Tag: Church

Spiritual Roots

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Church, Ministry, Theology

– December 2011

Spiritual Roots

No one possesses a faith that is self-made.  Each of us are indebted to the whole body of Christ for our understanding of scripture and our view of Christian living.  We have all benefited immensely from great spiritual truths that have been developed over the centuries, shaped by revival, purified by reformation and tested by experience.  We stand on the shoulders of men and movements who have forged for us what we now know as our spiritual heritage.   To unwittingly sever ourselves from these spiritual roots is tragic.  To knowingly do so may well be treacherous. Yet many Christians sell their spiritual birthright as thoughtlessly as they sell their unwanted household junk.

What these yard sale saints can’t see is not hidden to historical scholars. They tell us that movements, religious or otherwise, can only maintain vitality and significance as long as they retain a clear understanding of their historical identity. A religious movement’s identity is determined by their dogma, doctrine, traditions, ideals, values, and culture – all of which have been developed over the centuries.  These are the things that tell us who we are and answer the question of why we exist.  Without them, no movement can affirm a clear mission or cast a uniting vision.

The Call to the Conservative Holiness Movement issued in the October Revivalist pleads for a commitment to historic roots and continuity in Article II. This involves both a renewed commitment to classical Christianity and a renewed understanding of our spiritual heritage as passed down to us through the Methodist Holiness Tradition.   This call is not rooted in a sentimental hankering for the past.  Nor is it some nostalgic desire to re-create methods and means that have long since served their usefulness –that’s what museums do!  It is, however, recognition that we lose something vitally important for our future when we become disconnected from our past.

This appeal to the CHM is particularly urgent for two reasons.  First, the CHM is going through a time of transition. Second, the CHM is too often afflicted with a form of historical amnesia – we have long term memory loss.  Our memory only reaches back about 60 years to the days when we separated from our mother churches.  What happened then is clearly a vital part of our heritage but it is far from all of it.  Nor can that separation point be the sole place from which we draw our identity.  If it is, then we lose the wealth of hundreds of years of rich holiness history.  We also lose important “family traits” and “traditions” that may serve us well in our contemporary struggles. The CHM faces questions today and will certainly face more in the tomorrows that will not be adequately answered without drawing on the wisdom and life experiences of our fore-fathers.  We need our heritage – all of it!

As the CHM seeks to develop a fuller understanding of its historical identity, it is helpful to examine the family tree. We are Christian, we are Reformation Protestants, we are Arminian, we are Arminian/Anglican, and we are Methodist.  From there the branch divides into Wesleyan Methodist, Free Methodist, Pilgrim Holiness and Nazarene.  From there the branches further divide into a dozen denominational groups and a host of independent churches that self-identify as the Conservative Holiness Movement.

The CHM is, for the most part, Wesleyan in its theological opinions, especially in its commitment to the doctrine of entire-sanctification.   However, it can be quite diverse in many other ways.  There is significant variation in views relating to the sacraments, lifestyle practices, social issues (e.g. divorce and remarriage) and church government.  The CHM does find common ground in their opposition to: immodest worldly attire, short hair on women, and the wearing of jewelry. These common ground issues have become the “street level” means of identifying the movement.  As important as these things may be, there are some other very important “family traits” that ought to be front and center when people think of the CHM.  Identity markers that I would love to see become our ”street level” means of identity.  Traits that can clearly be found in our spiritual roots – in particular our Methodist Holiness Heritage!

The early Methodists found their reason for existence and their vision for the future in Wesley’s call “to reform a Nation, and in particular the church; and to spread scriptural holiness over the land.” Responding to that call led them to reap a harvest of souls for God’s kingdom and ultimately altered the religious landscape of England and early America for almost a century.  However, it must be noted that this breathtaking, forward looking, mission statement worked only in a context.  And that context was the theological content and spiritual character of what Methodism truly was.  You could call it their DNA or their family traits. Let’s examine five of those traits.

First, they were known for a distinctive theological understanding of God.  One of the best ways to understand the impact of their theology is to look at how those early Methodists lived it out. Francis Asbury, the founder of American Methodism is a good example to observe. When Asbury arrived in America there were only a few hundred Methodists, but by 1860 one out of every three Americans was a Methodist.  Asbury crossed the Allegheny Mountains on horseback 60 times, slept in 10,000 different cabins and homes, preached 60,500 sermons in 45 years (a little more than one a day), and became more recognizable than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.  By the end of the 18th century, Methodism had determined the nature of religious culture in America thus setting the stage for the next 100 years.

