Sermons in the Modern Church

I have been corresponding with my son lately about sermons and how they should be preached in the modern church. My son is a pastor of a smaller typical evangelical church. I have been a pastor for over forty years, now semi-retired. This issue of the sermon came up as to how to preach to modern ears. We ended up agreeing for the most part, but disagreeing about style and sermon content. A bit of background is in order.

I have been trained in expositional preaching and teaching from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, with a 1973 M.Div and a 1979 Th.M in systematic theology along with post seminary course work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts. My son has been trained at Bethel Seminary as well as mentored by leadership trainers from a large, mega-church in the area. We approach this area of the Sunday sermon differently. I have always maintained a thoroughly exegetical approach to the message, with taking a text of Scripture and going through it intentionally and carefully, noting the context, words, language issues and so forth. My son uses a broader sweep for a message and has been attracted to story-telling and other means for sermon delivery. We both agree that sermons must be biblically based, but the delivery is up for grabs because of the different audiences that hear sermons today, especially young adults and unchurched people.

I would maintain that the minister's job is to communicate God's Word contained in the Scriptures. To say that church people have "enough information," and all they need to do is to "act upon the years of sermons they have already had" is beside the point, I believe. God's Word is always fresh, always convicting, always modern and always relevant because it is God's inspired declaration that we are seeking to get across to people. People deserve to know what the text of Scripture says and means, without assuming that personal or group Bible studies will fill that gap. In fact, most Bible study periods are people sharing their own, sometimes misguided, insights to Bible passages and stories. This sharing of one's ignorance is no substitute for trained and careful declaration of Scripture. And the internet is even less helpful giving a variety of ideas and "takes" on modern topics and claiming biblical proofs for them.

I believe that congregations need to be able to go home after a sermon or teaching and able to open their Bibles to the message given and understand the passages referenced and tell their children and others the meaning and application. It has been claimed that people hear "differently" today than beforehand and learn better by story-telling and group interaction. Perhaps. But the issue in preaching a sermon is the declaration of the written Word of God to a person's mind and heart and conscience. Citing different learning styles and people not hearing the message because of their sinful desires does not diminish the job of the biblical preacher or teacher. He or she is to declare faithfully and fully the text of Scripture, not their own considered "relevant" ideas and topics and try to find biblical passages to line up with those ideas.

Moderns will claim that this often considered "outdated" method of preaching or teaching does not reach a modern audience. I would rather contend that moderns, especially younger moderns, are biblically illiterate and need the careful and faithful rendering of the text of Scripture and then apply it to their situations and needs. No one is saying that application is unimportant, but it must be application that is not merely timely and relevant, but true to the text of Scripture. 

I have heard and preached hundreds of sermons to thousands of people in my career. My most gratifying comment to a message has been, "Thank you for helping me understand and live out this passage of the Bible." That is what we are called to do. That is our task in sermon delivery under God.

1984 Again!

 People thought that George Orwell's 1984 book was fictitious and could never come true in a democracy. It was about the State taking over the minds of its citizens with what it called "doublethink." Orwell defined "doublethink" this way — "To know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them. to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy is impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. To forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed and then promptly to forget it again, and, above all, to apply the same process to the process itself." It was a chilling proposal of what could happen in a democracy look-alike controlled by the Party.

I would maintain that we are moving toward doublethink in our construct of society today. And I am certainly not the only one who maintains this construct. In a lecture at the conservative Hillsdale College, Christopher Rufo, director of Battlefront, noted that "critical race theory" is fast becoming America's new institutional orthodoxy. (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/) While many Americans have possibly heard about such a theory, it is much more than just another way to look at race and equality in America. It is a Marxist-style political theory asserted by the radical left inserted into the discussion of racial equality that engages, I believe, in doublethink. Rufo sys that "Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. . . . To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression."

"Equity" in such a theory is simply reformulated Marxism, according to Rufo. But we are increasingly to understand "equity" as "equality" under law, a rethinking of the Constitution. And when someone tries to argue against "equity" they are simply arguing against our Constitutional guarantees. Rufo again says, "An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority."

Lest we think this is a tempest in a teapot, Rufo goes on to say giving examples — "When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down."

