| | | |
News & Views, July 2003 - Edited By E. L. Bynum
Why Men Leave the Fellowships - By E. L. Bynum
More On Fellowship Merger - By E. L. Bynum
Sanctified Sin - By Norman H. Wells
Warning Is Not Wrangling - By Bill Mosley
For more than 50 years I have observed the inflow and outflow to the organized fellowships. Churches and preachers get involved with these organizations for various reasons. Some become disenchanted and leave after many years, while some leave much sooner. At this time I do not propose to deal with why they get involved in the first place. This article will deal with some of the issues that cause them to leave the fellowship they belong to.
There have been a considerable number of churches and pastors that have left the Baptist Bible Fellowship International over a number of years. I would suppose that there have been some that left other organized fellowships over similar issues. Here are some of the issues that have been prominent with some that I have talked to or heard about.
It was once a settled fact that most fellowships and schools were solid on the KJV. More and more some of the fellowships and schools have adopted another policy. When the BBFI met in Fairfax, VA, the meeting was conducted in a Church that openly promotes other versions of the Bible. There are a considerable number of churches in the BBFI that have this open mind toward other versions also. This compromise on the word of God was adopted by the liberal churches long before any fundamentalist church or school ever thought of doing such a thing.
The Baptist Bible College, Springfield, MO for a number of years tried to appease both sides of the issue. To the KJV crowd they were KJV, but to the more liberal preachers and churches they appeared to be more open minded. Quite a number of years ago, Dr. Bill Dowell, president of BBC, wrote an excellent article that indicated that they were all out for the KJV. I was encouraged very much by his article, and I took the liberty to publish his entire article. Soon after it was published in the PBC, I received letters from some students who told me that there were some on the faculty that were using other versions. Some recent graduates told me at the time, that this was so.
As time has passed, the decay of the use of the KJV has deteriorated in the BBFI and in other fundamental groups as well. At one time in a Fellowship meeting in Springfield, the KJV only preachers were asked to leave, and a number of them did. It was certainly a good reason to leave the organization, and I applaud those who did so.
There has been a considerable change among fundamental Baptists concerning the nature of the church. Perhaps there has always been some in the fellowships that believed the doctrine of the universal, invisible church. The leadership in the fellowships had been trained in the doctrine of the local church only. Alien immersion was once only a heresy to be condemned. Now there is widespread practice of accepting the immersion of a person who was immersed in any Protestant church.
The above-mentioned church in Fairfax, VA, has dropped the name Baptist from their church sign and all advertisements. This is not an isolated incident, but a growing number of churches have done so. They say that they want to attract more people, but I feel the real reason is that they no longer hold to the Baptist distinctives. This trend seems destined to continue at an accelerated rate.
Some sound churches and preachers have become disturbed and have withdrawn from the organization. This is certainly commendable.
Churches and schools once held to a standard of modest apparel. Females were to dress modestly and not in men's clothing. Shorts and slacks were not permitted on women, and the standards for men were strong also. That has changed in many places, and some pastors stopped sending their students to certain schools, and ended up withdrawing from the fellowships. This action is certainly to be applauded, for it is certain that these conditions will not improve.
Contemporary Christian Music has polluted and soured church services all over America. Churches that once had good, sound music have now adopted the contemporary sound. Sometimes the music does not sound much differently from music in a nightclub, except they insert different words. Some are so spiritual that they include the name of Jesus. I am not against new music being written if the words are sound and the beat does not come from the modern world. The nonsensical lyrics and the jungle rock beat have no place in God's house. Much has been written by others on this subject, and I will not go over the same territory at this time.
Last month we published an excellent article by Victor Sears on this subject. If my memory serves me correctly, he was at one time president of the BBFI. It is my conviction that Christians should flee from any place where the CCM music is being used. It is a growing plague that must be exposed.
In some Fellowships the mission work is largely directed and controlled by a mission board or mission committee. There have been charges that money was sometimes used in the wrong way. To build buildings for headquarters, and to operate them takes money, and it must come from somewhere. In some instances missionaries have been sent to certain mission fields where they do not believe that God called them. The local churches have little control, but they are expected to furnish the money for the headquarters operation.