Why did he and countless hundreds of other Methodist circuit riders do what they did?  It was their theology that motivated them!   Their theology taught them that every man had infinite worth.  They believed that God not only wanted to save every man but that every man could be saved!  To better understand this you need to remember that Calvinism was the prevalent theology of the day and a core component of Calvinism was election.   When the average Calvinist walked down the street he would think, “It is possible that I might even see one of God’s elect today.”  When a Methodist walked down the street he would think, “Every man I see today is one of God’s elect and it is my job to tell him!”

Second, they were known for their optimism of grace.  I am not sure if grace shaped their eschatology or their eschatology shaped their concept of grace but what I do know is that the early Methodists believed so powerfully in the transforming grace of God that they were convinced that they would transform the church, the nation and the world – ushering in the millennial reign!  The optimism of grace drove Methodist circuit riders farther and faster than new invention could drive the feet of commerce.

Third, they were known for a distinctive view of spiritual experience.  The early Methodists believed that every man could be saved, that every man could know they were saved and that every man could be saved to the uttermost!  The doctrine of assurance gave new converts stability and peace.  The doctrine of entire sanctification gave believers victory over sin and power to live a holy life.  Methodism took people out of their “sinning religion” and taught them that they could walk in complete obedience to God!  With such peace, hope and victory, it’s no wonder that the Methodist were known for their exuberant singing and loud shouting!

Fourth, they were known for their distinctive view of the Church and Evangelism. They were flexible and innovative.  They didn’t need a proper church with stained glass windows and comfortable pews. They preached in the highways and byways, in fields and near mines, on the frontier and in the city ghettos.  They introduced a new style of worship to accommodate the large numbers of unconverted people in their congregations. Worship scholars refer to it as “frontier worship”.  It is now the primary worship style we still use today. They operated missions for the down and outer, cottages for the unwed mothers, orphanages for the destitute, camp meetings for the masses, class meetings for the newly converted and circuits for rural churches. They founded training schools, colleges and universities. No aspect of their society was left untouched by the gospel.  Those early Methodist did whatever was necessary to obey the command to “preach the gospel to every creature”.

Fifth, they were known for their stewardship.  The early Methodists looked right through the world that was around them and saw a Kingdom.  It was to that Kingdom and ultimately to its King that they gave their solemn allegiance and perfect love.  Many freely denied themselves the comforts of home, family and marriage to give their lives in His service.  The rank and file who did build homes and raise up families were so well known for their rejection of this worlds values and ostentation that the very name Methodist was spoken in derision and scorn by those who loved to parade their fashion and display their wealth. It was not what could be gained in this world but what could be invested in the world to come that motivated these people called Methodists.

These are a few of the “family traits” of a people and a movement that history says “owned the 19th century”! I see some of these same traits being manifested today in the underground church in China where 20,000 people are converted every day.  It has yet to be decided who will own the 21st century, but I believe it will be owned by the people who have looked long enough and deep enough into the past to see how God will work in the future.  You can figure it out too but you will need to dig deep into your spiritual roots!

Is Your Church Really a Church?

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Church, Ministry

–September of 2008

Is Your Church Really a Church?

America is blessed with a lot of churches.  Some sit astride prominent street corners proudly displaying their architectural glory while others are tucked away indiscreetly between a used shoe store and a day old bakery in a weary strip mall on the side of town where plight and crime prevail.   Some have one word names like “Grace.”  Others have names so long and so full of biblical and ecclesiastical jargon that you can’t say the full name with stopping to breathe. Some look like a church while others look like a warehouse.  However, it is not the architect they display or the appellation they wear that concerns me.  I often wonder how many of these places of worship are legitimate New Testament churches?

Is there a way to know if a church is really a New Testament church?  Can one gauge when a church has gone too far on one hand or not far enough on the other to be considered an authentic Christian church? Can a church cease to be a church even though it opens every Sunday and is filled to capacity?

The New Testament doesn’t provide a definition of the local Church.  The Greek word for church simply means the “called out ones.” So how can one determine what actually qualifies an organization or an assembly of believers as a New Testament church?  The simple answer is that one has to go to the New Testament and look for the biblical characteristics of a local church and arrive at a definition based on them. This process, of course, has been done many times.  The protestant reformers did so in the early 1500’s and said that a local church has two essential characteristics.  First, it is where the Word of God is proclaimed, and second, it is where the sacraments are correctly taught and administered.  This definition is a start but it is seriously incomplete.  Its focus is totally inward and ignores the most central mission of the church – making disciples. Any definition of the church must include not only what the church is but also what the church does.  The New Testament gives seven critical elements that should make up any definition of a local church.

