to 62 of your friends on the sixth day after the Rapture of the church occurs. You will be able to leave them your financial information, powers of attorney, etc.—even tell them where you hide the family jewels, I suppose.

And then there is this troubling quote:

"You've Been Left Behind gives you one last opportunity to reach your lost family and friends for Christ," the site promoting the service says.

Do not be so sure. Although you might be able to tell them where you have gone, the Bible seems to indicate that those who have rejected Christ before the Rapture will not accept Him as Savior afterwards.

I have a conundrum here: If I subscribed to this service, what would I tell them?

If I have been a faithful witness of the gospel, the most I could help them with is some financial gain or advice on how to deal with widespread destruction. In other words, nothing of eternal significance. But if I haven't been a faithful witness, then I just can't think of anything I could tell them which would draw them toward God. If it wasn't important enough to share while I was here, why bother with it after I am gone....?

Need a Plane?

Take a look at this article—someone has one for sale!

BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) — Dwindling donations to the Living Word Christian Center in this Twin Cities suburb have prompted its high-profile pastor, Mac Hammond, to put his private business jet on the market.

Church spokesman the Rev. Brian Sullivan says Living Word has also cut its hourlong Sunday morning television broadcast to 30 minutes to save money.

He says the church has fallen $40,000 to $70,000 short of its weekly budget in recent weeks, and the church is adjusting its budget accordingly.

Sullivan said the church's problems could be a combination of the recession and the recent bad publicity about churches preaching prosperity gospel, which holds that God wants his followers to flourish financially.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has asked six mega-ministries that preach a prosperity message to submit financial documents and answer questions about spending and oversight. He is trying to ensure they follow IRS rules for nonprofits.

Hammond's church was not among those targeted, but he is on the board of Kenneth Copeland's ministries, based in Texas. Copeland is one of the pioneers of the theology and a Grassley target.

Sullivan said the church is aggressively marketing the jet, and the money raised from the sale would be reinvested in the ministry.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press.

On The Role of the Pastor as Shepherd, Part 2

I see the role of the pastor of a local N.T. church as having two intersecting, complementing facets: Shepherd and Bishop.

As Shepherd, the pastor is responsible for taking his "flock" of church members and leading them from where they are now spiritually toward what God wants them to be and to learn. He must "feed" them spiritually in his preaching, teaching, example, and discipling. He must, as the psalmist beautifully describes, "lead them in the paths of righteousness." And to lead, of course, he must be a mature Christian who demonstrates faith in the Word and its Author.

As Bishop, he must "administrate" the local church. He does need to see that it follows its protocols and by-laws, that the staff of the church performs its assigned functions, and that church services and activities are carried out in proper fashion. He is the one, to paraphrase Harry Truman, with whom the buck stops. But this leadership, while quite necessary, does not exempt him from accountability; he, too, must serve faithfully and righteously.

All of us would do well to learn from this Scripture:

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1 Peter 2:21-25)

Pastors, you have your example. Encourage and edify us by striving for it—give us an example to follow.

On The Role of the Pastor as Shepherd

Maybe it's just me...but I don't think so.

A week ago, a good Christian friend of mine, who has been serving in the same Christian school for six-and-a-half years, was quickly dismissed for (as near as I can tell) upsetting a few people. He did nothing to merit such a dismissal—trust me, I grilled him about it—but there were parents who wanted him gone. And it happened. The pastor was described as a "Pontius Pilate:" He washed his hands of the matter while a deacon and the principal broke the news to my friend...right after Sunday morning church.

Back in the 90's, my own mother was railroaded by a pastor and an elder whom she apparently irritated. My parents left that church.

The first Christian school in which I taught was headed by a pastor who showed no love to anyone in his congregation (except perhaps his family). When I confronted him about a lie and some other issues, I was essentially told to shut up and get in line...or leave. We left.

Another good friend of mine, formerly a principal at a Christian school in Indiana, was treated horribly by his pastor, who eventually forced him out because either he felt "threatened" by the year-to-year success of the school or because he wanted his son to get the job...or both.

Another church some of my relatives belonged to some years ago was headed by a pastor who summarily bounced them from his church for disagreeing with him.

And in 2001, several of us at a church in Jacksonville watched in horror as our "pastor" entangled himself in a web of scandal and forced out the principal, and then had several of us wondering if we'd be next. The details of this scandal are still painful to remember.

[Aside: All six of these pastors had the same alma mater....the one I proudly claim. All but the last one are still in the same pulpits. None of the other people involved in the situations described are still in those churches.]

And there are many other similar stories I have heard from my friends over the years.