Because the brethren become dissatisfied with the mission program, some of them choose to leave the Fellowship they are in.
Fundamental Baptists flourished in a time when soul winning, strong preaching, and visitation were the method that was used. A good deal of corruption of those principles was brought in by Jerry Falwell, Jack Hyles and others. This resulted in a deterioration of doctrine and methods that has undermined the foundations of many churches.
Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and other like-minded leaders have introduced music, methods and doctrines that are undermining the very fabric of Baptist churches. Bill Hybels does not claim to be a Baptist. Rick Warren professes to be a Southern Baptist, but the name Baptist does not appear in the name of his church. Churches and pastors that follow the philosophy and practice of these men will tragically end up with the empty shell of a church. They may well be filled with people, but they will be almost devoid of truth.
Any of the above reasons would be sufficient for causing a church and pastor to leave an organized Fellowship. When you add all or almost all of them together, it presents an overwhelming case for withdrawing support. The KJV, the doctrine of the church, laxness on modest apparel, music, missions, and church growth heresy, are all-important issues. Those preachers and churches that ignore these perils are being caught in the trap of compromise that will prove to be deadly. (Some independent and unaffiliated pastors and churches are edging closer and closer to some of these deadly compromises. Let us pray that they will wake up.)
When preachers and churches withdraw from one of the fellowships for only the above reasons, I have noticed that many of them gravitate to a new fellowship that seems to be compromising less. They do not seem to realize that baby tigers grow up to be large fierce tigers. They do not remain cute, cuddly and harmless very long, but become more dangerous every day that passes. Why go into an organization that was hatched out of the same nest as the one they just forsook?
While all of the above reasons for withdrawing from fellowships are good, they are certainly far from the best. Bible believing churches should withdraw because organized fellowships are unscriptural. There is no Scriptural basis for them in the first place. You can search the New Testament for a month and you will not find an organized fellowship, association, convention, or a mission board. I guess Jesus nor Paul never thought of such a concept, nor did the Holy Spirit ever reveal it to any of the apostles. Without the benefit of any of these organizations, the New Testament churches carried out the Great Commission in a way that has never been surpassed since that time. Never has so much been done by so few for the glory of God.
When you look up the nouns "fellowship" and "association," you will find that they have similar meanings. According to Webster's Dictionary, "fellowship" means "the condition of being an associate, mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms." "Association" means "the act of association; union; connection of persons. The state of being associated; companionship; fellowship; partnership." For all practical purposes they mean about the same thing, and eventually evolve into the same thing.
The Southern Baptists have many local associations throughout the country. Their national organization is known as the Southern Baptist Convention. When churches left the SBC and the Northern Baptist Convention, they wanted something different from a convention with all its evils. So today we have some in associations, such as the American Baptist Association, the Missionary Baptist Association, the Conservative Baptist Association, and the General Association of Regular Baptists.
The fundamentalists that left the SBC and the NBC wanted to get away from the evils of the convention and the association. So they chose to use the word fellowship which seemed to get away from the mistakes of the past. So now we have the Baptist Bible Fellowship, World Baptist Fellowship and the Independent Baptist Fellowship International. The founders of these organizations never dreamed that they would evolve into something similar to what they left. A rose by any other name smells like a rose. For 1600 years, New Testament churches grew and spread over the world without an association, convention, organized fellowship, and without mission boards. The men who founded these organizations without scriptural warrant were good men who meant well but failed to adhere to the scriptures.
The issue becomes more complicated when we find out that many of the churches in these organizations call themselves independent Baptists. In our view they are not really independent, but of course they will call themselves what they please. While we call ourselves independent Baptists, we have added Unaffiliated. So we will call ourselves independent Unaffiliated Baptists for the time being. If the Unaffiliated part becomes corrupted, we will adopt some other word. The point is we have remained the same down through the years, and we don't intend to change to suit the trends in religion today.
When someone finds anything resembling a mission board, mission committee or mission clearing house in the New Testament, I would very much like to know where they found it. On second thought, I must indeed tell you that the Apostle Paul did use boards on at least one occasion in his missionary work. In fact they may well have saved his life. "And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land" (Acts 27:44). In his shipwreck the boards came in handy, and may well have saved his life. The context clearly indicates that they were all wet.