The local church is essential (Matthew 16:18). The local church is God’s only divinely sanctioned institution to reach the world for Christ.  Thus it is an indispensible, vital institution that cannot be replaced by anything else.  To ignore or drop out of church, for whatever reason, is to oppose God’s ordained means of making disciples and maturing the saints so that His Church might be built.

The Church is an assembly or gathering of disciples (I Thess. 1:1, Acts 14:27, Heb. 10:25).  The church is people.  One person does not qualify as a church. It is a gathering of people who are professing believers in Jesus Christ.

The Church is under leadership.  Spiritual leadership is vital to spiritual health. The references are simply too numerous to list that insist upon properly structured and ordained leadership within the church.  Large portions of what the Apostle Paul wrote are instructions as to how to establish the leadership roles of Elder and Deacon in the local churches.  No local church was to ever be a democracy or a consensus meeting.  It was to be led by a group of men who met the spiritual, moral and social qualifications outlined in the New Testament. The problem in most struggling churches today can be traced to a lack of leadership.

The Church is an organization (I Cor. 14:40).  The church is an organism but it is also an organization.  Organization is necessary for the church to function effectively.  Too much organization can stifle, but too little can breed confusion and result in a failure to have unanimity of direction and purpose.

The Church has a mission (Matt. 28:19-20).  Christ’s Great Commission is the mission of the church.  The success of any church must be measured by their obedience to this Great Commission. John Wesley understood this and told his preachers, “We have nothing to do but save souls.” I believe it is both fair and necessary to ask the question, “Can a church be a church if it fails to obey the central command to make and mature disciples?”

The Church has clearly defined functions (Acts 2:42-47).  There are five general functions of the church.  They are listed in Acts chapter two as: teaching, fellowship, worship, evangelism, and service.  Much can be said by way of defining these functions but what is most important for the moment is that these functions are understood to be the timeless, unchanging, nonnegotiable work of the church.  Just as the first century church couldn’t pick and choose the functions they would observe or ignore; neither can the church in the twenty-first century if it wants to be a New Testament church. Yet far too many churches become what are called “niche churches.” They claim to be all about “worship”, or they boast of being a “preaching church.”  Some are known for their children’s ministries or for a strong counseling program.  Some tout the fact that they are a “family oriented church” while others loudly affirm that they are there to “defend and preserve their heritage.”  Even though churches will by the nature of their staffing have certain strengths, they are called to all the functions of the church and are commanded to “make disciples” not to “make niches.”

A church that narrows its ministry to one area is a church that invites the question, “Are you a true church?”  No matter what the reason might be, no church can afford to compromise the God given absolutes that are to be a part of every church’s ministry. No church can afford to negotiate away the fulfilling of the Great Commission through its biblical functions no matter how noble or needed their other work may be.

The Church exists to glorify God (Rom. 15:6, I Cor. 6:20; 10:31).  We glorify God as a church in the same way that Jesus glorified Him while on earth.  He glorified the Father by living his life in submissive, loving obedience to the Fathers will (John 17:1-8).  The church glorifies God as it fulfills its God given mission through its God ordained functions.  To do less is to be less than a New Testament church!

Many will read this article and wave it off with a simple, “Ho Hum!”  They believe they have the right to “do church” any way they want to! They have breathed the air of radical individualism that permeates Western culture for so long until they are convinced that their view is as good or even trumps all other views – even the Bible’s.  They are right on at least one thing.  They can do church anyway they choose.  But they are wrong in thinking that they can be a church in anyway they choose.

The New Testament tells us what a Christian church is and does. Admittedly, it is a rather broad definition that allows for considerable variation in form and method, but it also a very plain definition that uncompromisingly embraces certain functions.  If those functions are absent, then your church is not a church in the New Testament sense even if it has the tallest steeple in town!

Connected

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Church

–March of 2008

 Connected

Radical independence is a highly admired characteristic in American culture.  From the earliest pioneer to the twenty-first century entrepreneur, Americans take pride in the man who can “go it alone” and “make it happen.”  These rugged individualists possess a homespun philosophy of life that says, “if you need a helping hand, look at the end of your arm.”  We applaud their independence, quote them in leadership seminars and teach our children to emulate their self-reliance.

This independent spirit is to some degree helpful and healthy, but when taken too far it can have devastating consequences.  A part of what it means to be created in the image of God is that we are created to relate to and interact with other people.    Just as the Divine Persons live in intimate Trinitarian relationship, humans cannot fulfill their created role without intimate relationships.  The very nature of true relationships requires inter-dependence.  We were not created to be “stand alone” people, but members of a family and a community that is interconnected and dependent.  We draw emotional and spiritual strength from one another that we need to be a whole and healthy person.