It both grieves and angers me when I observe these things. Is not the pastor, of all people in the church, supposed to demonstrate the love of God? To demonstrate selflessness? To lift up the weary and comfort the tenderhearted? To stand boldly against the devil—instead of those God-serving Christians in his midst?

Some verses on the matter:

1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:1-2)

Yes, I know—it's an O.T. passage that has no direct connection to the church. I believe the principle is the same, though. As near as I can tell, the Hebrew word for "pastors" here is a participle of a verb which means "to feed" in the sense of a shepherd leading his flock to pasture. And is this not a proper picture of the N.T. pastor of the local church? And is the "woe" promised of God equally appropriate to pastors of N.T. local churches who "drive away" and "scatter" their flocks?

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7)

Here we have the "classic" passage on the qualifications of the bishop or pastor. Let us notice in the last two verses that "being lifted up with pride" will cause him (or any other Christian, for that matter) to fall into the condemnation of the devil. I am particularly disgusted by a spirit found among some pastors that exudes the aura of "this is my church, and I am its ruler." This is nothing more than naked pride—pride which delights Satan and grieves God. It hurts his testimony both among the flock and among the unsaved. The devil will use this to his advantage.

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Timothy 5:17-20)

Here is a passage rich in application for this topic. A few observations:

• There are elders/pastors that "rule well." And they indeed are worthy of great honor. But there is a logical implication that there are elders who do not. Should they be honored because of the position they occupy? Yes. [This also applies to deacons, teachers, parents, governmental leaders, and others who hold God-ordained positions of leadership.] Should rampant and unfounded accusations against them be given credence? No. If they sin, should they be rebuked? Yes...just like any other Christian. I am reminded that Matthew 18:15-17 applies to all Christians, including pastors.
• Those who labor in the church—and this includes Christian schools—should receive the treatment vs. 18 applies. I have a theory based on my observations: Christian school teachers are the most abused members of many fundamental churches, and it is most often the pastor of the church who is most at fault for this. If the Christian school movement falters and fails, it will, in largest part, be on the heads of the pastors...especially those who drive away the God-serving staff members in those schools.
  

There are pastors who "rule well." I have one at my church. I count the pastor of my in-laws' church as a good friend...and so do they. There are many others—praise the Lord—who serve faithfully, lovingly, and unswervingly in their local churches. But if they fall into sin, or if they mistreat the members of their flock, I will firmly, carefully, and in Christian love confront them about their sin. It is my duty.

On the Topic of "Kid's Times" in Church

The Sharper Iron website (see link at right) recently featured an article by Pastor Aaron Blumer on Why Churches Should Have "Kid Times" (read his article here), to which a rebuttal was composed by Pastor Greg Stiekes (read his article here). Blumer's article focuses on some good, practical reasons for the practice, while Stiekes's article primarily focuses on the fact that (a) the Bible is rather silent about the practice, and (b) the Bible emphasizes, as did society in Bible times, a family-centered, family-oriented teaching environment. Stiekes also emphasizes that Blumer's views are primarily practical and experience-based and not Bible-based.

I am my wife and our friend discussed these two articles, and found ourselves of one mind on the topic. Both men make good points, but they may be setting a fine example of "How the pendulum can swing too far in either direction." We believe that Blumer's points are not only practical but wise. There are times for, and benefits in, taking the younger children and teaching them in a separate environment more suited to their learning level. Should they always be in a separate "service" while their parents are in the "main service?" Of course not. We agree with Stiekes that the parents do, in fact, have the most primary responsibility for the upbringing and teaching of the children, and that it is good for the children to be in the "main service" with their parents. Do they always need to be there? No.

I am exceedingly thankful that at my church, there are both times of teaching for my children apart from the adult service, and that there are times when they are expected to be in the auditorium with their parents, learning from our pastor. My children benefit in a variety of ways from both. I am grateful for the godly ministry and examples of the various people who serve the Lord by serving and teaching my children. This augments and reinforces what they are taught at home. If I thought that these people would somehow stunt or harm my children's spiritual growth, I would promptly remove the kids from their influence.

It is of primary benefit for children to see, model, and learn from godly parents, but it of additional benefit for children to see, model, and learn from other godly people, too. Those other godly people help my wife and me to fulfill our God-given responsibilities as parents.

In closing, our friend (ever the practical mother) also pointed out this practical nugget, overlooked by both pastors and me:

"...then when you invite a totally unchurched family to your church, you better be prepared to help that family know how to keep their children quiet in church. I don't know many unchurched children who have been trained to sit for an hour or more without some distractions to the parents. That can be frustrating to the parent and cause them to not want to come back if it's going to be so much trouble. And then what about the bus ministries. You mean, you're going to bring in a bus full of (usually) unruly children (without their parents....usually) and make them sit unattended in a church service?"