In over 40-years our Church has not supported any missionary sent out through a mission board. We send our support through the home church of the missionary, and he gets 100% of every dollar with nothing being withheld for overhead. It works, and we believe it is the only scriptural way. What a shame that all Baptists do not do their mission work the same way!
Last month we printed the opposition to such a merger by Raymond Barber and the IBFI. They made it plain that they would have nothing to do with such a merger. We applaud them for going that far.
According to the Baptist Bible Tribune of June/July 2003, the merger is still proceeding as planned. According to the President of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI), a number of the speakers have already been selected. They include, "Rick Austin, president of the World Baptist Fellowship, and David Bouler and Randy Ray of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship," and others are expected to participate.
Bill Monroe, BBFI president, wrote "I will also be inviting leaders from the Independent Baptist Fellowship International, the GARBC and unaffiliated independent Baptists to attend our meeting." This would certainly be a strange combination, and I do not believe that any true unaffiliated independent Baptist will touch this unholy alliance. The churches that he calls independent are not really independent.
The following was published in the Baptist Bible Tribune.
The fall meeting in some ways will also be the first meeting of the International Baptist Network (IBN). The IBN is the umbrella group that will seek to bring together the BBFI, Southwide Baptists, World Baptists, and other interested independent Baptists to work together to more effectively fulfill the Great Commission. It is not meant to replace any of the groups, but rather to unify independent Baptists who, though they share common doctrine, have been separated for over 50 years by disagreements from the past. Rick Austin, president of the World Baptist Fellowship, and David Bouler and Randy Ray of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship will be among the speakers. I will also be inviting leaders from the Independent Baptist Fellowship International, the GARBC and unaffiliated independent Baptists to attend our meeting. Several internationals have indicated they are planning to come. Pray for a special touch of God upon our meeting. Baptist Bible Tribune, June/July 2003.
Chapter 13 from the book "The Religion Racket"
One of the difficult things which a supposedly religious people have had to cope with is how to be religious and sinful at the same time. This presents quite a problem because most religions inconveniently identify right and wrong and some even go so far as to commend the good and condemn the evil!
This attempt to be sinful and religious simultaneously has produced some ingenious efforts. One of the truly sophisticated ways of accomplishing this is to pretend doubt and ask for a definition of terms. What is good? What is evil? This works well because, of course, as is already known, there is some confusion as to the meaning of these terms, and this confusion gives an excuse for continuing in sin. After all, who says it is sin? Maybe what is sin for you is not sin for me? When this confusion can be created it is a big help in enabling one to be sinful and religious at the same time.
If one wants to go to the trouble, he can usually find a church that doesn't condemn any of his particular sins. This is a great help in getting over the obstacle of being both sinful and religious. A little more difficult but very effective is the effort to draw a line of distinction between spiritual things and material things. This finally narrows down to being religious at church and sinful everywhere else. Most people find this an agreeable arrangement.
If one has the time, he can join efforts with some supposedly intellectual group that is working on a philosophy of religion that will completely reverse the meaning of religious terms. They call good evil and evil good. Right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right. Most people find it easier to live by these terms. One has to be a little careful, though ... a man named Isaiah about 2700 years ago wrote: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" He could be right.
There is another method used in the attempt to be religious and sinful concurrently, but it is not quite as honest and above board as the others. In fact, its downright sneaky, but is used a lot. This simply involves being religious and denying you are sinful when in the presence of your religious friends, and being sinful and denying you are religious while around your sinful friends. This can be complicated, particularly when you keep meeting your religious friends in sinful places and your sinful friends in religious places.
Another system that has grown popular in recent years is to religionize sin. Sin is taken out of the world and brought over into the church and sanctified. Sanctified sin! This, supposedly, makes it all right and it enables one to sin ... religiously.
Some people, coping with the problem of being both sinful and religious employ an action called backsliding. These people will alternate being religious and sinful ... they are never really religious and sinful at the same thing but it accomplishes about the same thing. After being religious for a time they will backslide and be sinful for a while. After a while, they will return and again be religious. This is an accepted, standard procedure and also has the added advantage of always being joyfully welcomed back whenever one returns ... either to his sinful friends or to his religious friends.