So, here we go with doublethink —The 14th and 15th Amendments and Civil Rights Acts of 1954 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 = mere non-discrimination; camouflage for white supremacy and oppression. Rejection of these Constitutional laws = true equity and antiracism. "White male culture" = white supremacy and white privilege, even mass killings. The solution is to renounce white privilege and write letters of apology to people of color. White teachers are guilty of "spirit murder" against black children.

Rufo says "Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” and instructors in this critical race theory when confronted with disagreement "should adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.” This is Orwell's doublethink in action today.

Modern media will dispute such findings as overreach and conservative fodder not worth challenging. The Party (radical Leftists) wants to control our minds, our language, our institutions, our children and our way of life. It is hard, however, to negate the facts and examples Rufo gives. He suggests conquering this "take over" with employing moral language built on moral principles, a grass roots rejection of critical race theory in all of its tentacles, and courage to stand and speak out against Orwellian doublethink. 

Will you take a stand?

Newport, New England & Religious Toleration: Observations

In the midst of a pandemic, and working from home, I have had the opportunity to read through Lively Experiment LLC and Rockwell Stensrud’s well-written 560 page account of Newport, Rhode Island in their Newport: A Lively Experiment, 1639 – 1969. Stensrud has done his history homework well and has covered the culture and history of this seaside town in great detail and with astute fairness. My wife and I had the enjoyment of visiting the town in 2019, with my special interest in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. We drove the streets and the seashore road dotted with the palatial homes of the rich and famous. This peeked my interest in Newport’s history and contributions.

 

What struck me, as a Christian theologian and church history buff, are the many references in Stensrud’s book to the religious history and characters of Newport. Most people know that Rhode Island, or “Rogues Island,” as it was called by other New England settlements of the period, was founded by Roger Williams, an exile from the Puritan colony of Massachusetts. He founded Providence and established the first Baptist church in the town. Stensrud’s description of the Puritans as seeking religious freedom in the new world “along the lines of John Calvin’s austere teachings. ‘They wanted to reduce Christianity to its most primitive form of four bare walls and the literal words of the Bible’” (17) is key to much of his comments on New England Puritanism — cold, harsh, stiff, solemn and cruel. He says, “The road to Newport began in Boston and Salem. The very harshness of their uncompromising elites forced those of a more liberal spiritual–and mercantile–persuasion to seek destinies free of the theocratic handcuffs of the Bay Colony.” (18)

 

The author maintains that the Puritans were opposed to liberty of conscience, as for instance, citing the hanging of the Quaker Mary Dyer in Boston in 1660 as well as the Salem witch trials of the 1690s. (19) Stensrud claims that Williams “forged America’s first real attempt at secular government. The separation of church and state, and tolerance for conflicting religious beliefs, were the hallmarks of the community from the beginning, in 1636.” (21) Added to the religious strain of the times was the fervent teaching of the “spiritist,” Anne Hutchinson, who taught the “notion of ‘free justification by grace alone,’ of an ecstatic and overpowering intimacy with the divine.” This threatened the Puritan concept of living by the moral law of God (21-22). One of her sponsors, William Coddington, first governor of Newport, bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians through the efforts of Roger Williams. Joined later by the Hutchinson band and others, the town of Newport became an English colony, ruled not by biblical law but the laws of England until the American Revolution. Dr. John Clarke, also strongly influenced by Hutchinson, founded the second Baptist church in Newport in 1644, calling for a “rebaptism of all adults because people could only find true grace of their own free wills.” (41) Calling this “Anabaptism,” however, would be going too far technically and historically.

 

Coddington, a royalist at heart, hungry for power and domination was less a champion of freedom of religion and much more a power-hungry leader who wanted to have his own way in Newport and surrounding areas. Later he would soften his overbearing lust for control and meekly submit to other forces around him. Dr. John Clarke, whom many see as the real hero of freedom, was the vision behind the town’s 1663 Charter, “the first enduring republican government in the new world, based on an individual’s right to choose his or her own faith freely without temporal control or punishment.” (57-58) Some say this Charter would influence the later American Bill of Rights. This Charter framed not merely the rights but the ongoing religious climate and boundaries of the town of Newport until the 1880s. Professor Sydney Ahlstrom noted that this Charter made religious liberty in this commonwealth not simply a degree of toleration but “a cardinal principle of its corporate existence and to maintain the separation of church and state on these grounds.” (69)