The Dumbing Down of Youth Ministry

Pastor Dan Burrell, in this article in Sharper Iron, does a great job making many points I have believed for years. Parents must remember that it is not the job of the youth pastor to parent their children, and youth pastors must remember that it is not their job to merely entertain the kids and "make church fun." Both parents and youth pastors/leaders have a spiritual responsibility to God to point those young people toward Christ, toward service to Him, toward loving God and others, and toward personal spiritual maturity.

Churches that intentionally make their youth group a "fun hangout" separate from the "real concerns" of a N.T. church are doing a terrible disservice to their families. Teens need to be "plugged in" to those real concerns....and they may very well enjoy being an active part of the body of Christ. In the church, fun activities are a means...not an end.

What should our churches be like?

I read a fascinating entry on Sharper Iron (see blog link in right column) several days ago about a young couple who, for a time, attended what we might call a "more contemporary" church. They eventually left it and settled in a "more traditional" church. I will summarize and augment the discussion here.

There were essentially two points of view about two kinds of churches. Let us first look at the "more contemporary" church. The couple had some issues with the type of music used, the less formal atmosphere, and the relatively consistent "milky"—as opposed to "meaty"—preaching [There were also some doctrinal problems, too, but more on that later]. But this couple was thoroughly impressed with the friendliness of the crowd (especially to new folks like themselves), their apparent desire to do what God wanted them to do, their hunger for teaching, their kindness to others outside the church as well to church members, and their desire to "reach out" to those in the community.

Many of our "more traditional" churches are different. The sermons are more doctrinal or expositional in nature, the music is conservative (and generally not "modern" in its sound), and there is both a more formal atmosphere as well as a generally formal standard of dress expected of those assembled. Unfortunately, however, many of these same churches are not perceived as friendly to outsiders or to those less fortunate in the community; nor are many of the members perceived as being "hungry" for the Word of God. Someone will often claim that such churches are legalistic [whatever that means in their own mind—legalism must surely be the most-abused word in all of Christianity], expecting all those in attendance to maintain a certain lifestyle in order to remain in good graces with the rest.

So what should one look for when choosing a church? What should a church be like?

When we moved to Michigan three years ago, we visited a number of churches in this area. We visited churches of both types described above. There was one overriding test, however, when we chose a church:

• Was the church fundamental in its doctrine? Did it follow and teach the Bible literally?

If a church could not pass this test, we weren't going to be a part of it. The couple whose story I read eventually found that the doctrinal problems in the preaching were a sufficient reason for them to leave the church. I agree with them. But what about the other things?

The conclusion I reached was this: Both types of churches have weaknesses, and both have strengths. A properly-functioning New Testament church will have the strengths of both. It will have reverent and proper music (a topic on which the Bible speaks at great length; I can recommend a few books on the topic to the curious), those in attendance will be encouraged to live lifestyles which are in keeping with the Word of God (yes, we are to be accountable to one another in how we live), and a proper, reverent decorum conducive to worship will be maintained.

But there is more: The church should be friendly and welcoming to all (regardless of who they are or how they look), it should help its own and reach out to the community both in the traditional evangelistic sense and also by helping to meet the real and physical needs of the unsaved, and those in attendance should "hunger" for the teaching of the Word.

Those of us who attend "more traditional" churches—and I make no apology for preferring them—must be careful not to glibly look down upon the "more contemporary" ones and make blanket judgments about them. The Bible speaks to that, too. But in addition to doctrinal purity, we each must strive to make our own church all of the following:

• A friendly, welcome place
• A place where reverent, God-honoring worship takes place
• A place where there is "hunger" for the Word, and where that hunger is satisfied in both the young and the mature Christian
  
• A group of believers who edify one another, encouraging each other to godliness
• A group of believers who reach out to those in the community with the gospel of grace and the hand of help

For those of you reading this who attend "more contemporary" churches, please be kind to us, too. We may not always react well to your suggestions for us to change, because when you really believe that God prefers something to be done a certain way, you tend to be stubborn about it. And when you know He desires or demands something to be done a certain way, then you tend to be dogmatic...and that's OK, if you know that it is God's desire or demand.

I am happy to report that Faith Baptist Church in Mattawan, MI, where I and my family attend every week, is such a church. Of course it has its faults—it is made up of human beings, and any organization populated by humans tends to have problems. But on the whole, the list above is a fair representation of what we are trying to be. Our pastor and leadership believe this. If you are ever in the area on a Sunday or a Wednesday evening, come and visit us. I hope you find us friendly, helpful, doctrinally straight, and worshipful.