There are those who use what might be called a diversionary action. This is really very simple. You pick out a sin you are not practicing and vigorously condemn it. An all out crusade is launched against this sin. Everyone becomes so engrossed in fighting the uncommitted sin that no one pays any attention to the sins being committed. This, of course, is a great aid to maintaining both sin and religion. If a preacher wants to condemn sin he has to find one his congregation is not practicing. Throwing babies to crocodiles as an act of worship is a sin that gets a lot of condemnation.
Another diversionary action is to put all the emphasis upon the minute interpretation of some obscure religious doctrine. When this is done with great zeal, little attention is paid to sin. If a religion will cooperate by softening its emphasis upon the distinction between right and wrong the two finally blend. Being religious and sinful at the same time becomes an easy thing.
The modern idea that it is wrong to place any prohibitions upon children can be used. We are told that to place any restrictions upon children is harmful. It can cause frustrations, inhibitions, and a host of other horrible things. They must be allowed full expression. This means that the children can sin if they want, and this necessitates the parents following the same path. After all, we want to do right for our children ... even if its wrong!
Men have found it is good to keep religion in their wife's name. How much more religious can you be than to see that your wife and children are provided for in religious matters? This enables the man to continue his sinning with a clear conscience.
Most doctrinally sound publications, editors, pastors, and preachers will sooner or later be censured or accused of trying to "straighten out every one else." Every pastor/preacher will also one day be accused of having a vulgar mind if he dares to preach on proper attire and separation. It is becoming more frequent to hear other Baptist preachers, including some who claim to be independent, cunningly express resentment toward sound, strong biblical expressions from the pulpit. Even to the point of accusing the one who preaches against, and identifies, provocative attire on women intent upon attracting the attention of men. It is no surprise that some will even accuse the preacher of being involved in staring if he mentions immoral attire of both men and women. Pastors/preachers should not be discouraged by such conformists but rather be encouraged by biblical examples of prophets and preachers who indeed warned of the danger of conforming to the immoral practices of the world. "Dumb dogs," that "cannot bark," (Isa. 56:10) have their counterpart today. The penalty for not warning of impending danger has not been revoked since it was spoken by Ezekiel (33:6).
There is abounding evidence in both testaments of men of God who were unafraid to expose error, command caution, and specify the sensuality of a tolerant Christianity or a sinful society. That it is necessary that preachers warn of the spiritual perils facing believers today is made clear by this advice from Paul to Timothy. (2 Tim 3:13) "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Not only are they deceiving, they are also being deceived by those a notch higher on the ladder of deception, whose primary commander is the devil. Without doubt we are living in the perilous times when loving the world is more fashionable that loving God and His Word. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) It cannot be ignored that our Lord's comparison of Noah's day is surely being paralleled today. (Luke 17:26) "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." There was decidedly more interest in personal luxury and pleasure than in the service of God. (Gen. 6:2,4) Teaching that children of God should not marry children of the devil was neglected if not forsaken. As it was then, so also it is today, that it is almost unheard of for pastors to refuse to marry their young people to lost men or women.
The heart condition of society at that time had reached an unacceptable low. (Gen. 6:5) "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Similar conditions prevailed in the days of Isaiah. Yet Isaiah heard the voice of God clearly when He said, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isa. 58:1) Had some modernist Baptist preachers been there in that day, they might have accused Isaiah of being involved in the same sins as others or he would not have mentioned it. Or they may have said, "All that thunder but no rain." Lifting up "thy voice" is indeed a noticeable distinction in the man called of God to speak out against sin.
It is little wonder that Paul would give Timothy specific instruction about spiritual behavior in the Lord's church, the house of God. (1 Tim. 3:15) Peter clearly associated Paul's writing with all other Scripture. (2 Pet. 3:15,16) In both testaments the house of God is a place where God met with His people. In the Old Testament it was Israel; in the New Testament it is the Lord's church. In both cases those with whom the Lord met have specific instruction of what to embrace and what to evade.