 

With this infusion of religious liberty, English Quakers first arrived in Newport in 1657, becoming prominent citizens. As long as they obeyed the laws of England, they could freely associate and proselytize. The sad story of the Quaker Mary Dyer put to death in Boston on June 1, 1660, is hard for modern eyes to read. What is little told is that she was warned several times not to return to Puritan Boston or she would face severe penalties. She refused to listen and paid the price for her efforts by a death sentence. Some say this was her brave stand for religious freedom and tolerance. Others might say she was duly warned and given opportunities to change her beliefs or vacate Boston. Jewish immigrants also arrived in Newport with the famous Touro Synagogue completed in 1772. They formed their own clubs and freely associated with people from other religious persuasions. Roman Catholics had a much harder time being accepted, but they finally were welcomed as part of Newport society.

 

Here we must stop and make an observation. Much of American Protestantism owes its theological foundations to the Puritans. While we shudder at the church/state complications and severity of early Puritan law, to discount them as hated monsters out to kill anyone who disagreed with their biblical stance is far too general and judgmental. Many modern writers have taken up the cry against Puritanism and catapulted it to a cry against any form of biblically defined Christianity. The Puritans generally followed the Westminster Confession and Catechisms in their definitions and descriptions of biblical theology. They most certainly did believe in justification by free grace, but they also saw a place for the law of God ruling the moral habits of society. 

 

The religious freedom and toleration that Newporters enjoyed and expected also produced Unitarianism under William Ellery Channing, a Newport native, who preached a faith based on “the inherent goodness of mankind, not a theology that stressed human depravity. In short, Channing humanized Protestantism.” (311) “By 1810, the long-held authority of Boston and other New England Congregational churches was beginning to be challenged by a growing number of pastors who believed he hellfire and brimstone Calvinist orthodoxy was basically corrupt because there was no room in the theology to recognize mankind’s innate optimism or potential for good works. A revolution was in the wings.” (312) Channing is looked upon as the champion of the new America with his staunch antislavery and antiwar philosophy and a proponent of public education. “The characteristic New England mixture of individual self-culture and social reform owed much to Channing’s precept and example.” (313) 

 

Indeed. Newport has always been a haven for the elite rich and famous. She has had her dark days, to be sure, but her proud spirit of innovation and freedom of religion has framed her existence. Unitarianism begets Universalism and Universalism forgets and ignores and disputes any biblical authority, including Jesus’ own words about his being the “only way, truth and life to the Father” (John 14:6). Any way to God is valid and to be sought after by man’s essential goodness, it is believed and proffered. It does not matter how we even define “God.” Newport’s culture and religious openness have taken universal hold on the America of the twenty-first century. We can now have it all — endless enjoyment, promised riches, freedom from any religious or theological restraints. It is the New England playground, maybe even vaunted hope, of America.

Black Lives Matter & Rewriting History

 2020 has been a year of the roller coaster of events — the Donald Trump saga, the pandemic, George Floyd shooting and marches and the Black Lives Matter movement. A new President has offered to heal the nation and provide racial equity and justice. 

However, we have torn down statues, defaced Civil War Confederacy sites, toppled Christopher Columbus statues, renamed streets and institutions, and have tried to rewrite history, claiming that Columbus had slaves, Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and in fact, most of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had slaves. For that, we are told they should be punished, and history should be rewritten to tell America how awful and terrible they really were. Roger Williams, the religious founder of Rhode Island owned slaves, yet christened what is today the town Providence and the liberties that few northeastern states then enjoyed. Confederate generals, like Stonewall Jackson, a true Christian believer, it is said should be castigated and thrown in the trash pile of history. Instead of learning from history, and all its mistakes and errors and missteps, we now trash history and rewrite history to sooth and satisfy guilty consciences and political correctness advocates.

Larry Arnn, president of conservative Hillsdale College in his article, Orwell's 1984 and Today (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells-1984-today/) notes that, like in Orwell's 1984, we have "Thought Police" roaming the halls of our newspapers and institutions of higher learning and even the halls of Congress itself to spy out "wrong" thinking and incorrect history and to put into our minds, and especially our children's minds, the "right" history. We want to forcefully change the past. We have discarded the law of contradiction that says we cannot change the past and that contradictory slogans, like those in Orwell's 1984, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," repeal what is and what was. Arnn writes — "American schoolchildren today learn two things about Thomas Jefferson: That he wrote the Declaration of Independence and that he was a slaveholder. This is a stunted and dishonest teaching about Jefferson." He goes on to note that what they do not learn is that Jefferson wanted the Northwest Territory to be eternally free of slavery. That he truly believed when he wrote that all men are created equal. 