This is never truer than in our own spiritual lives.  “There are two things we cannot do alone,” said Paul Tournier, “one is to be married and the other is be a Christian.”  We are part of a living body that depends upon “connectedness” to God and to one another to function properly and develop normally.  It is true that we draw our spiritual life from the source and fountainhead of all spiritual life – God himself.  But it is also true that we draw precious and necessary resources from one another that enable us to function as a healthy part of the body of Christ.

This line of truth is so important that Jesus included it in His final discourse he had with His disciples the night before His crucifixion.  It’s found in John chapter fifteen and is explained with the analogy of the vine and the branches.  It teaches us a least three important lessons about being connected to Him and to one another.

First, we are not self-originating.  “I am the Vine you are the branches.”  In counseling sessions I have often reminded people that we are only stewards of the life God has given us and we are not free to do with it as we please.  But occasionally I hear these words in response, “No! It’s my life! I’ll do . . .” It is a fundamental error to think that our life is our own.  Only God is self-originating. The source of all life both physical and spiritual is always in another – someone outside ourselves. The branch does not exist without the vine.  Our life is not our own!  It is a gift from God!

Second, we are not self-sustaining.  None of us have life within ourselves. Only as we “abide in the vine” do we have life.  Just as physical life is maintained by the air we breathe, the food we eat and the relationships in which we engage, even so is spiritual life maintained by connection with Christ and with the members of His body. It is, “in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”  And living in Him also means living within His body the Church.  Saint John of the Cross wrote, “The virtuous soul that is alone . . . is like the burning coal that is alone.  It will grow colder rather than hotter.”   The Christian faith is not merely an intellectual, internal faith.  It can only be lived in community.  Abandon the Body and your faith will fade.

Third, we are not self-fulfilling.  Joy, happiness, meaning and value come only in and through a relationship to God and service to one another.  Real life comes to us through the Vine.  We have no ability within ourselves to bear the fruit of a meaningful and satisfying life.   It can only be found as we relate to and draw from the Vine and the other branches.

Too many branches of the visible church believe and practice isolation. They isolate themselves from the Church at large, but worse yet, they isolated themselves from those within their own religious tradition and in some cases from those within the same four walls of their own local church.  They have developed an approach to discipleship where people are exhorted to do what is right and then placed under rigid structures of accountability or fear of rejection to see that they do it.  This has yielded poor results because it ignores the deepest need of the human soul – true connectedness to another Christian.  I have seen my share of people in spiritual trouble and in so many of their cases there was more than a stubborn will that needed firm admonishment involved.  There was a desperate hurting soul that needed the nourishment that only a loving community and a meaningful relationship could provide. (I believe isolation and the resulting loneliness may be the devils most successful tool in luring people in to sin.) One poor soul expressed it like this, “they preached to me and prayed with me, but no one ever asked me over for lunch.”   It is often true that those churches that stress accountability and the “you need to stand on your own two feet” approach often do so because they simply don’t know how to relate to other people.  They either don’t know how or are too afraid to lock arms with those who are struggling.  Building meaningful relationships with needy people is time consuming, uncomfortable and costly.  But the successful results are indisputable.   If you are still unconvinced, take special note of the words spoken at the next communion service you participate in.  The Minister will hand you a piece of bread or a wafer and say, “The Body of Christ, broken for you. . .”  The Church was founded by One whose body was broken to give us life.  Shouldn’t we then go forth and pour out our lives for one another?

There really are no “self-made” men in our world, but men and women who have been fortunate enough to have other people invest so much in them that they in turn were able to make a huge difference on the visible stage of life.  If you are reading this article and truly want to make a difference, then find someone to connect with and pour your resources into them.  When we truly “connect” we can change a thousand lives – one at a time!

Backslidden

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Church, Theology

–Summer of 2007

Backslidden

When is the last time you heard some honest soul talk about his spiritual condition and use the term backslidden?  It’s a word that seems to have been dropped from the Church’s vocabulary, even among those within the Wesleyan Armenian tradition.  One could get the idea that it’s simply not a problem anymore.  But is that really the case?

A generation ago you heard the subject preached or written about with some degree of frequency and always with intensity.  It was not generally done from the standpoint of how one may backslide and steps to prevent it, but with the idea that many were already backslidden, or at least well on their way, and needed to be reclaimed. The intent of this kind of preaching was to awaken those who were spiritually asleep and call to repentance those who had sinned, but more often than not the results were less than positive.  It helped create a “one sin your out” mindset and fed an unhealthy environment of constant self-introspection.  Many young people were left in a state of confusion and spiritual instability.  It also turned overly conscientious souls into perpetual seekers who could never find any sense of assurance or security in their salvation.