There were those in both Testaments who criticized the proclaimers of God's commands. Foolish, prosperous, wicked men still say, "How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?" (Psa. 73:11) The writer of this psalm, noticing the prosperity of the wicked, revealed that he was walking on less than solid ground until he went to the "sanctuary of God." (v. 17) There must have been some prophet of God there still standing on the Word of God. He must have been crying out concerning the dangers that were ahead on the path he was taking. Whether the exact same statement is made or not, there is an undeniable lack of warning in too many Baptist pulpits today. It is not so alarming that the ecumenical crowd compromise any and all standards to get along. But a similar behavior is approaching the shoreline of doctrinally sound churches.
There must be warnings sounded out from pulpits in churches today, or more scriptural discrepancies are sure to come. Paul warned the Ephesian elders that "grievous wolves [would] enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts 20:29) He prayed night and day for them that this would not happen. He named Hymenaeus and Alexander as two who were engaged in shipwrecking the doctrine of Christ. (1 Tim. 1) Some in the church fit the category of Diotrephes, who was identified by John as one "who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not." (3 John 9) Closely associated with those who disapprove of clearly defined doctrinal boundaries is a desire to be accepted by the spiritually weak. Once that beachhead is established it is much simpler to sway those slightly more steadfast in the faith. Soon a Diotrephes has established himself with a firm land base to override any biblical doctrine that may still abide. There was no "straightening out" of Diotrephes intended by John, but there was a warning for the people and an exposing of error. Paul was not unduly concerned about the well-being of the grievous wolves, nor was John interested in the outcome of Diotrephes, but there was a stern warning of impending dangers confronting the church in both instances.
Ezekiel had no doubt what he was to do, who he was to warn, and Who directed the warning. In Ezekiel 33:3 he was to blow the trumpet and "warn the people." In verse seven he must hear and heed "the word at my mouth, and warn them from me." Paul warned of men arising with distorted views speaking perverse things so as to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:30,31) He "ceased not to warn every one night and day" of those whose soothing voices were less disturbing than his.
It can be truthfully said that a considerable number of so-called Christians have reached the same depth of conformity as those in Isaiah's congregation. Isaiah's instruction from God was to write His Words before them in a table and note it in a book. Their description was clear and concise. (Isa. 30:9,10) "That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: . ." They knew the difference in "right things," "smooth things," and "deceits." Flattery is a plentiful commodity today, used primarily to gain followers. Delusions are too often as commonplace in gaining acceptance among the Lord's true churches as Benny Hinn's fantasies which lure the biblically unlearned to send him millions of dollars. Incidentally, this is not to straighten out Benny Hinn, it is to warn the unaware that Hinn is a fake. This is not a wrangling but a warning.
Paul was clear when he commanded the Corinthians to "come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, ..." (2 Cor. 6:17) This was that God might dwell in them, and walk in them, and be their God. The ultimate blessing for them was that God would claim them as His people. They were to be separated from being unequally yoked together with unbelievers. This was in marriage, manners, management, and all other areas of life: appearance, apparel, articulation. Christian(?) cursing, or using alternations of the name of God, has been common place for years. Today the name of God is used in practically every expression of shock. The arrival of the twenty-first century has not altered how our Holy God views this. (Exo. 20:7) "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." This is a part of the moral law of God that has never been rescinded or replaced. It is often said that nothing is meant by this kind of expression. This is exactly what "vain" implies false, useless, empty.
When the Word of God warns, we must be warned and forewarn others. David wrote that "The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." (Psa. 19:9) The dreadful reverence of the Almighty God comes from a pure mind. Such a fear comes only from the knowledge of the judgmental decrees issued by a Holy God. The next two verses declare David's longing to be instructed by such mandates, desiring them more than earthly riches. His satisfaction with the arrangement that God has spoken and his only requirement is to obey is summed up in this statement: "Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward." (Psa. 19:11) Today the real servant of God can still be warned by the righteous judgments of the Lord. David took the warnings from God as a means of obtaining great reward. He never assumed it was a "straightening out" from the Lord, but a means whereby he could "straighten out" himself by heeding God's command.
Consider the encouragement the Lord issued to Jeremiah as he was to deliver warnings to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Be reassured to cry aloud and spare not because the Lord is our support. (Jer. 1:8) "Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD." Warning is not wrangling, but failing to earnestly persuade is eternally perilous.