Yes, America forced out native Indians as we moved west and displaced native peoples for our own use and land grabs. Yes, Christian men and women owned slaves in the South. Yes, in World War Two, American Japanese peoples were sent to internment camps. Yes, Jim Crow laws abounded in many places in this country after the Civil War. This was all a travesty of human rights and just treatment for all peoples. To rewrite history, however, that it happened because people were evil, despotic thugs and that we should disown and separate ourselves from their writings and essays and speeches neglect fair and just reporting of all the facts about these men and women.

I am not an historian. I am a theologian and have written and spoken on historical theology. The present Black Lives Matter push reminds me of history trying to erase Who Jesus Christ really is and was. A number have tried to rewrite the New Testament of the Bible, trying to prove that Jesus was either not fully human or not fully God. They have fiddled with the text of the Bible, seeking to eliminate what Jesus said and did. All of these efforts have wilted in the clear record of religious and theological history. Jesus is and was fully man and fully God. To try to remake Jesus that is "acceptable" to modern ears has miserably failed, even with university secular professors constantly seeking to teach our young people differently about Jesus and Christianity. You either accept the Jesus of history or discard Him in favor of a fantasy Christ that soothes our sensibilities.

The Bible recognizes and deals with slavery. And the way it deals with slavery rankles many "Thought Police" today. What about slaves in the Apostle Paul's writings?  “Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” (Titus 2:9, 10; 1 Timothy 6:1, 2) The obvious question that comes up in these contexts is, Why doesn’t Paul just outrightly denounce and condemn slavery? There are actually several reasons for such neglect.

First, to denounce slavery might mean promotion of a slave revolt, while saying nothing would mean supporting the staus-quo. It would also mean or indicate that it would be permissible for Christian slaves to disobey their masters. This was evidently one of the problems in the Ephesian church (Ephesians 6:5–9). Slavery in Paul’s day was not limited to racial inequality, but people became slaves due to being prisoners of war, condemned criminals, debtors, kidnapping, or those sold into slavery by their parents. Slavery was a complicated social ill of the times and not easily resolved socially or politically, let alone theologically and practically. Moreover, Paul’s main concern in these letters is the cause of the gospel  “. . . so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.” (1 Timothy 6:1b)

While all people under Christ are free in Christ --“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) -- one’s freedom in Christ cannot be used as a cloak for treating, in this case, one’s masters disrespectfully. Freedom in Christ does not permit disregarding one’s station in life, disobedience to lawful orders, or treating nonChristian authorities with disdain (cf. Mark 10:43–45; 1 Corinthians 9:19; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 6:5–9; Colossians 3:22–25). A more powerful and penetrating way to change and challenge inequality is to work from the grace of God from within outward. As Christian slaves gave their masters obedience and respect, and Christian masters gave fairness and kindness to their slaves, the institution could be changed from inside out. Real change begins in the heart and soul of a person, slave or free. 

So, how would we rewrite this history except by deleting it from the Apostolic records? The Bible is not a political tool or a platform for any and every kind of movement declaring what we consider as unacceptable social norms. It is a record and declaration of the Gospel of Christ and the freedom, real inner freedom, it brings to those who bow before and under the rule of the Savior. While it has been, and continues to be, sadly and unfortunately used for political gain and movements, that is not it's intention.

The equality in Christ would become, in time, the force behind the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire under Wilberforce and the recognition of women as equal voters under Susan Anthony and others. The issues are vastly much more complicated than what the Black Lives Matter movement could ever imagine. Arnn writes, "The astounding thing, after all, is not that some of our Founders were slave-holders. There was a lot of slavery back then, as there has been for all of recorded time. The astounding thing--the miracle, even, one might say--is that these slave-holders founded a republic based on principles designed to abnegate slavery."

Do Churches and Ministries Really Want What God Wants?