To address this imbalance, a new generation of preachers and spiritual counselors took a different approach.  The preachers simply stopped talking about backsliding and focused primarily on prevention.  Spiritual counselors, who had already shifted from the experiential paradigm of salvation to a relational model, stressed how difficult it actually was to backslide and how rarely it happened. Before you knew it, backsliding had practically disappeared.  On the beneficial side, the focus on discipleship and the nurturing of the weak was a very positive alternative to re-converting the saints at every revival.  On the downside, with no warnings against backsliding or proclamation of its spiritual consequences, many began to feel that they could live in clear disobedience to God’s word and suffer only minimal spiritual damage. If we believe the consequences of sinning fail to impact our standing with God, then sin itself is minimized, and when sin is minimized, sinning is trivialized. The members of this new culture of “saints without sanctity” have become very adept at describing their spiritual condition in highly generalized terms.  They fail to speak about “walking in all the light” or “living in total victory.”   They talk about “not doing very well spiritually” or say, “I am a little down right now because I haven’t been having my devotions lately”.

Now I know that just occasionally preaching on backsliding will not solve the entire situation I described above, but people will be helped by a clear biblical statement that tolerating failure and practicing disobedience has clear and unmistakable consequences, including spiritual self-deception and ultimately the loss of saving faith.  Our people, both young and old, need to hear that when people refuse to heed the checks of the Holy Spirit and repent of their sin, they have “turned away” from saving grace and have “departed from the faith.”  Whether you want to call it backsliding or not, the end result is the same and the spiritual consequences are dire.

I’ve Had It!

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Church, Ministry, Theology

–September of 2006

I’ve Had It!

I’ve had it! I’ve had it with articles and poll results in religious and secular magazines needling the Church by claiming that Christians today are watching X-rated movies, are addicted to pornography, commit immorality, and lie and steal at the same rate as non-Christians.  I’ve had it with these people who blame the Church for not accepting them with open arms and unconditional love so they can continue to practice their perverted lifestyles without any sense of shame, or worst yet, ordain them as ministers of the gospel.  I’ve had it with these preachers who seek to be so accepting that when they finish a sermon, they have made the Christian life so broad and inclusive that your average pagan feels right at home.   I’ve had it with all of this because this is not how the Bible portrays a Christian.  The New Testament teaches that the behavior listed above falls below the line of authentic Christian faith and is clearly sub-Christian.  Christians aren’t slaves to any sin nor do they entertain themselves with the very things the Bible condemns as sinful.  A person who has experienced a true Biblical conversion has implanted within him a desire to do right and be morally good.  If that is not the case, then any pretense of conversion is just that – a pretense.

I’ve had it!  I’ve had it with Christian leaders who are determined to make the unconverted so comfortable in church that they have turned Sunday-morning worship into an experience that is no different from a trip to a local entertainment club.  Sanctuaries look like theaters.  The attendees are encouraged to “dress casual,” bring their favorite beverage, and rock to the same rhythms you would expect to hear at a university frat party.  Sermons are preached from a lawn chair or a barstool.  Surprisingly, some of them are good.  What is not surprising is that few take them seriously.  Why should they, when everything around them is screaming “do as you please”?  Church bookstores, coffee shops, and restaurants do a thriving business before and after service as they violate the sanctity of the Lord’s Day.  Why have I had it?  Because the fundamental principles of Biblical worship are thrown out to create an atmosphere that satisfies the creature rather than glorifies the Creator.

I’ve had it!  I’ve had it with this new gospel and its false prophets who constantly reassure their flock that they can have “peace with God and a home in heaven” without making any fundamental changes to the way they live and the values they hold.  This “come in Savior and stay out Lord” brand of religion that ignores the claims of the Bible and remains plugged in to this present world is a false gospel.  At the very heart of what it means to be Christian is that the Christian is a unique and special kind of person.  He has experienced a radical change that separates him from those who are not Christian.  It is a difference that makes him like Christ and can only be explained in terms of his relationship to Christ.

I’ve had it!  I’ve had it with the fact that the only alternative that too many churches are offering to the above dilemma is just criticism.  Far too few are preaching a biblically balanced message and providing a real worship experience for serious saints and hungry sinners. Too few congregants have lives that are marked by the presence of God and noted for their radical abandonment to Him.

I’ve had it!  And that’s good!  For it is often in these times of such desperation that God is able to sow in our hearts the seeds for renewal and revival.  I long for His transforming power and life-giving presence to mark the lives of His children again.