Recently, a dear friend, an administrative assistant of a local church, who had been serving the church for over thirty years, was dismissed. No reason was given, except that the church leadership thought it was "time for a change." She had not only done nothing wrong, but she had gone the extra mile in church work during pastoral transitions, staff changes and building changes and stresses. She is hurting and suffering through another church related decision and change which may have nothing to do with what God really wants.

I say this with over forty years of ministry in different sized churches and a denominational leadership ministry in which I participated in many of those same kinds of decisions. We all claim to follow God's direction and leading, and some decisions are even "prayed over," but to be frightfully truthful and exceedingly honest, many of those decisions are human based business operational desires and mandates. Very little Scriptural evidence exists for such decisions. They are simply what some hot-shot "successful" pastoral or ministry leader touts or teaches as the best way to advance the "cause of the kingdom of Christ." Yet, I have often wondered if what we are advancing are our own little fiefdoms and not God's kingdom wants and revealed truths.

Many of these decisions, especially regarding staffing and church direction, are whims of an aggressive senior leader or leaders who want a "place" and a name in their denominational purview. Such a statement would be hotly debated by many, yet the question remains -- do we really want what God wants for our church or ministry? Unless we have heard from God specifically and particularly and clearly, we are left with impressions of what God may want. We claim to read the Bible and follow its directives, yet I would say in confession that most of us are woefully ignorant of the will of God revealed in the totality of Scripture. Some of us don't even care to check the Bible in an important decision and follow our own, often misguided personal preferences. Some of us even defend those preferences, doing what we want and hoping beyond hope that God is pleased with what we have decided. No matter who gets hurt and no matter who pays the price.

Quite some time ago I read the story of the pastor who wrote that famous hymn, "God Be With You Til We Meet Again." He and his wife had been called from their small country parish to a bigger, more visible and prestigious city church. As they were seated in their wagon with their moving goods, this song was sung by their small congregation and such love flowed that the pastor decided to stay and continue to minister to them. Success in a larger ministry and church no longer mattered. The lives and hopes and dreams of his people mattered. He reinstated himself under God as their shepherd.

John Maxwell and many others have said, "People don't care what you know until they know that you care." And that is true. We have to stop wanting what we want and start listening--really listening--to what God wants from us for our people. Yes, sometimes hard and difficult decisions have to be made. Yes, sometimes people need rebuked and will be unintentionally dismissed and hurt and disregarded. But those times are rare, and should be rare. We need to stop thinking about our "careers" and our "successes" and "wins" and start submitting--yes, submitting-- to what God really wants. That may mean personal oblivion for us in ministry and being okay with the place and assignment God has for us. We say it is all about the honor and glory of God. Well, we need to really mean it and proceed in that direction.

Another Look At Black Lives Matter and Racial Reconciliation

Instead of rehearsing what we all know about the Black Lives Matter movement and why it sprang up in our day, I want to admit several things as an older white, evangelical male and a retired pastor, now a church consultant. I took the plunge and submitted to a "racial reconciliation" course well-taught by a friend and a professor from Lancaster Bible College this summer. I learned much about our racial problems and dived into how to tackle them in our present tension-filled day.

First, we must admit, if we are truthful and frightfully honest, that we live in a prejudiced society and systemic racism abounds in America today. Many would deny this or refuse to admit it and address it, but there are plenty of examples of institutional racism today, not merely against blacks, but Asians and American Indians and others. By refusing to address these issues and uncovering the racial biases in our society, we simply perpetuate racism and its ugly results. Being "color-blind" to racial injustice or refusing to know and address "white privilege" only adds fire to the Black Lives Matter movement and its consequences.

I grew up in a home where racism was not talked about but practiced by my parents in their opinions of other races. While they would personally disavow such racism, my father used the "N" word freely, as well as "spics" and other pejoratives in speaking of blacks and Hispanics and Asians. As long as they kept "their place," we were okay with them. Later in life I ministered in a predominantly white church when a young white woman and black man came to me for marriage counseling and help. The woman's parents were shocked and upset that their daughter would think of union with a black man. They wanted me to stop the wedding and help their daughter come to her senses. This was obviously racist, but they insisted the "normalcy" of their request. 

I read an interesting and provocative summary of a speech given by Wilfred McClay, author of Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story, called "Rediscovering the Wisdom in American History" (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/rediscovering-wisdom-american-history/) In that speech he rehearsed the problem of racism and the Civil War (or War Between the States, if you come from the South). What he said and wrote was insightful -- "How, we wonder today, could such otherwise enlightened and exemplary men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have owned slaves, a practice so contradictory to all they stood for? As I write in the book: There is no easy answer to such questions. But surely a part of the answer is that each of us is born into a world that we did not make, and it is only with the greatest effort, and often at very great cost, that we are ever able to change that world for the better. Moral sensibilities are not static; they develop and deepen over time, and general moral progress is very slow. Part of the study of history involves a training of the imagination, learning to see historical actors as speaking and acting in their own times rather than ours; and learning to see even our heroes as an all-too-human mixture of admirable and unadmirable qualities, people like us who may, like us, be constrained by circumstances beyond their control. . . ."

He goes on to say -- "The ambivalences regarding slavery built into the structure of the Constitution were almost certainly unavoidable in the short term, in order to achieve an effective political union of the nation. What we need to understand is how the original compromise no longer became acceptable to increasing numbers of Americans, especially in one part of the Union, and why slavery, a ubiquitous institution in human history, came to be seen not merely as an unfortunate evil but as a sinful impediment to human progress, a stain upon a whole nation. We live today on the other side of a great transformation in moral sensibility, a transformation that was taking place but was not yet completed in the very years the United States was being formed."

The point is that solutions to incipient systemic racism are complicated and will take serious time and costly efforts. Marches only point to the depth of the problem and do not solve it. In fact, they may merely exacerbate the racial tensions now so apparent. We need policy change, not merely protests. Policy change comes in stages, slowly and sometimes imperceptibly. Elections help, but do not guarantee such change.

What has to change and be successfully addressed is the heart of people and the soul of a nation. God alone can change the heart and inform the emotions and mind to a better, more biblical model of transformation. The Gospel of Christ, submitting to Jesus as Lord and Savior, is not merely a religious point, but a moral transformative point. Conversion to Christ, real and deep conversion, as well as biblical instruction and implementation can transform racial inequality to racial justice and compatibility.

The naysayers will claim that such transformation has not worked, and that churches have been often staging grounds for racism and inequality. I would simply point to the fact that many church goers are not really Christians. They name the Name but deny the implications of deep, heart change and transformation of thoughts, intents and motives. I say this as a pastor and denominational worker who has seen and preached to and taught thousands of Christian adherents and worked with dozens of churches of many sizes and stripes. Deep seated change requires costly discipleship and rigorous study and application of Scriptural truth.

The question in my mind is, Are we willing to wade through the difficult and time-consuming task of policy change and discipling others? Are we willing to take a hard look at ourselves in he mirror of history and admit the wrongs and seek to correct the conscience of a nation?

Reflecting on Ernest Reisinger Biography by Geoff Thomas

A newly released biography of the life and times of Ernest Reisinger has been written for Banner of Truth publishers by Pastor Geoff Thomas of Wales. Though written in 2002, it has recently caught my attention through friends at Banner of Truth and Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle, PA. For the many who do not know Ernie Reisinger, or his history, Ernie was one of the founding fathers of Reformed Baptist history in the states, particularly in south central PA in Carlisle with the establishment of Grace Baptist Church.

Ernie was one of my early mentors and friends. He served for two years at a mission church of Grace Baptist Church in Mechanicsburg, PA, and I had the privilege of being a summer intern while a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in the early 1970s in Philadelphia. On a personal note, Ernie helped finance part of my education at Westminster and provided money to repair the transmission of an automobile we desperately needed in those years. The money was always "anonymously" given, but we knew where it came from. God used Ernie Reisinger in my life and formation as a minister of the gospel of God's grace. He could never sing very well, and those Sundays I led the small congregation in Mechanicsburg, he would "grunt" along behind me in leading worship hymns. He made a joyful "noise" to the Lord!

Ernie was always handing out books, especially Reformed Puritan literature, which he came to love and follow. The biography describes his business prowess in leading the Reisinger Brothers construction company and its many projects in those years, his friendship with the Irwin family in Carlisle and his massive influence in the establishment and theology of Grace Baptist Church. This church, like no other Baptist church in the area, held to the Reformed standards of theology and worship in the London (and then Philadelphia) confessions of faith, which followed much of the theology in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms). Ernie gained his theological knowledge as a layman, a very serious student of Scripture and theology. Wanting to be ordained as a legitimate professional pastor, he was so ordained by the Carlisle Church to minister in Mechanicsburg, at which place he stayed for two years.

I am not in the same place ecclesiastically in my present ministry assignments. In fact, I am a retired minister of the Brethren in Christ Church, a church that follows the Wesleyan-Arminian theological positions and its Anabaptist heritage. I have been a Reformed Baptist church planter, an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor and a Brethren in Christ pastor and church leader in my ministry history. I now work as a church health consultant in the Northeast for NCDAmerica out of Michigan. That is another story, but suffice to say, Ernie helped establish my Reformed roots but also soured my ecclesiastical associations with Reformed Baptists.

Like Ernie, I became enthralled with the Reformed faith and historic Puritanism as a student at Dickinson College while attending Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle. The minister then, Walter Chantry, took me and other students under his wing, and mentored us in the Reformed faith and life. Ernie was a historical part of that training and development. However, his theory of doctrinal purity and church purity became the foundation of Grace Baptist and other RB (Reformed Baptist) churches in the northeast. As stated in his biography, in Reisinger's pamphlet, Doctrine and Devotion, he wrote: "God must be worshipped in truth as well as in Spirit. Truth can be stated in real words, and when that is done there is Christian doctrine. To be a disciple of the Lord Jesus without knowing what Christ taught must be a vain quest. It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of sound doctrine in the Christian life. Right thinking about all spiritual matters is imperative if we are to have right living. As men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles, so sound Christian character does not grow out of unsound doctrine. The church that neglects to teach sound biblical doctrine weakens church membership. It works against true unity. It invites instability in its fellowship. It lessens conviction and puts the brakes on vital progress in the congregation."

This thinking and the application of it framed the basis of Grace Baptist Church. While many would rejoice over its stance for historic orthodoxy after the likes of Calvin and others, others would have a less than stellar opinion. Other Christians and other churches in the Carlisle area, just as rooted in the fundamentals of biblical authority and inspiration, but avowedly non-Calvinistic would label Grace Baptist as cold, severe, judgmental and downright mean to those who do not come up to their "standards" of faith and life. While I do believe there was much heart warmth and devotion in Ernie and the other elders of Grace Baptist, their refusal to sponsor Billy Graham Crusades and other evangelistic endeavors in that area placed them outside of regular evangelical thought and practice. And to some extent, they revelled in their separateness and distinctiveness.  I know this to unfortunately be the case, having served a Brethren in Christ Church in the town in the 1990s.

Ernie was foremost an evangelist. He loved to preach and teach the gospel and reach out to many in that area and beyond with the Good News of Jesus. I loved his passion for souls and that passion rubbed off on me. However, I found that his passion for Calvinism almost matched his passion for souls, thinking that true religion can only be found in true doctrine. The many non-Calvinists who love the Lord are therefore not merely in error, but following a false God. So, the heritage of Ernie and Grace Baptist Church is also joined with this isolation from other serious Christians and churches. The impression that has often been given is, "we have the truth, and you must come to our side to find it."

The biography is just as much a biography of of Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle as of Ernie Reisinger's life. I love the people my wife and I have known from Grace Baptist. I believe they are serious Christians who see Calvinism as the only way to think and live. I know they are earnest and passionate about that system of doctrine. But to judge others and almost make the claim that other Christians are almost "sub-Christians" is wrongheaded and damaging to the unity of the Church of Christ. The problem I have seen in Reformed circles, first as a Reformed Baptist and the as an Orthodox Presbyterian, is that such a faith becomes judgmental and cold-hearted to others in the Christian camp. It can become self-congratulating and self-consuming. It can blunt what Ernie spent much of his life in evangelizing others for the gospel of God's grace. It can forget about the love of God and replace that with the harshness of God's choice of those who believe. All of this I have also seen and witnessed in Reformed circles and churches.

I am still thoroughly Reformed in thought and doctrine, but much more open to other systems of Christian doctrine and life and thought. I believe when we all get to heaven we will have much to learn in how God has worked on this earth and among people. We may even be surprised that many of those we doctrinally fought against are there beside us praising God and singing with the angels. I do commend Geoff Thomas in his biography of Ernie Reisinger and praise God for the life of a great man of God.